View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd


  1. Alecia says:

    Even in my fevered state..I recongnize genius.

    Alecia: You could be delirious; but thank you. (Wait till you see what’s up next.) Feel better. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Teresa in Fort Worth, TX says:

    I can hardly wait to see what is next! I don’t think these tyrants realize what a hornet’s nest they have disturbed….

    Teresa in Forth Worth, TX: Hello and welcome. I assume by ‘tyrants,’ you mean, legislators who would pass a law notwithstanding their constituents overwhelmingly oppose the legislation; and by ‘hornet’s nest,’ I assume you mean, calling attention to a greater illegality, which is, committing election fraud (using the state ballots) to install BO into the WH. Anyway, I can’t wait to see what’s next, either; I just have to write it up. (Have you filed a citizen complaint of election fraud with AG Abbott? You can download the complaint from the sidebar.) ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Michelle says:

    “Wait til you see what’ up next”. Be still my heart. I received a mailing from Ms. Pelosi requesting funds for matching, this time I enclosed this letter-no money of course. I’m sure that you are aware that the hillbuzz guys are going after the big donors to DNC, to have them donate anywhere but the DNC,it is fortunate that they know them personally.
    I hope that your son is doing well and all your other children too. I still love “Out of the Mouth of Babes”, kids have a way of pointing out the truth in things don’t they-gotta love em.

    Michelle: I like the idea of sending back the prepaid envelope with the contents of the mailing. After all, I didn’t ask them to send me requests for money. All the kids are fine. (I still love Out of the Mouths of Babes,’ too.) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Sallyven says:

    Brilliant, as usual. Thank you for all your hard work. Please do keep us posted.

    Because of the eligibility debacle and the upcoming Immigration Reform, I have been posting articles and doing research on my own on the concepts of “citizenship,” “consent,” and “allegiance” as enshrined in our Constitution and other founding documents–especially the notion of “birthright citizenship.” It appears that the Heritage Foundation, many Constitutional scholars, and expert witnesses and Representatives in attendance at a 2005 Congressional Hearing on Birthright and Dual Citizenship all agreed that both types of citizenship were unconstitutional, and were immigration “magnets.” I could find many references to the subject in several different venues, that is, until Obama was center stage. Then scholars such as Dr. John Eastman, Edwin Meese, and even the Heritage Foundation made no more comments on the issue. I found this odd, considering the brewing debate over the natural born citizenship status of Obama.

    If one understands that the concept of Birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, and rather has become common procedure in the past 50 years or so, in part due to the large increase in immigration combined with lax enforcement of our laws and an incorrect interpretation of Wong Kim Ark, they will undoubtedly have questions about how it relates to Article 2. If they also are aware of the fact that Obama’s father was never a US citizen, in Hawaii on a temporary student visa, they may logically connect the dots and conclude that the framers most likely did not envision automatic citizenship to the child of a foreigner who never naturalized, and much less would the framers consider this child “natural born” and more eligible for future Presidency than a “citizen” eligible only for Congress, just by virtue of being born here. Whether or not one has questions about the birth certificate, these opinions, while debatable, are certainly not the stuff of conspiracy. One needn’t even be burdened with the myriad details of case law to understand these concepts of citizenship which are the key to our nation’s founding.

    I am surprised that “birther” sites such as WND have not written about this connection with natural born citizenship and have instead focused only on the birth certificate itself. I am also surprised that all of the Representatives and scholars who in years past clearly understood the birthright citizenship/dual citizenship controversy never spoke up during or since the 2008 elections. Dr. Eastman, a previously outspoken critic of the concept, is now running for California AG. It would be interesting to ask him these questions now.

    All of the AGs who are considering fighting the unconstitutionality of the HCR in the courts, even if they heed your advice, need to also understand that it isn’t just about the birth certificate.

    Sallyven: Hello. Thank you for the compliment; and thanks for the lengthy comment. Obviously, you put in a lot of time thinking about these issues. I spent less time examining what other people thought and wrote about the issues; and more time focused on the D’s. Let me just clarify a couple of points.

    1) I cannot say what is the legal definition of NBC because the federal appellate court has not ruled on a definition in a case directly on point. As they say, the rest is dicta. (Of course, the law is quite clear on what is a “C.”) Besides, as is made clear in the citizen complaints of election fraud, the issue here is not whether BO is a NBC.

    2) The A’sG who have received citizen complaints of election fraud know that the threshold issue here is, did you base your sworn statement to our election officials that BO is a NBC; on documentary evidence a reasonable person would construe as providing the basis for such conclusion.

    See, based on the admissions of current WH Counsel Bob Bauer, then representing Defendant Obama in Hollister, I believe, there are no documents. (Have you read the citizen complaint, and followed the links?) In other words, members of the D Corporation not only could not establish they ascertained BO was a NBC before swearing he was; but also could not establish they ascertained he was even a C! The fraud is not in ‘getting it wrong.’ The fraud is, swearing to state election officials something is true without knowing it is true because eligibility is a condition predicate to getting a name printed on the state ballot. (Of course, swearing something is true and KNOWING IT IS FALSE is another matter altogether.) ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Sallyven says:

    Thank you, jbjd.

    The reason I bring the issues up that I did was because of the videotape I heard of Mr. Cuccinelli discussing the issue as only being about the birth certificate and whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii:

    We have on record a judge in the Hollister case saying the issue had been “raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry.” Add to that the usual argument about the newspaper birth announcement.

    While I do understand the point of your complaint and your logic and reasoning of your arguments, I do not think that Mr. Cuccinelli has thought of this issue beyond the birth certificate. The MSM has helped to keep that certificate and place of birth as the focus, and the labeling of anyone with questions as “birthers.” Mr. Cuccinelli and all of the AG’s need to understand all facets of the debate (which is a Constitutional issue and not conspiracy theory) if they are to be encouraged to take up the issue.

    I have a feeling Obama will pull out the long form birth certificate any day now. My logic is based on his perceived need for damage control–after the HCR debacle and as a prelude to the upcoming Amnesty debate, as well as further marginalizing of the Tea Party (which has been grouped by the MSM with the “birthers”).

    As if the long-form certificate would mean all cases closed, including yours. Which of course it doesn’t, but tell that to the MSM and the rest of the people who refuse to even think about these issues and their implications.

    Education is key if we are to win this battle.

    Sallyven: This issue of election fraud has absolutely nothing to do with BO. I could not care less what he produces to establish anything. He did not sign the Certification of Nomination that was submitted to state election officials to get his name printed on the ballot. (I know in states such as AZ he signed a document to enter the primary, swearing he is a NBC; but the only way to contest the validity of that document is to establish, he is not. I have said since this issue arose during the primary, shifting the burden to anyone else to establish BO is NOT a NBC is a ‘fool’s errand.’) Only those D’s who swore he was eligible can explain on what basis they established such eligibility. This is not a “case.” This is a citizen complaint to the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement official in the state, charging state election laws have been broken. BUT ONLY IN THOSE STATES THAT HAVE ENACTED THESE BALLOT ELIGIBILITY LAWS. That is, states with laws limiting ballot access to eligible candidates. Understand, this does not mean, an ineligible candidate cannot be elected President – Electors can choose anyone they want, according to the Constitution, even someone who is ineligible – but only that, an ineligible candidate cannot get his name printed on state ballots! ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Pete says:


    Good luck. I hope they listen.

    Pete: Thanks but, I hope the citizens of Texas (and GA, HI, MD, SC, and VA) get their state officials to listen. Citizens in these states filed the complaints with their Attorney General, elected by them, which complaints were based on ballot laws they enacted. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. You just can’t get any respect from John Carlton….

    Greg Goss(ReElect “No Body”): Hey Greg. Well, this time, I am not going to fault Mr. Charlton. Here’s the whole story.

    I learned that AG Cuccinelli intended to file suit to halt the implementation of Obamacare. I was furious. Why spend all that money and time on an uncertain outcome; when all he has to do to stop BO is to investigate the charges of election fraud already filed with his office. I contacted the proprietor of another blog, which shall remain nameless along with its proprietress. She had filed one of those citizen complaints in VA. I asked whether she had heard anything more on the complaint. No. Now, I went into a tirade, railing against the fact that AG Cuccinelli was willing to spend taxpayer money to pursue this ‘mandatory purchase of private health insurance’ bill court case given the alternative to listen to the citizens who had filed those complaints of election fraud. She suggested I should commit my tirade to paper, which I did.

    I read to her what had become my ‘open letter to AG Cuccinelli.’ She asked whether she could post this on her blog. I said, yes. I even gave her the Scribd codes for the documents. (Fortuitously, I had put my moniker and web address on the top of the letter; and had formatted on Scribd so as to prevent alteration.) And I helped her to write the accompanying opinion piece that appeared on her site, under her name.

    I began getting hits from another site. When I clicked back and searched for “jbjd,” I found 1) the only operational link to “jbjd” on the blog roll; and 2) an unlinked mention in a comment, which she had submitted. (In other words, anyone visiting my blog from that site, got to me via the link in the blog roll and not the comment.) I read her impassioned plea urging people to pressure AG Cuccinelli to investigate the citizen complaints of election fraud. She suggested people could visit her blog or mine to get the details and the documents; but the only link that was operational, was hers.

    I contacted her to point out the discrepancy with the links she had included in her comment. She appeared at a loss to explain how that had occurred, claiming she had submitted both web addresses – hers and mine – utilizing the same format.

    Then, I began getting hits from Mr. Charlton’s site. So, I went there. She had submitted a Letter to the Editor, reproducing the entreaty to contact Mr. Cuccinelli, posted on that other blog. Only this time, “jbjd” was never mentioned. And the only link in the piece, was to her site. (In other words, if you did not click on that link to her site, then you would never see that I had anything at all to do with this work (unless, like in your case, you already knew, this work was mine).

    I don’t know why but, after looking at her post on Mr. Charlton’s site, I decided to take another look at her blog.

    Imagine my surprise when I saw that a section of the opinion piece I had narrated to her was missing, an omission which resulted in the false impression that she had come up with the idea to pressure AG Cuccinelli to investigate the citizen complaints with the argument, this was more cost effective than pursuing the court suit against the health insurance bill. And, adding insult to injury, she now claimed, she asked me to write down a “cost-benefit analysis” – these were my exact words – of the legal proceedings, which became this open letter to AG Cuccinelli posted on her blog.

    At that point, I notified this person all ties with her were severed, immediately.

    In sum, this time, Mr. Charlton is off the hook. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. OK…I did see the piece at Helen’s blog. I originally came across it here I was going to inform RedState that if he came across a post of a post of a post he should post the original but the linked info on Helen’s wasn’t clear so I let it go. Thanx for the clarification.

    Greg Goss(ReElect “No Body”): You are welcome. Thank you for trying to protect the work. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: