© 2012 jbjd

I have been saying for years now; in those states which allow on the ballot only the names of candidates who are qualified for the job; party officials certified to state election officials that Barack Obama’s name should be placed on the ballot notwithstanding no documentary evidence  in the public record had established those qualifications.

I wrote “Out of the Mouths of Babes”  in January 2010; it has remained one of the most popular posts on the “jbjd” blog.  It describes my exchange with 9th graders in a U.S. History I class, during a lecture in which I detailed the interplay between the Constitutional requirements for President found in Article II, section 1; and real life, as played out with respect to the 2008 general election. I found their insights, untainted either by political correctness or experience; were ‘right on time’; and not just because their conclusions matched mine.


UPDATED 04.17.10: In the cite linked to President Washington’s papers (below), the date of his swearing in is correctly given as April 1789.  I incorrectly wrote he was sworn in, in March. (Here is another historical reference to that event.  http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html )

UPDATED 01.06.10: In a parenthetical comment below, I mistakenly said the first selection of Presidential Electors occurred in November 1788. However, the states first Appointed Electors in January 1789; and these Electors voted for George Washington for President in February. I correctly stated, Mr. Washington was inaugurated in March. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/presidential/electoral.html

Students attending this inner city high school not only are racially and ethnically diverse but also hail from several other native countries. For the most part, the students supported the Presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. Some of them even met the future Commander in Chief when he came to town during the primary campaign, their encounters captured forever in photographs proudly displayed in the lobby of the building. Pictures of Michelle appear there, too, under a banner proclaiming her, “Our Queen.”

At the last minute, I was asked to teach American History to 3 (three) classes of 9th graders deep in this heart of Obama territory.

Freshmen are a separate breed. Cocky and in your face, they virtually dare you to successfully re-direct their terrific energy to academic pursuit. But nothing equals the thrill of watching them learn, once you get their attention.

Here is how I got their attention.

I wrote my name on the board, billing myself as a “Guest Lecturer.” This was the provocative title for my presentation: “You Will Never Vote for President of the United States.”

The reaction from my students was boisterous and anticipated. ‘Oh yeah? I’m gonna vote for President as soon as I turn 18.’ And, ‘I thought you were allowed to vote for President as long as you were a citizen!’ I calmed the crowd by repeating the history lesson I was sure they had already been taught but forgot: the President of the United States is not elected directly by the people but by the Electors. In the general election on the next Tuesday after the first Monday in November, voters only select these Electors; but Appointed Electors don’t vote for President until the 15th of December, the dates set for these events in the Constitution.

For approximately the next 45 minutes, I walked my students through the election process spelled out by the Drafters of our Constitution and re-printed in their history books, barely recognizable as it was carried out in the 2008 general election.

‘What are the 3 Constitutional qualifications to be POTUS?’ The students proudly listed all three without prompting. 1) You have to be 35 years old. 2) You have to live in the United States for 14 years. 3) You have to be a Natural Born Citizen. I wrote these on the board. (I went into a side discussion about that 14-year requirement – I have discussed this issue previously on this blog, as well as other blogs – reasoning, the Drafters wanted to ensure that as much as possible, the President, also fulfilling the role of Commander in Chief, was completely intertwined with being American, attached to both her ideals and to the country. They envisioned such loyalty could only derive from being immersed for a fixed time in the American experience. So, why 14 years? Well, the first Continental Congress convened in 1774, establishing the first time (representatives from) the original 13 (thirteen) colonies came together to ponder mutual concerns viz a viz the British, thus evidencing their psychological mindset as a unified ‘nation.’ (One year later, the “shot heard round the world” was fired between British troops and American rebels at Lexington Green, MA, in 1775; and the Declaration of Independence was written in Philadelphia, PA in 1776.) The drafting of the Constitution occurred in 1787 and, allowing for ratification by the requisite 9 (nine) states, the Drafters anticipated Electors would, for the first time, vote for President in November 1788. (The swearing-in would take place in March of 1789.) Thus, 14 (fourteen) years had passed between the time the mindset of ‘being American’ first coalesced, and election of the first President (1788 minus 1774).)

I charted the modern process of electing the President through the intervention of political parties, stressing the fact political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. I described the mission of the party is to get the name of the person they want fronting for the party or, club, printed onto state general election ballots, an indispensible step to getting the public to forget, they are not voting for the candidate but for the Electors in the general election. Because only the name of the nominee of the political party appears on the ballot next to the party designation. This means, casting a vote for the ‘person’ whose name appears on the ballot next to the D or the R is more correctly characterized as voting for the Electors for that person.

So, who are these Electors we vote for who go on to elect our President? Well, generally speaking, they are chosen by the political party based on their demonstrated loyalty to the party, as evidenced in terms of hours spent supporting party activities such as hosting fundraisers for party backed candidates; or providing financial support to the party. The names of these Elector candidates are then submitted to state election officials by each political party. The number of Electors each party gets to submit is based on the number of Congressional districts in that state, plus 2 more for the number of US Senators. And in states like CA, in the 2008 election, this meant, 55 names. Obviously, printing the names on the ballot all of the candidates for Presidential Elector put forward by the parties is prohibitive. So, in each state, only the name of the party nominee is printed on the ballot, and not the names of the party Electors. (I pointed out; each state enacts the election laws prescribing what names may be printed on its ballots.)

How is the party’s Presidential nominee chosen? Usually, s/he is selected according to the results of party contests called primaries and caucuses held in each state to elect delegates who will vote at the party convention; and, finally, the party convention. Summing up the results for the D candidates for POTUS in the 2008 Presidential preference primaries and caucuses, I reported, on June 3, 2008 when all of the primaries and caucuses were over, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama had failed to reach the requisite number of pledged delegates set by the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation – DNC for short – to guarantee the nomination for their club – of course I inform them, she won more popular votes AND pledged delegates as the result of primary and caucus votes cast directly for her – so the rules called for the difference to be made up at the floor roll call at the Convention held in Denver, CO, in August 2008, by votes cast by party ‘elders’ called Superdelegates, who could vote for anyone they wanted. But for some reason, the Corporation backed Barack Obama well in advance of the Convention, even foregoing the traditional floor vote at the Convention in order to make his nomination a fait accompli. I repeated several times, the DNC Services Corporation is not a government agency but more like a private club, which means, they can make or break their own rules with impunity.

Once the DNC selected Barack Obama as their candidate for President, they had to get state election officials to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot. The DNC (and, in some states, the Chair of the state D party) submitted these Certifications of Nomination to election officials in each state swearing Barack Obama was the duly nominated DNC candidate for President and was Constitutionally qualified for the job.

I pointed out that, the Constitution says Electors will be appointed by the Governors of the states. I reconciled how electing Electors through a popular vote in the general election ends up in an Appointment. That is, the final vote tallies in the general election (for Electors for the candidate whose name appears on the ballot) are Certified by the Governors, who send Certificates of Ascertainment listing the names of the Electors (previously submitted to state election officials by the political parties) and the number of votes cast for them, as well as for the losing candidates for Elector, to the National Archivist, effectively making that Certification of popular votes cast for Electors in the general election, the Constitutional act of Appointment.

More D than R Electors were elected and, therefore, Appointed in the November 2008 general election. And all of the D Electors who voted in December 2008 cast their votes for Barack Obama, the nominee for President of the D party. But this was hardly surprising. Because the only way they got to be Electors for the party in the first place was by promising the party, if Appointed, they would cast their votes for the party nominee. However, I emphasized that nothing in the Constitution requires Electors to vote for the nominee of the political party, which only made sense since, as I said, the Drafters never mentioned political parties in the Constitution.

Congress ratified the vote of the Electors in January and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore in Barack Obama as President of the United States days after that. All prescribed precisely by the Constitution.

At this point, the students think the lecture is done. But I am just getting to the best part.

‘Wait a minute,’ I challenged, looking back at the board. ‘At the beginning of this lecture, we listed these 3 qualifications for President spelled out in the Constitution, right? You have to be 35 years of age; you have to live in the U.S. for 14 years; and you have to be a NBC.’ Yes. ‘Well, throughout this whole election process we just described, when did we mention that anyone vetted the candidates for President to ensure they satisfied this Constitutional eligibility for the job?’ Silence.

Now, I taught the class, no provision found in any law, state or federal; or in the Constitution requires any state official to determine whether the candidate for President is Constitutionally eligible for the job. None. The Constitution says, the Electors have to elect the President but remains silent as to vetting for Constitutional qualifications. The Constitution requires Congress to ratify the Electors’ vote for President but says nothing about verifying beforehand that the the person they elect is Constitutionally qualified for the job. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swears the President into office, under no Constitutional obligation to determine beforehand whether s/he was qualified for office.

And that led me to the states that require in order to get the candidate’s name printed on the ballot; s/he must be eligible for the job.

I described that some states enacted election laws that only allow the names of eligible candidates to be printed on state election ballots. And some of these states, like HI and SC, enacted laws saying the party must swear, in writing, their nominee for President meets all Constitutional qualifications for the job. (I point out; requiring this statement from the party is kind of superfluous because, according to the operating rules of the DNC Services Corporation, the Presidential nominee of the party must be Constitutionally qualified for the job. Then again, given their exhibited propensity to break their own rules…) I also reiterated, while the law says the candidate has to be eligible for the job to appear on the ballot, no corresponding law requires any government official to check.

The students were aware that Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California) was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; several knew the position of Speaker is 3rd in line of Presidential succession. They were unaware that in 2008, the DNC Services Corporation gave Ms. Pelosi the civilian job of Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention. Acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, her chief responsibility was to sign those official DNC Certifications of Nomination swearing Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the job of President of the United States, and send these sworn Certifications to state election officials to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on their general election ballots.

I reported that questions had arisen during the primary campaign as to whether Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. Students were aware of the controversy. I informed them that several people had even concluded, the documentation available in the public record failed to establish that he is a U.S Citizen, let alone that he was Natural Born. Yet, Ms. Pelosi signed those Certifications of Nomination and sent these to state election officials to get them to print his name on the general election ballot.

‘Some of us wondered; given this controversy about the circumstances of Mr. Obama’s birth, on what documentary basis did Ms. Pelosi ascertain he was a Natural Born Citizen before swearing he was Constitutionally eligible for the job? So, we wrote to Ms. Pelosi and asked her. I even arranged to have one of these letters hand-delivered to her office in Washington. Know what she said?’ Every pair of eyes was now on me. ‘Actually, she didn’t say anything. She ignored us.’ A knowing sound of ‘ooooo’ filled the room. ‘What do you think that means?’ The students smiled. ‘That means, she’s busted; she didn’t check whether he is a Natural Born Citizen before she swore he was.’

I shrugged my shoulders. ’Could be. But people wanted to know for sure. So, now they wrote to Alice Germond, the Secretary to the DNC Services Corporation, who had co-signed those Certifications. Again, they asked on what documentary basis she had determined Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen before sending those Certifications of Nomination swearing he was, to state election officials to get his name printed on the ballot. But this time they asserted the right to view whatever documentation the party used, under what’s called the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), the federal law that gives the public the right to see the documents our government has on file.’

‘Did she answer the question?’ ‘No; but she didn’t ignore the voters, either. Ms. Germond forwarded the letters addressed to her, to the General Counsel or, lawyer for the DNC Services Corporation, Joseph Sandler. And he did write back.’ The kids were at the edge of their seats. ‘What did he say!’ ‘Well, he explained that the DNC is not a government agency but rather a private club and, as such, is not subject to state or federal document disclosure laws. He advised people to direct their questions about the qualifications of candidates whose names appear on the ballot, to their state election officials. And he still didn’t answer the question.’ Now, a loud gasp rose up around the room. ‘What do you think that means?’ Without missing a beat, they blurted out, ‘That means they did check whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen; and he’s not!’

This illustrates another reason I love teaching 9th graders: they are not yet sophisticated enough to abandon their common sense.


My mind is a terrible thing to waste.

41 Responses to OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES

  1. Dick says:

    This story is a gift, Merry Christmas, jbjd.

    Dick: Welcome; and thank you so very much for this comment, the first on this thread. I was anxious to hear whether I had been able to effectively communicate to readers the inspirational nature of this teaching/learning moment. Happy Chanukah. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Rick M. says:

      This was the best article I have read in a long time. Easy enough for a 9th grader to understand. America takes too much time making things complicated. Publish more of this type of stuff. The people need to know that they are in danger.

      Rick M.: Thank you; and believe me, these 9th graders really understood. I could tell by their animated but non-verbal responses. (That’s why I had to keep asking, ‘What does that mean?’ I wanted to accurately interpret their sounds!) Now, move on to some of the other articles and see how you fare. And as always, come back with any questions. ADMINISTRATOR

      P.S. Also, try to listen to the podcasts from the 3 (three) shows I did as the guest of drkate’s Revolution Radio. The links are in the sidebar on the front of the blog.

  2. btw says:

    Thanks for the story.

    The question is – what to do?

    (link omitted by jbjd)

    And Happy Hanukkah!

    btw: You are welcome. And, I know what to do; I have known what to do for quite some time. We must compel our elected state officials, specifically, our Attorneys General to investigate charges we filed accusing various members of the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation with election fraud, for failing to ascertain whether BO is a NBC before swearing he was, to state election officials, just to get them to print his name on general election ballots. (More ideas about how to accomplish this, shortly.) ADMINISTRATOR

  3. BT says:

    Beautifully clear, and we wish we could follow you around all day to hear more. 🙂

    BT: Thank you for both the compliment and for the generous sentiment. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Tim says:

    Wow, one of the most clearly written examples of the Obama election issue.

    Tim: Hello. And you are welcome. (I have been ‘doing this’ for a while; once you ‘get it,’ explaining what happened gets easier and easier.) ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Chris says:

    You are a real (insult omitted by jbjd) and should be fired for spreading this (insult omitted by jbjd).

    Chris: I can only conclude the reason you submitted a comment laced with personal invectives is that, for some reason, you are compelled to respond to posts which could be construed as casting a negative light on the Presidency of BO but, you are unable to point to specifics in my post that merit a critical response. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Biff Guiznot says:

    Teaching young people to be birthers will certainly marginalize them and make them subject to the same ridicule adults who practice this form of (inappropriate word removed by jbjd) deserve.

    Biff: I teach my students not to throw out straw arguments – you begin your comment by saying “[t]eaching young people to be birthers” as if I had actually done that – but to argue the facts. When my history students only offer conclusory statements of the subject matter, with no factual support, I ask for specifics, notwithstanding I might agree completely with their conclusions. Otherwise, I cannot be certain that they have mastered the critical analysis required to one day make them fully functioning members of our Constitutional republic. With so many adults like you now attacking the substantive work posted on this blog by offering conclusory statements without specific factual support; I am even prouder of the work I do to teach my young students better.

    (I also teach these students, many of the early American ‘founders’ we study were just like them, young people who wanted to change the world and who, if they were alive today, would be called gangstas and hoods, and locked up in juvie. I encourage them to become the independent thinkers their grandchildren will read about someday, and to become impervious to the “ridicule” they might encounter along the way. As a teacher, I never attempt to stifle a student’s thought process through ridicule; nor do I permit such tactics from a classmate. Biff, if you were unable to refrain from personally attacking in my classroom, anyone expressing facts or well-reasoned opinions with which you disagreed, I would inform you, you had earned a time out in the hallway to ‘get it together.’ (I would also feel sorry for you, and wonder what interpersonal dynamics at home have created this insecure child who, albeit perhaps unwittingly, would seek to make himself feel better by making others feel worse.)) ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Laurence Rappaport says:

    I am a State Representative in New Hampshire. On, I believe, November 20th, Representative Carol Vita, her husband and I spoke with Mr. Michael Delaney, the Attorney General of New Hampshire indicating our concerns regarding the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States. I had previously spoken with Mr. William Gardner, the Secretary of State of New Hampshire asking that he investigate. The contention with Mr. Delaney was that the Democratic National Party might have committed fraud upon the voters of New Hampshire. Both Mr. Delaney and Mr. Gardner declined. Mr. Delaney said he thought the matter was federal and that the complaint was a federal one. I would like to pursue this further, but while I certainly have the inclination, I have neither the financial resources nor the knowledge of how to do so. Consequently I would greatly appreciate advice of how to proceed. Thank you.

    Laurence Rappaport: Welcome. I have advised anyone reading this blog, until you understand at least as much about this election process as those with superior knowledge who would subvert the process to gain power over you; you cannot make a difference.

    I advise people who question BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS to shift their focus away from him. He knows whether he is a NBC; but how does anyone else without access to the requisite documentation but who nonetheless swore he is Constitutionally eligible, know he is a NBC?

    NH is an inapplicable state for the purpose of filing a complaint of election fraud with the state AG, against various members of the D party, for swearing to state election officials BO is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS to get them to print his name on the ballot, before ascertaining whether he is a NBC. Only in states with laws requiring the candidates whose names are printed on the ballot, must be eligible for the job, can such conduct be construed as election fraud.

    Please, read one of these complaints posted on the front of this blog. The applicable election law in each state is cited within the complaint. Note on the front of each complaint, the complainant makes clear, this complaint takes no stand on whether BO is a NBC. It only alleges members of the D party swore he was before ascertaining this was true as the prerequisite to getting his name printed on the state ballot. That’s election fraud. (In SC, this fraud also occurred in the primary. Because under SC law, unlike in NH, the party had to swear the candidates entering the Presidential preference primary were eligible for the job, too.)

    Then read “THE END GAME” on this blog. See, those of us who are questioning the election of BO want a full vetting of his eligibility status, assuming that, if the facts establish he is not eligible then, Congress will move to impeach him. I had hoped these complaints would result in a ruling from a state AG that would be the impetus for Congress to act. Obviously, ‘educating’ even one member of Congress as to these issues could also work to spark such debate. But first, you have to know what you are talking about.

    Come back with any questions about the materials. Good luck. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Be Well says:

    Great article. I saw part of it just now on FR and had to read the whole thing. The students you teach are very fortunate.

    Be Well: Welcome. (“[F]ortunate” how?) ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I think your students are very fortunate too. I like how you take them on a journey of discovery as the leader and somewhat follow the “bread crumbs” leading to figuring it out for themselves, at that moment they must feel so proud. A feeling that no one can ever take away from them. As a was reading “Out of the Mouth of Babes” I was remembering things from my old civics books and American Government, some things I had forgotten. For me your many writings were challenging, so I re-read until I understood. This was not easy since some of the information was still coming in. “Oh what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive” …now I know the HOW, but I’m a person who has to know the WHY? I was born in Chicago but raised in the suburbs and we are all familiar with Cook County-South Side-institutional corruption. This time they way overreached. Thank you for your great work and we all loved you on drkates radio show. One hour seems like 5 seconds.

    Michelle: I am so pleased to see you here, on my blog, where my responses to your comments can be less censored than on other blogs.

    I absolutely agree with your assessment of those appearances on drkate’s Revolution Radio. Even the 2nd show, when, in case you could not hear, I was sick with the flu, seemed to end just after it began. Indeed, on each of the 3 shows, the hour-and-a-half – yes, it wasn’t 1 hour but 1 1/2! – flew by. Before I went on the air, I was concerned that, I had insufficient material to fill even one show! I had no idea how much work I had produced on issues related to the 2008 election cycle.

    I know how challenging is wading through some of the ‘stuff’ I write here. I laud your efforts to persevere until you understand what I am trying to say, and for trusting what I say will be worth your understanding. I know you are imparting your understanding to others.

    Of course, de-constructing what happened during the 2008 election cycle would not have been necessary if we had not been asleep at the wheel. So what if we have to work a little harder to catch up to those who took advantage of their superior knowledge to bamboozle us? That’s democracy. We will do better next time, though, won’t we?

    As for witnessing students learn, well, if a little education can be said to be a dangerous thing then, a lot of education can be called a miracle. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Bad tasting tea says:

    wow using children. You’re (name calling deleted by jbjd). This will be brought to the school board attention.

    Bad tasting tea: Please see my responses to similar comments from Biff and Chris.

    As for your ‘threat’ to bring my teaching to the attention of the school board, you are too late.

    I was at the board teaching Algebra to 10th graders at this same school, when I noticed the Headmaster and a man I did not recognize standing outside in the hallway, obviously talking about me. The next day, I asked her, who that was. She informed me, he was a member of the School Committee. (I live in a different town from where I teach.) She explained, he was impressed at how attentive were the students to the lesson. She told him, I am not on staff but come in as a Substitute whenever they can get me there. He was stunned. ‘I have been visiting schools in this system for 20 years, and this is the first time I saw a Substitute Teacher in front of the class, teaching.’ The Headmaster replied, ‘Yes, that’s why we get her here whenever we can!’ Shortly after that, the man was elected Chair of the School Committee.

    As for that particular history lesson, well, the school counselor happened to bring a student in late to class after I had begun my lecture. He remained until the end of class. Afterward, he reported to the Assistant Headmaster, ‘She really loves teaching (history).’


  11. Paulus says:

    I see a lot of political punting the “ball” out of the field!
    How can Pelosi and Germond not be guilty of perjury, when they both sending a notarized (sworn) documents that maybe false, and get away with it by passing on the “ball” to somebody else?
    They even sent different wordings to different States?

    Paulus: Notwithstanding my work on this subject has been stolen and re-printed with alterations that mask its meaning, let me repeat: the wording on individual Certifications of Nomination result from differences in the requirements of state laws. This variation in wording is a distinction without a difference. Read the SC complaint of election fraud to the state AG posted on the front of the blog.

    I have no idea what you mean by ‘passing the ball to someone else.’ If citizens want their A’sG to address these complaints of election fraud against various members of the D party, first, they must determine whether the laws in their states support such charges. I know there are more states out there with ballot eligibility laws than HI, GA, MD, SC, VA, and TX. But citizens cannot be bothered to look up their state laws; or call their S’s oS, and ask. And what is preventing citizens in states already identified as having those laws; for whom I have already drafted election fraud complaints, and who have downloaded and filed these complaints, from organizing their fellow citizens to require the AG to address these complaints, instead of ignoring them? ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Michelle says:

    jbjd-First let me say I’m sorry that you have to delete expletives. All any of us can do is tell the truth and let our Constitution speak for itself. I’m sorry that you were sick with the flu when you were on with drkate’s. As far as I can tell everybody was hanging on to your every word-both of you. While you were discussing you really can’t hear yourselves, you were informing and drkate was asking interesting questions, it flowed just like a normal conversation that is what it made it so interesting to me. I love the stories about your students-they sound like a sharp bunch of children to me. I think that you are a natural born teacher, did you ever notice enthusiasm is contagious. Your students will never forget you nor the life time learning that you have instilled in them. 1776 by David McCullough I loved this book and I’m sure that your students would also. It was so exciting, the book moves fast.

    Michelle: Let me ask you something. You have described that in order to digest the articles posted on this blog related to the fraud(s) that occurred during the 2008 election cycle, you had to re-read some materials. My intent is not to put you on the spot but, may I ask, if you know, was understanding the material made easier by your accepting my viewpoint that, the underlying problem here is fraud and the way to address the problem is to attack the specific fraud? Or did you have to re-read the materials to understand my viewpoint that, the problem is fraud? Did the radio broadcasts help you to achieve this understanding or merely solidify the understanding you derived from the text?

    I have been thinking that, perhaps the best way to educate newcomers to this blog is to compile a list of ‘must-reads,’ in the order in which these must be read, to get up to speed. (d2i swears “TREASON” 1 & 2 should head such a list, because this not only summarizes the election process but also points to where I believe we need to focus our our efforts to ferret out what was wrong with the 2008 election. I think the complaints for election fraud to state A’sG are invaluable, because these provide ample circumstantial evidence that fraud occurred.) Did any particular articles help you to ‘get it’ more than others? (I think I might dedicate a thread just to asking readers to help me to compile such a list or, primer on understanding the work that goes on here.) ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Paulus says:

    I have no idea what you mean by ‘passing the ball to someone else.’ Isn’t that what Pelosi/Germond did by sending the question to somebody else?

    Paulus: Okay, now I know what you mean. No; NP did not pass the ball. She merely ignored the request. The second set of requests, sent to AG, were couched differently, as ‘FOIA’ type requests for documents. She forwarded these requests to then DNC General Counsel JS. But not answering the question ends the analysis as to whether the ‘addressee,’ either NP or AG can be said to have the requisite documentation on which to base her representation, BO is a NBC. Because otherwise, in states that require the candidate whose name the state prints on the ballot to be eligible for the job, swearing he is without ascertaining beforehand he is, a charge easily supported by such lack of documentation; constitutes election fraud.

    Plus, in SC, a state that not only requires the candidate to be eligible but, like HI, requires the party to swear to such eligibility in writing; guess who submitted NP’s Certification of Nomination to state election officials? JS. And so, in SC, the complaint of fraud names him and his boss, Howard Dean, Chair of the Corporation, among others! ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Bad tasting tea says:

    (comments deleted in their entirety due to pervasive insults and name calling, by jbjd)

    Bad tasting idea: (Disclaimer: I tried to email this response to you at the email address you provided but, was blocked from doing so. In the alternative, I am posting these remarks on the blog.)

    I can only imagine what motivation compelled you to ‘correct’ the title I choose to adopt when I teach in the public schools.

    I could call myself Ms. *, because I am a woman. I could call myself Attorney *, because I am a lawyer. My preferred title is Teacher. And this only makes sense because, it describes what I do in the classroom. No; I am not assigned to one classroom on a permanent status. But I am often in that classroom for several months at a time, and not only construct and administer quizzes and exams but also determine final grades for the course. I meet with parents. Still, I suppose calling oneself a Teacher when that title is usually understood to mean, an Instructor under contract; could be construed as self-aggrandizing, if not for this fact. The Headmasters and Department Heads of the schools in which I teach introduce me to my students by explicitly clarifying, ‘Ms. * is not a Substitute; we brought in a real Teacher for you.’ (The other day, the Headmaster introduced me to the class as a “Math Specialist.” See, I take my cue from the Administration.) Calling myself a “Guest Lecturer” was merely a device to instantly get the attention of my students, given the fact, this was a last-minute assignment and, we had to dispense with formal introductions.

    I only explain these circumstances to you by means of this email because to publicly respond to such comments in this way, on my blog, would be rude to my guests.



  15. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I was a Hillary supporter here in Florida during the primary I was born in Chicago, but raised in suburbs. I don’t know if I read Phil Berg or Texas Darlin first, but Phil Berg put me in a state of shock. Could he have been more explicit-Obama you’re the biggest fraud, hoax in the history of the country? Good thing I’m used to the Jewish guys from Chicago and Florida-that took guts and the man never backed down. I was in shock for a month, I could not believe anyone could be dishonorable enough or stupid enough to do that. We were doing 12-14 hours days at work so I was getting dizzy. I saw GiGi Gastson’s video “We will not be Silenced” about all the fraud and intimidation at the Convention-they were so smart to document this on video. The whole darn thing was a fraud from the get go. This is so much worse than Watergate.
    You are correct in you have to go where the original crime was committed, which is Pelosi and have something that will “stick” in court. I think your evidence is irrefutable-I don’t know how they could do the lack of “standing” on your work. I cannot tell you how much smarter your 9 th graders look compared.
    Corporations do flow charts, but now that all of the pieces are put together maybe show it in step number order? That’s how I compose computer instructions.
    1. DNC has a primary 2. Party picks a candidate 3. Candidate has a background check (oops forget that step) 4.etc. in the correct logical order that it should have been done. Maybe in parenthesis you could put in an editorial-they skipped this step??? I hope these suggestions are helpful.
    I sent Lt. Col Allen West 22nd Congressional District seat in Broward County and Palm Beach, Florida-who is running in our district the “Three Card Monte” and today I sent him Out of the “Mouth of Babes”-he has gone viral on the internet due to his speeches, when he got to the part re: the oath the officers take re: the Constitution I thought this is as good a time as any. Also on both I made sure that your web-site was listed so that he could look up more information if needed and to make sure you receive the proper credit for your hard work. I didn’t like people stealing your work, not even crediting you and messing up what you were trying to do. From Aug 08 until now, hard to believe, but Hillary’s popularity now far exceeds Obamas. My Italian Republican girlfriend who was going to vote for Hillary insists that Pelosi wanted to be the Queen Bee and for obvious reasons Hillary had to be eliminated. Could this whole stupidity be from simple female insane jealousy? The Italian community as a group are ashamed and embarrassed by Pelosi. Thank you again for all that you do.

    Michelle: Wow; what a great idea to spell out the fraud! I could construct a sort of flow chart and, fill in the links to the applicable blog.

    Thank you so much for forwarding this information to Lt Col. West. I wish more people distributed the work found on this blog. Can you imagine what progress could be made if everyone trying to resolve these outstanding issues from the 2008 general election, focused efforts on getting out the word about just a few facts like, complaints have been filed with state A’sG against NP for election fraud, because she – and AG and JS – refused to tell voters, on what basis they ascertained BO was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS before swearing he was, to state election officials, to get them to print his name on the ballot? Or that Bob Bauer refused to submit her Certification to Judge Robertson in the Hollister case, to establish BO is a NBC?

    Of course, if not for Phil Berg’s federal court filing in Hollister v. Soetoro, we would not have that infamous Hollister Footnote, which exposes conclusively there is no ‘there’ there with regard to BO’s on-line COLB; APFC (and that phantom image of a “contemporaneous birth announcement” they stole from td and then posted on their blog); NP’s Certifications of Nomination (swearing BO is a NBC); and Bob Bauer, current WH Counsel (who tried to trick Judge Robertson into taking judicial notice of images only visible through a computer screen).

    You said, “You are correct in you have to go where the original crime was committed, which is Pelosi and have something that will “stick” in court.” But the problem was, finding some conduct that was actually illegal. Intimidating people from voting at the caucuses was not illegal; remember, these are party events. The party can run these any way they want. Of course, we don’t have to allow such activity in our states next time. That is, political parties are allowed to carry out their contests to choose the person to represent them on the general election ballot, only because our state laws allow them to do so. (More on that later.) Most importantly, people have no Constitutional right to select the party nominee. For this reason, soliciting state officials to intervene was useless. However, soliciting these same officials – the A’sG – to respond to complaints of election fraud is only asking them to do their jobs by enforcing existing election laws. And so far, we have been unable to coalesce to compel them to do even that!

    You write, “I think your evidence is irrefutable…” It is. And, the evidence isn’t mine; I only used the words and conduct of the accused, against them. However, you go on to say, “I don’t know how they could do the lack of “standing” on your work.” See, that’s the beauty of these complaints of election fraud to state A’sG. When the state goes after wrongdoers for criminal activity, the ‘case’ becomes the State of * v. Defendant. The individual Complainants, those voters who downloaded the complaints from my blog and filed these with their state A’sG, are not ‘prosecuting’ anything but merely reporting a crime. The resources of the state are expended to conduct the investigation and, if warranted prosecute the wrongdoers, in court. Standing is not an issue in a criminal prosecution, only in these civil cases.

    Michelle, I really appreciate the helpful suggestions you offered. I would be even more pleased if this did not mean, now I have to do even more work to get out the word! ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I like the thought merely reporting a crime, so true. The ball is now in various A/G’s hands.I mentioned in my first e-mail to Lt Col West that various A/G’s had been contacted. I will continue to send him updates from jbjd. I’m sorry that I gave you more work, really I am you have done so much already.
    Obviously you are a lady worthy of a challenge. Coming from Chicagoanland I can tell you we are mortally offended by this group of thugs and their gangland style of government, and we were just getting over Al Capone.

    Michelle: I wish people in applicable states who already filed complaints with their A’sG, would gather together their friends and acquaintances (who filed, too) and visit the office of their AG to inquire as to the status of the investigation into these charges. In other words, I resent that the ball is in the court of the AG; and I wish the AG, being a public official, could be compelled to acknowledge the public is outraged that members of a political party are ignoring state laws with impunity. Just because no provision of the law requires any government official to check whether ballot submissions conform to the law does not mean, when civilians check and thereby produce evidence indicating these ballot submissions were not in compliance with state laws, that such evidence should be ignored.

    At a minimum, ignoring citizen complaints, that is, refusing to investigate whether laws were broken and, if they were, to prosecute the wrongdoers, should cost these chief law enforcement officials in the state, their jobs. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. ksdb says:

    jbjd, this is an interesting anecdote, but I see problems with the conclusions being made.

    “We wondered … on what documentary basis did Ms. Pelosi ascertain he was a NBC…we wrote to Ms. Pelosi and asked her…she ignored us”

    Your students assume she didn’t check Obama’s eligibility because of her non-answer. There could be other reasons she didn’t respond: She’s too busy, she’s rude, she thinks the questions are from cranks, etc. I’m not saying your students are wrong, but nor are they necessarily right.

    ‘[Joseph Sandler] explained that the DNC is not a government agency but rather a private club and, as such, is not subject to state or federal document disclosure laws. He advised people to direct their questions about the qualifications of candidates whose names appear on the ballot, to their state election officials. And he still didn’t answer the question.’

    Again, your student[s] makes a conclusion that may not be the only conclusion here, and it’s a conclusion you may have led them to. You’ve already built in a mindset that the DNC is trying to hide something, so of course, the students are going to come to such a conclusion. Let’s review your preface for a moment.

    ‘I reported that questions had arisen during the primary campaign as to whether Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. Students were aware of the controversy. I informed them that several people had even concluded, the documentation available in the public record failed to establish that he is a U.S Citizen, let alone that he was Natural Born. Yet, Ms. Pelosi signed those Certifications of Nomination and sent these to state election officials to get them to print his name on the general election ballot.’

    Right there you’ve implied that Pelosi did something wrong. You had earlier said there was no legal obligation to check qualifications, but then imply that Pelosi did something wrong by signing certifications in the face of questions about eligibility. We aren’t given to knowing Pelosi’s awareness of the questions at the time the certifications were signed or what her opinion was of those questions. From there, all the letters to her and the DNC are under the context that they avoided an implied responsibility … so of course, your students are going to conclude the DNC did something wrong.

    It’s not clearly established whether Obama is or is not an NBC, but it is pretty clearly established that there are no structural mechanisms for vetting eligibility. Within that context, your students’ assumpution the DNC did check Obama’s eligibility fails. There’s nothing to suggest any claims about Obama’s eligibility were not simply taken at face value by the DNC and that he was thus certified by the DNC at face value. Who’s to say they would see any reason to think Obama is not an NBC in the first place?? Just because there are questions about his citizenship doesn’t mean the DNC would find sufficient reason to agree he’s not an NBC. Lacking a formal process to follow, they would have nothing to provide to you that would fulfill the requests you made. I see no real evidence of fraud – maybe incompetence or general ignorance, but not outright fraud. IOW, it looks and sounds a little bit like a duck, but it might really just be a chicken.

    Obviously, your exercise is hitting a sensitive nerve among Obama supporters who are trying to attack you, but that’s been SOP for any criticism of their messiah. I’m still glad you shared this because it emphasizes the need for formal procedures to confirm candidate’s eligibility. Good luck.

    ksdb: The text of your comments here mimics another response to this “anecdote” appearing on another blog, under another moniker. So, I will repeat the response I provided there.

    Straw dogs. Straw dogs. Straw dogs.

    Agreeing with the conclusion of 9th grade students that, ignoring letters from people questioning what documentation was the basis for a sworn statement BO is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS, only one of which letters I said I arranged to hand-deliver to NP’s office; “could” mean the recipient read the request and, having failed to rely on any such documentation, was unable to produce any documents; is not tantamount to saying, their conclusion is correct. (I thought that by including in the narrative of my in-class response to the students, the fact I shrugged my shoulders, readers would accurately infer my intention was to concede the possibility their conclusion was correct and not to rule on its correctness.) I did not impart my conclusions to the class. Rather, I heard their non-verbal emotional responses and asked them to put these feelings into words.

    You could be raising these absurd hypotheticals in your criticism of my lesson rather than contesting with sound research the information I presented; because nothing I presented as fact, is fiction.

    It’s true people asked NP on what basis she swore BO is a NBC; it’s true, she ignored them.

    It’s true people wrote to AG to ask on what basis she swore BO is a NBC; it’s true, she gave those letters to DNC General Counsel Joseph Sander. He said so.

    It’s true JS refused to answer the questions directed to AG, questions previously hand-delivered to NP, which she ignored.

    The students obviously interpreted the fact that, JS took the time to write a letter explaining he had no legal obligation to produce the requested documentation – I advised the students, he was absolutely correct – but could not just answer the question, as evidence, there was no such documentation.

    I did not validate the conclusions of my students one way or the other; or offer my personal opinion on BO’s Constitutional qualifications for the job. However, I did validate their critical reasoning skills. That is, ‘assuming these facts then, this conclusion could be valid.’

    More straw dogs.

    ‘I reported that questions had arisen during the primary campaign as to whether Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. Students were aware of the controversy. I informed them that several people had even concluded, the documentation available in the public record failed to establish that he is a U.S Citizen, let alone that he was Natural Born. Yet, Ms. Pelosi signed those Certifications of Nomination and sent these to state election officials to get them to print his name on the general election ballot.’

    Right there you’ve implied that Pelosi did something wrong.

    Ah, ksdb, the fact that NP signed these Certifications could mean, BO must be a NBC, notwithstanding the controversy about whether he is AND people claim no evidence exists in the public record to say he is. (That’s precisely why I used the word “yet” before repeating, she signed these Certifications.)

    You had earlier said there was no legal obligation to check qualifications,

    More straw dogs. I wrote, “I also reiterated, while the law says the candidate has to be eligible for the job to appear on the ballot, no corresponding law requires any government official to check.” I made clear to my students, NP was not acting as a government official when she signed those Certifications. “They were unaware that in 2008, the DNC Services Corporation gave Ms. Pelosi the civilian job of Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention. Acting in the non-governmental role of Chair…”

  18. Animal Control says:

    I come to this site frequently especially so when I see your comments at No Quarter. As you probably know, I’ve never made a comment but I sure do like the simplicity/clarity of your arguments.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

    Animal Control: Welcome! Your comments are especially heartwarming because they reach my primary goal here, which is to de-construct government for average citizens so as to enable these citizens to resist the efforts of people with superior knowledge, to misuse that knowledge to overpower the people. And, for some reason, this latest post has attracted an inordinate number of snarky nasty comments, aimed not only at the substance of the work but at me, personally.

    Happy Chanukah and Happy New Year to you, too. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. Elizabeth says:

    Hi Jbjd,

    This is my first post, and if I may I would like to ask several questions about your post. I find it to be quite interesting, and appreciate the writing quality of you posts. I apologize before hand for the length of this post; I find it helpful to quote particular parts of another’s post when asking questions.

    To my questions.

    (remainder of comment deleted in total by jbjd; see explanation below)


    Elizabeth: You appear to have misunderstood the purpose of my post. By publishing this anecdote about my personal experience teaching a 45-minute unscripted impromptu lesson in American History to a class of 9th graders, I did not intend to invite a critique of the caliber of my instruction. Rather, I wanted to express to my readers that the simplicity of the fraud perpetrated by the DNC Services Corporation in the 2008 election cycle renders their misconduct apparent even to 9th graders.

    Winnowing down the essential aspects of the tomes posted on my blog on the subject of the 2008 election cycle, to accommodate this high school arena necessarily required that, I leave some things out. Chronicling the event, I probably left out even more. But the answers to all of the questions you pose about general content are contained in these posts, on this blog, both in the text and, in the podcasts linked to Revolution Radio, on the sidebar. (For example, read “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON” 1 & 2 to learn about faithless Electors, and the fact that none has ever been prosecuted for not voting for the party. And yes, personally, I differentiate between laws governing the internal operation of the party and, laws mandating standards for my general election ballot.) (You used the term Electoral College but, the Constitution does not use the term “College.”)

    Finally, let me point out, I noticed, both your ‘take’ on this post; and that of ksdb, are strikingly similar in both content and style. (And you use the same internet provider.)

  20. scarolina says:

    hi jbjd, I have a question to ask but would prefer it not be posted online. Is there a way to do that?

    scarolina: Welcome. All comments are in moderation and so, I will not post comments anyone asks to be kept private. Also, this blog has an email contact: contactjbjd@gmail.com

    (Readers: I contacted scarolina BEFORE I even posted this question, to make certain this was all right.)

  21. Michelle says:

    jbjd-We got hammered here in South Florida-the Sun-Sentinel is calling it “South Florida dries out after surprise deluge”-lots of flooding, mostly streets-although deep. Lots of cars floating. Tried to warn everybody as it headed north. All of you on track for 10 to 20 inches of the wet heavy stuff, the worst I remember shoveling that in Chicago. The light powdery snow no problem. Oh well. Keep warm, they were advising people to stay off the roads. Hope everyone ok up your way. Duh, I finally learned the magic words, when this stuff comes out of The Gulf-means big rain, or big snow.

    Michelle: Wow. My teenage son is autistic and while highly functional, often misreads the weather when he steps outside in the morning. I need to make sure he dresses appropriately. So, I check the weather daily, using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA, since it’s a .gov site for which I am already paying. I checked the weather report as soon as I got up this morning. We are cold enough for all snow. Just sent the Baby out to do some shopping. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I am going to hold your other comment for now; I will post when the time is right.

  22. […] based their Certification, he is Constitutionally qualified for the job? (See, for example, “OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES” below on this […]

  23. Dick says:

    I copy/pasted two lines (three in this box) **ksdb** recent critique of your story into search bar and came up with this article,

    (link omitted by jbjd because RSOL has refused in the past to post my rebuttals to such inaccurate portrayals of my work)

    on NBC status coming in at #1.

    “Right there you’ve implied that Pelosi did something wrong. You had earlier said there was no legal obligation to check qualifications, but then” snip————————————————

    I have not invested a lot of time in this but the person at rightsideoflife has, maybe you will find it interesting.

    Dick: Okay, last time I respond to ‘straw dog’ criticism about my History lesson to 9th graders, especially to repeat answers to questions previously asked. Read my response to ksdb below. (Keep in mind, “OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES” is not intended to supplant the extensive work posted on this blog, explaining the legal obligation of the political party to ensure that only the names of eligible candidates are submitted to state election officials for inclusion on state ballots.) ADMINISTRATOR

  24. Dick says:

    Ha ha, joke’s on me! I read further at rightsideoflife article and found this,

    “Further, a recent article by “jbjd” entitled, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE,” is similarly helpful in gaining a more thorough understanding of the nomination process — and how to hold the several States to account — for apparently very lax oversight in this process.”

    Funny how the world works, no?

  25. Miri says:

    Yep. The Emperor has no clothes.

    Miri: Since 9th graders get this, we can anticipate high school graduates would get this, too. Now, how do we get them to listen to the story? ADMINISTRATOR

  26. Juliet16 says:


    Wow, great explanation.

    I never really understood the DNC certification part until I read your article. Great job, thanks.

    Juliet16: You are very welcome. It took me a while to ‘get’ the whole process; I did extensive work on these issues and discussed the results of that work extensively, before I was able to condense the process to the class.

    Now that you understand “the DNC certification part,” you might go back and read “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON 1 & 2.” ADMINISTRATOR

    • Juliet16 says:


      Thanks for the suggestion: I have now also read “Never Less Than a Treason” (Parts I and II), and I also listened to “Witness to Election Fraud (Part I) and I will be listening to parts II and III asap. Very enlightening. Amazing how all of this was staged.

      Who knew all this stuff in 2008? Did the MSM know and look the other way? (Rhetorical question of course, b/c obviously certain groups of people knew and used it to their advantage.)

      A person has to have a certain intellectual curiosity to want to delve into this stuff and really understand it – and you’ve got it. Lucky for us….

      Great research and stellar ability to communicate what you have found. Thanks again, jbjd….

      Juliet16: Thank you for doing the work and getting back to me. True, I am intellectually curious. But, an even greater motivator to get to the bottom of ‘this’ was my abhorrence of bullies and tyrants, which terms I apply in this case to everyone who, before BO’s election, capitalized on a superior knowledge base to undermine the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. Of course, this includes members of the press.

      Now that our knowledge of ‘how things work’ matches our oppressors, I have expanded the class (of bullies and tyrants) to include commentators throughout the blogosphere who, having failed to prevent a full vetting and understanding of the fraud that occurred in the 2008 election cycle, now attempt to thwart the distribution of the details of that fraud and, prescriptions for redress, through the use of attacks aimed not at the work but at me, personally.

      They should know, I take all such attacks as an indication, I am on the right track.

      Come back after you listen to the other 2 (two) radio podcasts. ADMINISTRATOR

      P.S. Are you from a state that has already been identified as applicable for the purpose of filing a citizen complaint of election fraud with the AG?

  27. Tammy says:

    Wow. I’m blown away by how thorough you have been in explaining the fraud that was perpetrated by the DNC.

    Sadly, we had this fraud perpetrated on the citizens of Minnesota, with the end result being the election of Al Franken.
    Our courts dismissed the case.
    Fraud complete.
    How will we be able to stop this from happening again?

    Tammy: I am not sure whether AF was elected in MN; and whether the court case you mention was dismissed, refers to the challenge to that election. Probably the best defense against election fraud is being an informed activist citizen. Are the nominees from the major political parties entitled to have their names printed on the MN ballot? Or does MN have a law requiring candidates to be eligible for office in order to have their names printed on the ballot? If so, you could file a citizen complaint with the AG, charging election fraud. (See complaints posted in the sidebar on this blog.) ADMINISTRATOR

  28. Honesty says:

    Incredibly manipulative tactics that I would normally associate with racist groups. How do we know that Hillary Clinton is an American citizen? Has her birth certificate been thoroughly analyzed? Or is it because she’s a white woman from the midwest? We know Obama is an American citizen because the official copy of his birth certificate has been thoroughly vetted by independent nonprofit groups as well as Hawaii state officials.


    I like Hillary and Obama, but a teacher who corrupts the thinking of children with manipulative and specious reasoning should be suspended.


    Normally, I would not post comments like this one from “Honest,” for several reasons, among which are these. 1) S/he writes that I “corrupt[] the thinking of children with manipulative and specious reasoning…” but fails to cite the specific language I used that would support such a charge. (In general, I refer to this literary vehicle of claiming I said something without pointing to exactly what I said, and then arguing against what you said I said, instead of what I actually said; as using “straw dogs.”) 2) S/he offers purported ‘facts’ which have been thoroughly de-bunked by real facts posted elsewhere throughout this blog, backed up with links to evidence that supports these facts.

    But I posted this comment from Honest so that everyone else can see, at this point, the only mechanism available to people attempting to combat the facts contained in articles posted on this blog; is to offer opposing conclusions lacking any basis in reality.

    Honest: Please read, “RUMORS, LIES, and UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS'”; “COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT”; and “jbjd, BIRTHER” on this blog. (There, that should cover your references to APFC; HI officials; and the COLB.) Then, refute the facts (and not my editorial opinions) contained in just these 3 (three) articles, sans your editorial speculations. ADMINISTRATOR

  29. Hi jbjd! It’s Saturday night–how about a break? http://sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/just-a-little-allegory/ (Oh–I promise it is WAY shorter than the last one–LOL!) …because you are making a difference!

    snk: Thank you so much for considering my mental health. But, know what I have been doing off and on all day today, besides laundry, cooking dinner (spaghetti), and helping the baby (teenage boy) with his homework? Blasting the computer to this video and dancing my _ off: http://www.hulu.com/watch/115500/the-colbert-report-alicia-keys-and-stephen-perform ADMINISTRATOR

  30. ksdb says:

    This should be some good news. A story from Arizona says a legislator wants to require proof of citizenship to put Obama’s name on the ballot in 2012.

    “If President Obama wants to run for re-election he would need to produce proof of both his U.S. birth and citizenship to get on the ballot in Arizona, if one state lawmaker gets her way.

    Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, is preparing a law to require anyone running for president or vice president to provide proof to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office that they are legally eligible to seek the office. The U.S. Constitution requires the president — and, by extension, the vice president — to be “a natural born citizen.”

    Burges would require the secretary of state to verify that status independently.

    “If it’s not certifiable, then that person’s name would not go on the ballot,” she said.


    ksdb: Not so fast. I read the article you linked. Of course, I agree in principle with amending the requirements the candidates must meet before states agree to print their names on state ballots. This is what I have advocated all along. However, for several reasons, this proposed legislation is not what I had in mind.

    For starters, notwithstanding her protestations to the contrary, Representative Burges sounds like she is proposing this legislation specifically to ‘get’ BO. That will kill the bill on challenge, for sure. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/12/acorn_funding_cut-off_was_unco.html ADMINISTRATOR

  31. Terri says:

    IMO, you did the students a great dis-service. You led the students to make conclusions without enough information to uphold those conclusions. Did you let the students know that just because somebody doesn’t answer a question you have asked does not mean that a answer can be found there. An absence of an answer is not an answer in itself. That simply doesn’t make sense.

    Did you tell the students that the State of Hawaii confirmed, twice, that Barack Obama was born there? Did you tell the students that Obama publicly showed the state-certified COLB that was issued to him by the State of Hawaii? Did you let them know that that is all that is needed to prove natural born citizenship?

    Did you explain that other President’s and Vice-President’s have had at least one immigrant parent, and sometimes both, and they were never questioned as to whether they were NBC because of it?

    Only President Obama has had this debate surrounding him. Do you really think that paranoia is a good thing to teach growing minds? Or to make assumptions based on lack of information? I would have thought that logic would be something that would be very important to teach students.

    While I do agree with proposed legislation to require evidence of being a natural born citizen to be produced to the Registar’s of each State before having their name put on the ballot, I don’t think that it will work out the way the person who proposed it thinks it will.

    The state-certified COLB is still legally valid to prove NBC status, even if you don’t like the form it is on. You do not have the right to dictate to a state what form birth certification takes. That would be usurping state law.

    Terri: I decided to post your comment notwithstanding every idea expressed has previously been addressed or countered on this blog, and this is why: you reaffirm the underlying point of this piece. That is, only people like you continue to try to make the case that BO is a NBC, while the Corporation that swore he is, refuses to stand by their affirmation. ADMINISTRATOR

  32. ksdb says:

    Shared the Az news, not because of the particular methodology, but because people are starting to realize that some sort of verification process is going to be needed for future election ballots. Not sure if you heard the Nathan Deal story, but it shows another example of a legislator bucking the system so to speak.

    ksdb: Thank you for bringing these various attempts at legislation aimed at vetting. I recall my 3:00 AM epiphany one night in August 2008 that the only way to prevent BO from becoming POTUS is to keep him off the ballot. (Yes; I posted comments immediately and, as a result, my idea and corresponding proposal to file challenges to getting his name on the ballot, is a record!) As I have stated in several articles (and comments) on this blog, keeping him off the ballot does not legally prevent him from being elected President. But even members of the corrupt DNC Services Corporation will not steal the election at the level of the Electoral College, when they have failed to steal it earlier on. Even these crooks know, the public, however apathetic, would not stand still for that. ADMINISTRATOR

  33. jbjd–Fellow Fed buster 🙂 Great news–Steve from Daily Bail is going to be on LD’s show tomorrow!! http://sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/tune-in-sunday-night/#comment-500

    snk: Thanks for the heads up; Daily Bail is on my blogroll. ADMINISTRATOR

  34. […] Now, read “Purpose of Contact” on pages 1 & 2.  See, before citizens of TX and the 5 (five) other states readers have identified so far, filed these complaints, they attempted to find out what documentation was the basis of those certifications of eligibility submitted by members of the D party to state election officials to get them to print BO’s name on the ballot.  But NP, Alice Germond, and Joseph Sandler, all representing the D Services Corporation, would not answer.  JS specifically explained to those citizens who had framed their request  for documents as covered by the ‘freedom of information’ laws, the D Corporation is not a public agency and so, is not subject to public records disclosure laws.  Of course, he was right.  The D Services Corporation is a private club.  Thus, state and federal public records laws were powerless to compel NP,  AG, and others acting on behalf of the Corporation, to produce the requested documentation.   (Of course, as my 9th graders astutely pointed out, since JS went to the trouble to write the letter explaining that his client, the D Corporation, was exempt from public disclosure laws, it made no sense he just didn’t answer the question.  Unless he had something to hide.  “OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES“) […]

  35. […] for a preliminary injunction.)  See this comment posted here back in January, and my response. ksdb 2010/01/13 at […]

  36. Cabby - AZ says:

    jbjd – Thanks for referring me to your article,” Out of the Mouth of Babes, ”
    which I found to be so compelling and immensely instructive. Already knowing much of what you taught to those nineth-graders, I loved hearing it the way you presented it in such a clear manner. You have a special talent accompanied by the knowledge you’ve acquired to set forth these truths in a very understandable way, which is a rarity these days.

    Cabby – AZ: Reader Michelle loves that one. I teach in a large urban school system; I absolutely love teaching. Plus, I am the proud mother of a fabulous special needs son (high functioning autism). (To teach him the countries on the continent of Africa, we assigned countries to corresponding parts of his body. His chest was Chad.) I set up this blog to teach others what I had figured out about how our political process works, in theory and in fact. Because I assumed, if I was only just figuring out how things work, others must still be in the dark. And being in the dark means, people with superior knowledge would continue to steal their power.

    I detest bullies. ADMINISTRATOR

  37. minutemancdcsc says:

    jbjd, thank you for your courage in making the usurpation understandable, even in Obama territory. I can easily see an offended parent making a stink and reporting you to the school board. You are so brave to stand up for the truth regardless of the cost.

    I have contended that the majority of lawyers are Democrats, and therefore the judicial arena is adversarial to our efforts to oust the Constitutionally ineligible usurper, the fraudulent impostor who is illegally squatting in the White House. I think that 75 court cases dismissed without 1 decision based upon the merits demonstrate that the courts are the wrong venue to seek redress of our grievance. (But lawyers see every disagreement as a potential court case.)

    I want to believe in the efficacy of 2 Chronicles 7:14 – “If My people, who are called by My name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and heal their land.”

    If Christians and Jews repent of our sins and pray and seek the Lord, He will bust the lawlessness that rules in these latter days before Y’shua ha Mashiach returns to reign on earth in righteousness. But He expects us to get right, voluntarily, before He will force the criminals and politicians to do right.

    Secondly, if Congress, every federal court, and even AZ Gov. Jan Brewer cower before the usurper and his enforcers, AG Eric Holder and the U.S. Attorneys, then we take our case to their counterparts in other governments. For example, I have been pushing Atty. Orly Taitz, multilingual and internationally sophisticated, to ask foreign government leaders to derecognize the usurpation as a legitimate government. If Mr. Obama can’t negotiate with a number of countries, he will lose clout fast.

    Thirdly, I have calculated that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are the only persons who can stand down the DOJ and DOD supporting the Emperor who has no eligibility. I thought that Dr. Terry Lakin’s act of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution would force Gen. George Casey to man up and stand with a true patriot. Was I ever shocked and disappointed when the General of the Army left his chosen flight surgeon to twist in the wind.

    There are many other venues for seeking redress. The massive public support for Donald Trump’s “Release the birth certificate” campaign demonstrates that Birthers, or rather, Constitutionalists are not a fringe group in the U.S., but the majority. If U.S. Representatives recognize that “to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” is a winning position, a U.S. House Investigation with subpoena powers is very possible.

    Any other action will be more effective than the 75 dismissed lawsuits, that is, any action that moves the battle for the Constitution from the courts of the usurper to the court of public opinion.

    A blessed Pesach to you and your family.

    minutemancdcsc: Thanks for the holiday wishes. Now, since you took so much time to form your Comment, I will do my best to respond comprehensively (albeit in no particular order).

    I do not characterize Terry Lakin’s conduct as patriotic; but, more importantly, I cannot believe that most of the people supporting his decision not to report for duty, would similarly support such conduct coming from, say, draft dodgers in the ’60s . I believe in this case, as with so many other responses to perceived or real unlawful conduct associated with Obama, the analysis becomes personal. For example, I compared some of the conduct held in contempt when displayed by Obama, to what I found to be similar conduct exhibited by now Representative West. This got me banned from FreeRepublic; and excoriated on NoQuarter.

    Judges didn’t reject the numerous legal cases involving Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for the job either because they were D’s, or because they had no courage. Rather, they rejected these legal cases because they were infirm. I have written extensively about this issue, throughout the blog, but in short: no law requires the President to be eligible for the job, that is, it defines who is ineligible but does not bar Electors from electing an ineligible candidate; and no voter is compelled to vote for Electors for an ineligible candidate. No candidate on the ballot lost only because Obama was also on the ballot (standing). No SoS was specifically required by any state legislature to vet the Presidential candidates for Constitutional eligibility (mandamus) …

    Asking, on the one hand, for foreign intervention in order to unseat a lawfully elected President – even if he is ineligible for the job, he was lawfully elected through the process prescribed in the Constitution – and then, on the other hand, rejecting Obama’s Presidency at least in part on the basis, he is pursuing a one-world government, or is too deferential to interests outside of this country, also appears hypocritical to me, and smacks of personal animus as opposed to a genuine belief that, having ‘usurped’ office, he is adding insult to injury by favoring those foreign interests. Do you see that?

    As for ‘turning me in,’ well, the current Chair of the School Committee actually observed me teaching (math) once, on a tour by the Headmaster. His comment to her? ‘I have been touring our schools for 20 years now; and this is the first time I have seen a substitute Teacher at the board in front of the class, teaching! And the students are paying attention, too!’ She replied, ‘I know; that’s why we keep her here.’

    Finally, here is one of my favorite passages from the writings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., this from “Letters from a Birmingham Jail.” I cite this often; indeed, I have seen this popping up more frequently now, on the blogs.

    I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust. and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.



  38. […] first posted OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES in January 2010; it has remained one of the most popular posts on the “jbjd” blog. It […]

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: