Attorney General Henry McMaster has joined several other states in a civil suit to stop Obamacare, based on various claims that the scope of the legislation exceeds the authority reserved to the federal government under several sections of the U.S. Constitution.  But given the mechanism by which the South Carolina Democratic Party certified the eligibility of candidate Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States, Mr. McMaster would have a much easier and less expensive route to contest this monstrosity if he would just exercise his discretion to investigate the charges of election fraud already filed with his office by the citizens of the Palmetto State.

Here’s how Democrats Certified Barack Obama was eligible to have his name appear on South Carolina’s ballot.


I recognized that the language of her handwritten note mimicked the SC statute. So, I wondered, how did Kathy Hensley come to hand write the statutory language that appears on the bottom of Carol Fowler’s typed candidate certification memo? Enlisting Dawn’s help, I can now answer that question.

Turns out, Kathy Hensley hand-delivered Carol Fowler’s November 1, 2007 memo to the offices of the SCEC. Garry Baum said so. He remembered that someone in the office – he could not recall whether he or another staffer – pointed out, ‘she’ “forgot” to add the statutory language that the D candidates listed to get their names printed on the SC primary ballot were eligible for the job. He said she had not noticed this language was missing, on her own.

So, Ms. Hensley added the required language, then and there, along with her signature. And that explains the unusual appearance of the state D party Certification of names for the Presidential Preference primary election.

Please, urge Mr. McMaster to spend your money more wisely by investigating your complaints of election fraud.

View this document on Scribd
View this document on Scribd



  1. Cabby - AZ says:

    jbjd – This is OT, but of vital importance right now. I read some of your comments on the CW blog yesterday and appreciate your viewpoints. What concerns me is the efforts being made by The Retake America Plan, using the de jure grand jury method.

    My questions are twofold: (1) Do you know anything about one of the principles, Dr. Sam Kennedy, whose real name is apparently Richard Glenn Unger, and (2) is this method of using de jure grand jury viable? There are many statements that they have made which seem impossible to accomplish, and some really don’t even make sense.

    Also, do you know if the State of Arizona has had any reported incidents of voter fraud? I suppose I should do my own homework.

    Cabby – AZ: Welcome. I know nothing at all about the man who goes by the name of Dr. Sam Kennedy; and I have no idea what is a de jure grand jury, let alone whether it is “viable,” or for what. For the purpose of filing these citizen complaints of election fraud against various members of the D party, and request for investigation by the AZ AG; the law in AZ does not require that the candidate whose name is printed on the ballot must be eligible for the job. Therefore, swearing to state election officials he is eligible – “duly nominated” (read a complaint to see why this is tantamount to swearing Constitutional eligibility) without ascertaining beforehand, is not fraud.

    Yes, by all means, do your homework. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Cabby - AZ says:

    Thank you so very much for the information re. law in AZ. This is most unusual to receive a real response from the Administrator.

    The reason for the query about de jure grand jury is because many patriots are getting involved with TRAP (The Restore America Plan) and Dr. Sam Kennedy is one of the principals. The de jure grand jury concept is the basis for that Plan, and the entire thing seems implausible to me IMHO. The Plan process is getting hot coverage at CW’s site by some of the bloggers.

    Thanks again for your response.

    Cabby – AZ: This site relies on input from readers to educate everyone. So, if you find out anything of interest about these groups, send it here for review. (I tend not to post speculative or opinion-based materials which include no citations.) ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Cabby - AZ says:

    This is from the website of guardians of the free republic:
    (comment omitted in its entirety by jbjd)

    Cabby – AZ: I read through your entire comment and, assuming you copied verbatim from that site for the “Guardians,” I cannot post any of that information here, as I found it grossly absurd, on its face. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Cabby - AZ says:

    Pardon me, but the above got posted before I could check it. I am very new to
    the computer (a very senior citizen) and some of the bottom got deleted without my knowing it. First thing I knew, here it was already submitted. Anyway, there is sufficient information to get the idea. The website referenced will bring you the
    entire statement.

    A number of people are really banking on this approach to restore our Republic
    to constitutional principles.

    Cabby – AZ: Whoever claims to bank on the ‘approach’ spouted by these self-identified ‘guardians of the republic’ to restore this Republic to ‘constitutional principles’ is on a fool’s errand. They would better spend their time learning how the Constitutional Republic was intended to work, by its Founders and Drafters; and not on the perverse interpretations offered by these so-called ‘guardians.’ Above all, this experiment in democracy relies on an informed electorate. And these ‘guardians’ can call themselves whatever they want; they evidence by their incendiary diatribe they clearly are ill-informed about the jurisprudential principles that motivated those brilliant brave theorists who founded this country. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Cabby - AZ says:

    I fully understand your not wanting to publish the statement submitted. It is much better you don’t give it any more publicity but want to thank you immensely for your assessment of it. Hopefully those who are so enamored with this approach will get informed before they embark on a program that can only fail. According to other reports out there, some people in the past have spent time in jail because of alleged violations in carrying out the dictates of Dr. Sam Kennedy.

    Hope springs eternal, but I’m sure you would say it must be based on a sound, legal foundation.

    Once again, I appreciate your responding in this matter.

    Cabby – AZ: You are welcome. People have told me, identifying exactly what went wrong with the 2008 election cycle lessens their frustration level. I found that once I admitted my complacency and began getting up to speed, I, too, became less frustrated. And infinitely more determined to redress the wrongs I identified and ensure these would not happen again. Take the time to read OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES, for starters. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. P.J. Vee says:

    The Supreme Court has thus far refused to hear cases regarding President Obama’s eligibility since the Donofrio suit was put before them in December of 2008.

    The US Supreme Court dismissed the case without comment in December 2008, and denied certiorari on another case in January 2009. The Court appears to consider these cases frivolous and not worth their time and attention.

    You “conservatives” who didn’t do your due diligence on vetting Barack Obama before he became President are a day late and a dollar short now.

    Back in 2008 most of those “conservative” and neoconservative Republicans were too busy trying to manipulate Hillary out of the general Election by helping push Obama forward as the candidate for the Democrats.

    But now he is President, and the SCOTUS allowed his eligibility and I’m sure that they don’t wish to be blamed for the upheaval any action to the contrary of what they let pass would cause now.

    People reap what they sow.

    I wanted Hillary, but when she was not put forth as our candidate. I voted for Barack Obama and have never been sorry that I did.

    But up to the day before election I was on the phone with Democratic campaign officials and leaders trying to see to it that they would vet Obama.

    Water over the dam and under the bridge now.

    Time for a lot of individuals like you to stop wasting court and government time and the people’s tax money on these suits.

    P.J. Vee: Welcome to the blog. It would appear that, you have read very few of the articles posted here, let alone the readers’ comments. If you had then, I would have expected you would know things like 1) members of a political party have no Constitutional obligation to vet a candidate as to Constitutional eligibility; 2) I advocate the best way for sovereign citizens to redress perceived wrongs with the electoral process in their states is to file complaints of election fraud with their state A’sG but not to file frivolous lawsuits; and 3) my hero is the late great liberal leftist pinko progressive radical socialist Professor Howard Zinn, who introduced me as his “star pupil.”

    Please come back when you have digested the work and can proffer more informed questions and commentary. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. P.J. Vee says:

    Thank you for the “welcome” . . .I think.

    I just discovered this page today and I read what was on this page alone, which was all I felt I needed to make my own comments to you about what I feel you are trying to do.

    And my comments stand as I meant them regardless of what anyone else says, including any argument about the necessity of vetting a candidate, or lack thereof.

    Nowhere did I say that there was a Constitutional duty to vet a candidate. In fact, I did NOT say that at all.

    But I would maintain that either or both political parties should do the job of getting and giving as close to full disclosure of the facts about a candidate for the most important office in the land and arguably in the world, as possible BEFORE encouraging people to vote for that candidate.

    And it is certainly the personal responsibility – if not the duty – of all voters to check into everything they can find on a candidate before voting for that candidate – so that is what I worked to do.

    However, going on all information which was available at the time, I was not about to throw away my vote by writing in the candidate who I felt was more completely vetted or worse, voting for the opposition candidate, or disenfranchising myself by not voting at all.

    Now, on the next issue, I’d say that sending in complaints to the states’ AGs merely passes off the job of pursuing frivolous lawsuits onto those AGs, and those suits cost the tax-payers money. And waste court and government time. Do they not?

    And here let me say that I believe once the Supreme Court has either found someone eligible or allowed eligibility by not hearing cases against eligibility before the election, they have pretty much crossed the Rubicon.

    And I feel fairly certain that the good Justices of the SCOTUS don’t want to revisit the territory of something that could throw our country into a chaos for which they could be perceived to be at fault.

    Ah, you know, I wish I’d had the money to go to Law School and have “great liberal leftist pinko progressive radical socialist” professors lavishing praise on me. I believe I’d have made one very fine lawyer, BUT I fail to see what you comment regarding that has to do with the price of tea in China or a Tea-Bagger’s hat.

    And, you’ll pardon me, but I find your comment about me coming back when I have “digested the work and can proffer more informed questions and commentary,” rather arrogant and offensive.

    I didn’t look at this as an assignment where I would have to drown my eyeballs in the opinions of others before I could exercise the right of free speech to offer my own opinion, since you give the appearance of being open for comment.

    It should be obvious that whether it was here or elsewhere I have put in a good deal of time, study and research on the subjects under discussion here.

    I’m sorry if that’s not the case, you might have upped the caliber of your site by having me present and giving my well-thought out opinions unvarnished by the opinions of others.

    P.J. Vee: I hear your rant. But citizens who read this blog and are expending the time and effort to understand how our government and our political system work will recognize the false claims and conclusions woven throughout.

    Citizens are not filing lawsuits, frivolous or substantive. Rather, they are submitting witness statements to the chief law enforcement official in the state charging, the crime of election fraud has been perpetrated on them by means of a promise by the political party that a candidate was qualified to have his name printed on the ballot, before ascertaining whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. I am not going after Boyd Richie in court and I am I advising no one else to do this. Ha, this would be ridiculous because a) I am not a citizen of Texas; and b) the law that underlies such a suit – have you read JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE TO DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB – only applies to Chairs of political parties (and certain candidates for office). Get it? Rather, I am merely pointing out, if the RPT had wanted to remove Mr. Obama’s name from the ballot in 2008, under Texas law, they had standing in state court to do just that. And they knew how to do it because the TDP had done this to them. Or, they can file suit now to keep BO’s name off the 2012 ballot!

    If fraud occurred then, laws were broken in applicable states. Under SC laws, this is one of those applicable states. 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: