SLEIGHT-of-HAND in the “SHOW-ME” STATE

© 2010 jbjd

(IMPORTANT UPDATE IN TEXT, IN ORANGE, 02.13.12)

(UPDATE 07.25.10, AT END OF ARTICLE)

(IMPORTANT UPDATE ON 07.13.10, AT END OF ARTICLE)

Being an ‘in your face’ kinda gal, I always admired the no-nonsense approach indicated in Missouri’s unofficial sobriquet:  the “Show-Me” State.  But the sense of plain dealing that name conjures up is missing from this latest dog-and-pony show coming out of Missouri, involving an unknown candidate for the Republican U.S. Senate primary who is hitching his campaign wagon to the passions he hopes to arouse with complaints the MO Secretary of State discriminated again him by compelling him to prove he is an American citizen or else she would remove his name from the ballot.

It all began when “jbjd” blog cheerleader, Michelle, sent me this video of an interview with U.S. Senator wannabe Hector Maldonado, conducted by Karen Berka from Branson Radio on July 5.  Watch for yourself.

Catch anything funny about this?

Here’s a summary of material claims presented in the video.  Hector Maldonado said he registered with Secretary of State Robin Carnahan to get onto the Republican ballot for U.S. Senate.  (This is the hint that he is is referring to participating in the August primary, where there are both Republican and Democrat ballots, and not the November election.)   (Incidentally, he informed us, Ms. Carnahan is running on the Democratic ballot for that same office.)  She sent him a letter in early May, telling him to provide to her office evidence he is a U.S. citizen, a qualification for office spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.  He ignored the letter.  She followed up with a registered letter, notifying Mr. Maldonado to provide the requested proof of citizenship or be removed from the ballot.  As the result of this 2nd request, Mr. Maldonado provided such documentation, in the form of his U.S. Naturalization papers.  However, he objects to the fact that while he had to produce documentation tending to establish he is a U.S. citizen before Ms. Carnahan would agree to leave his name on the Republican primary ballot; Barack Obama was not required to show evidence of his status as a NBC before his name reached the ballot in the 2008 Democratic Presidential preference primary (and Presidential (Electors) election).  (While not directly addressed in the video, presumably, Mr. Maldonado asked Ms. Carnahan to provide any and all records related to Mr. Obama’s eligibility for office, under Missouri’s open records laws; and was informed, no such records exist.) Mr. Maldonado argues that by requiring qualifying documentation from him but not from Obama, the office of SoS is violating the law.  (I checked; Ms. Carnahan was the SoS for both the 2008 primary and general election. http://www.sos.mo.gov/sosbio.asp)

In other words, Mr. Maldonado charges SoS Carnahan demanded documentary evidence he is a U.S. citizen or else, she would remove his name from the R primary ballot but since no evidence exists in the public record she compelled Mr. Obama to undergo similar scrutiny in 2008; he wants to know why.

I can tell him why; but I suspect he will not be too pleased with my answer.  Because as soon as I got over my initial excitement at the thought Mr. Maldonado’s ‘revelations’ could attract press attention to the massive election fraud pulled off by the D’s in the 2008 election cycle; I started to smell a rat.

Question:  Given that the basis of Mr. Maldonado’s explosive public charges of disparate treatment from the MO SoS are the letters he claims she issued demanding evidence of his qualifications for office; why didn’t he show his audience the letters?

And why didn’t the interviewer, Ms. Berka, ask him to?

I may not be from Missouri but, I am not going to believe a story as easily verifiable as Mr. Maldonado’s tale unless he ‘shows me.’

Figuring he might have posted the letter(s) on his campaign web site, I checked that out.  No letter there either.  Not even a reference to the supposed inequity of this citizenship verification situation.  http://www.hectorforfreedom.com/Home.aspx

The absence of any documentary evidence his story was true told me, it was not.  After all, I began insisting more than 2 (two) years ago now, on that same basis, no member of the D party could have ascertained BO was Constitutionally qualified for office.

Now, to see whether his story is even plausible!

I accessed the web site of the Missouri Secretary of State to examine how candidates may register to appear on the party primary ballot.

Notice the options listed under the heading, “Documents Needed for Filing,” number 2, Proof of Identity:  Voter identification card; Missouri driver’s license;  birth certificate; or other form of certified or photo ID.

In other words, when the prospective candidate shows up to register, s/he needs to prove s/he is who s/he says and no more.

Next, I clicked on “Candidate Qualifications,” which displayed this information.

2010 Elected Officials Qualifications

U. S. Senator – Art. I § 3 U. S. Constitution
  • At least 30 years of age
  • Citizen of United States for 9 years
  • Resident of Missouri
U. S. Representative – Art. I, § 2 U. S. Constitution
  • At least 25 years of age
  • Citizen of United States for 7 years
  • Resident of Missouri

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/elect_qalification.asp

That is, “Qualifications” merely rehashes the Constitutional standard for the federal office sought. (Note:  the qualifications for POTUS do not appear on this mid-term primer.  However, if you are interested, here are instructions for candidates who would register for the Presidential preference primary held in 2008.  http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008primary/2008ppp/2008pppfilinginfo.asp)

According to the requirements posted above, candidates must register for the ballot in person; and identification must be provided at the time of registration.  Hector Maldonado registered to appear on the August ballot, on February 23, 2010. http://www.sos.mo.gov/candidatesonweb/DisplayCandidatesPlacementStatic2010.asp#USSenate So, even assuming SoS Carnahan sought the requisite identification documents in May; why would she have waited until that time to determine Mr. Maldonado is the same man who registered for office in February?  What about the documentation that accompanied his registration?

Because according to the information posted on the SoS site, not every prospective candidate registering for the ballot must do so, in person.  Which candidate is exempt from registering in person?  Why, a member of the military on active duty!   And according to the press release issued by the newly registered candidate, Mr. Maldonado was on active duty until February 28, 5 (five) days after submitting his registration.  http://pressreleases.kcstar.com/?q=node/30232

This means, his story appears on its face to be not only untrue; but also highly implausible.

It gets worse.

Assuming my hunch is correct and, this is all a big con; who stands to benefit?

Well, back on June 11, 2010 the candidate did a telephone interview with Jonathan Cousar from freedomtorch.com. A Google search obtained this definition of the site: politics, conservative, republican, libertarian, reagan, christian, faith, freedom, ann coulter, michelle malkin, gingrinch, sarah palin, rush limbaugh.”  During the show, both men admitted their close personal ties didn’t start there.  No; as they tell listeners, they traveled together to Washington to protest against ‘Obamacare.’  (Maybe their pre-existing non-professional relationship explains why the interviewer did not ask Mr. Maldonado to provide evidence of his claims of harassment by SoS Carnahan, either.)  The show ends with a plea for cash to be sent to Mr. Maldonado’s campaign web site.

Indeed, dozens of web sites began begging for money with a tie-in to Mr. Maldonado’s passion play out of Missouri.  And I have no doubt that, notwithstanding I have been spelling out for you on this blog for 2 (two) years now the massive fraud Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Bauer, Axelrod, Gibbs, and other players in the DNC Services Corporation pulled off in the 2008 election; many of you were still suckered by these latest ‘save America’ pleas.  (In contrast, PayPal contributions over the past month to “jbjd” totaled $100.)

Thus, as in most big cons, the moral of this story is, ‘follow the money.’

But the lesson of the story is this:  the only way to stop the ‘Chicago combine’ from stealing the election again in 2012 is to seriously examine how our political system works, now.

Epilogue

A bit of good news came out of this wild goose chase, anyway.  In doing the endless research, I learned that MO is an applicable state for citizen complaints of election fraud to the state AG!  That’s right; in 2008, candidates for POTUS from the major political parties had to be Constitutionally qualified for the job! CALLING ALL MISSOURIANS! Contact me ASAP, please, so that I can draft a citizen complaint of election fraud for the “Show-Me” state! (UPDATE 02.13.12: Well, since no one asked me to prepare a citizen complaint of election fraud in MO, which would have required me to cite to the applicable candidate ballot eligibility law; I never focused on verifying that law. But I just read that Mr. Maldonado is filing a ballot challenge in MO, based on President Obama’s ineligibility for the job. So, this time, I honed in on that state’s eligibility law, as it applies to candidates for President whose names appear on the primary ballot BUT WHO ARE ELECTED THROUGH A NOMINATING CONVENTION. And, turns out, the ballot eligibility laws do not apply to them. Thus, no cognizable cause of action exists under those laws with respect to their alleged ineligibility.)

(IMPORTANT UPDATE:  07.13.10)

Well, well, well.  Curiouser and curiouser.  I received a Comment from a “jdirt” – s/he uses the name “jd” for short, get it? – who has somehow come up with an image s/he claims is that infamous letter from SoS Carnahan to Mr. Maldonado.  Here is our exchange.

jbjd,

I am a little taken aback by the tone of your skepticism. Not because you are skeptical, that’s a good thing, but because I perceive that you “smelled a rat” just because the letter wasn’t readily available to you. I almost feel that you automatically rebuffed the story without any due deference.

While you point out that there was no evidence anywhere to confirm the veracity of Mr. Maldonado’s statements, it doesn’t appear that you asked him either. People normally don’t post things all over the place. They don’t naturally assume no one will believe them. All you had to do is simply ask.

Here is the letter that you need to prove his statements are true:

(link omitted by jbjd)

Here is an article I wrote about it:

(link to FR posting omitted by jbjd)

(offensive sexual innuendo removed by jbjd)

Here is my response.

It appears that you are attempting to bamboozle FR readers – no a priori moderation there – and subvert my nom-de-plume in the process. “jdirt”? When you chose that moniker, you effectively announced to your audience that any forthcoming work product was suspect. (The sexual remark, while indicating you have a problem with women; did not signal to me you necessarily have a problem with the truth.) You claim to have a letter that “proves” charges lodged by Hector Maldonado against the SoS of MO, related to confirming his eligibility to appear on the R primary ballot (for U.S. Senate), given that under law, all candidates whose names appear on the ballot in MO, must be eligible for the job. Indeed, several questions arose even before I clicked on the Scribd link to that letter you sent to this blog. Who are you? What is the provenance of that letter? In other words, how did this letter ostensibly addressed to Mr. Maldonado, happen to come to you? Why isn’t this letter posted on the candidate’s U.S. Senate primary web site? I looked at the letter which you linked in a comment to my web site. Seems you created both that page and your new name just for this purpose. Immediately visible were ‘cosmetic’ concerns. What happened to the state seal (and the address in the footer and several words clearly missing from the margins)? Where is the designation this was a Registered Letter? Even with these telltale warning signs as to the authenticity of any letter you provided, nevertheless, I read the letter. Again, more questions. The election official in your letter says, ‘We could have accepted voting records to verify the 9-year citizenship required to be a U.S. Senator but you only registered to vote in 2008. Now, we need further evidence you have been a citizen for 9 (nine) years.’ This would indicate to me, the question was never whether Mr. Maldonado was a citizen but rather, was he a citizen for 9 (nine) years. It appears from the clear language of this letter; he could have established this 9-year citizenship with his voter registration alone.

jdirt, given that you are shilling for citizens’ votes for Mr. Maldonado so that he can become a U.S. Senator – did the candidate authorize your efforts on his behalf? – both you and he will have to provide better evidence of his veracity than this, before I will concede, he is exactly who he says he is, let alone subject readers of this blog to such obvious subterfuge.

Ironically, having to re-visit the documentation on which I had relied for this story, in order to respond to claims from “jdirt” Mr. Maldonado had been telling the truth; instead, I found more evidence he had lied.

I said in my article that Mr. Maldonado claimed to have received a “Registered” letter from the SoS.  However, a review of the video from the Branson Radio interview shows clearly, he said, the letter was “Certified.”  (The WND article by Chelsea Schilling often linked throughout the internet to spread Mr. Maldonado’s story also quotes him as saying, this was a “Certified” letter.  However, in all fairness to Ms. Schilling, it would appear she merely transcribed the video of that Branson interview, which accompanies the piece, and did not actually check on any of the claims therein before posting her article.) Oops, I made a mistake and will issue a correction.  (I have been so tired trying to keep up with the work…) But just to be sure, I checked the tape of the radio broadcast of the interview Mr. Maldonado instigated with his pal, Jonathan Cousar, on FreedomTorch, back on June 11.   Guess what?  In this recording, Mr. M. clearly says, he got a “Registered” letter from the SoS.  Listen.

The moral of this update is clear.  If you do not want “jbjd” to catch you trying to con the American people, you will need to get your stories straight.

UPDATE:  07.25.10:

Mr. Maldonado has now posted the theme song for his U.S. Senate campaign.

Advertisements

37 Responses to SLEIGHT-of-HAND in the “SHOW-ME” STATE

  1. rlqretired says:

    jbjd – Since the SOS is running against this man, I can see where she may very well have gone a little bit beyond the normal routine and a lot is being assumed here. Perhaps you should contact this outstanding US citizen, if, you really want someone from this state to help you carry out the goal of your hard work. The issue seems to be working for him and he is in an excellent position to publicize your expertise. I can say from experience, it is almost impossible to find a political candidate willing to openly confront the DNC/OBAMA fraud.

    Educate this man and he could become your best loud speaker.

    rlqretired: Hello, again! rlq, listen, in my opinion, this man Maldonado is as much a charlatan politically speaking as BO. (However, he does get extra credit for being a combat veteran!) Don’t you remember, accepting the word of someone that documents exist, sight unseen, got us into this mess!

    As a Missourian, Mr. Maldonado certainly can file a citizen complaint of election fraud. In fact, I need at least one citizen from that state to contact me so that we can begin the process of confirming from the SoS the whole Certification of Nomination cycle; before I can draft the complaint. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Jim says:

    jbjd, Are you telling me that you have called this man a liar before attempting to contact him for clarification? Did you ask him for a copy of the letter from the SoS?

    FYI -(remainder of comment removed by jbjd because author makes charges s/he fails to back up and uses name-calling)

    Jim: Welcome. Are you telling me that you believe this man before demanding to see documentary evidence of his allegations? ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Michelle says:

    jbjd-another great article-the “discussion” Mr. Madonado was having with the interviewer, I suppose was an artful way of getting the “message” out, it reminded me of the Bill Press/Robert Gibbs-artful COLB discussion. You never know what you’re going to find unless you start digging. If Mr. Maldonado is smart he should file a citizen complaint,that would be very effective in more ways than one. I hope other MO citizens file complaints also. Thank you for clearing up more facts (such as they are)with remedies.
    “I may not be from Missouri but, I am not going to believe a story as easily verifiable as Mr. Maldonado’s tale unless he ‘shows me.’”
    “As a Missourian, Mr. Maldonado certainly can file a citizen complaint of election fraud.”

    Michelle Thank you; phew! I was waiting for you to weigh in. I have posted this everywhere; as you know, I stayed up all night to put this together, after you sent me the clip. Because I saw how quickly this new narrative had spread and taken hold. It was so disheartening to watch! Having witnessed the Chicago combine firsthand, you know, if we cannot improve our radar before 2012, we are in for another round of ‘usurpation.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Michelle says:

    jbjd-although I am from Chicago I am not a sports fan, I just would like free and FAIR elections-the same rules and documentation for all candidates, all party affiliations, all the time. If for example the Reps/Dems were sports teams, the screaming re: not a level playing field, someone did not play by the rules, this would have been straightened out over night. The DNC did not play by any rules that I can see, they even broke their own to “install” Obama, I cannot support a party that lies, in their case a lot-Nancy Pelosi and her happy little frauds, the COLB fraud-we will stay at this fiasco until it is solved.
    The reason I bring up this sports analogy is Iron Mike Ditka received a drunk driving ticket. The fans wanted to kill the officer (can you believe it?) Mike Ditka had to get on the radio and tell them, Yes, I was drunk, the officer was correct in giving me the ticket and leave the officer alone, I think Mr. Ditka immediately sought help for his issues. I think the fans and their murderous plans scared him straight.

    Michelle: This anecdote illustrates quite nicely the problem I encounter each time I burst the ‘out Obama’ bubble. In this instance, people are faulting me for not taking on faith Mr. Maldonado’s claims that tend to discredit Obama. I wonder why they don’t recognize the inferences from evidence available in the public record, that tend to discredit Mr. Maldonado . Whenever I engage in the heavy lifting to put together an article like this, I anticipate in the back of my mind, ‘They’re gonna attack me for this one.’ But I hate bullies, from whatever side of the political swamp. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Michelle says:

    jbjd-yes, same rules for all. None of us could know what the SOS saw, created etc.-letters ignored then trashed, don’t know without proof. Maybe Mr. Maldonado did a pre-emptive strike with his naturalization papers? don’t know. A lesson we should all be aware of DNC/Pelosi/Bauer-etc. taking someone’s word “for it”, which is the crux of this Obama deal anyway.
    In accounting when the big auditing firms audit a corporation, they will pick for example 10 files, customers, accounts receivable, accounts payable etc. You have to prove all traceability including errors, usually from original order through payment, to the bank-everything must match up and be documented every day, so it really behooves people to be honest. Not doing this led to the Enron/Arthur Andersen debacle. Always best to stay honest, and admit to an honest error (they do happen).
    We are still back to original question to Pelosi on what basis did you…..Obama.

    Michelle: Yes; thank you for bringing everyone back to the bottom line.

    This would be our question:

    ON WHAT DOCUMENTARY BASIS DID NANCY PELOSI (OR BOYD RICHIE OR KATHY HENSLEY OR ALICE GERMOND…) DETERMINE BARACK OBAMA WAS A NBC BEFORE SWEARING HE WAS, TO ELECTION OFFICIALS IN APPLICABLE STATES, TO GET THEM TO PRINT HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT?

    This is what we want an AG to say to Nancy Pelosi or Alice Germond or Boyd Richie or Kathy Hensley… :

    PLEASE PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR CERTIFYING TO STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS, BARACK OBAMA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO GET THESE OFFICIALS TO PRINT HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT.

    ADMINISTRATOR

  6. confloyd says:

    rlqretired, Why do you suppose that no one will openly confront DNC/OBAMA?
    Fox & Friends is airing the Texas Fraud and it started this morning at 8am CST.
    jbjd, you do such wonder work…thanks

    confloyd: Welcome; and thank you for recognizing the work. This Texas caucus fraud is sexy but, no laws were broken. Club members have no right to determine who will be the club nominee. As I have said before, the only problem associated with the Texas caucus was this. Under the Voting Rights Act, before any government entity can formulate a plan with respect to voting; this plan must get prior approval from the court. The TDP formulated delegate assignments per Congressional districts, without prior approval. (The TDP admitted they did this but claimed they could not be considered a government entity. The court found, however, carryng out a government function – voting – made the TDP a government entity.) (This is the LULAC et al. v. TDP case.)

    The election fraud I allege is the legal violation that will implicate several members of both the D Corporation and state D organizations, in conspiracy to commit criminal election fraud. Understandably, even when individuals grasp the gravity of this situation, none is sufficiently strong to start the process.

    But this unwillingness to proceed is as much our collective fault. We cannot assemble the numbers of supporters (publicly, on the steps of the state house, for example) for such state action by an AG, in part because not enough people grasp the election fraud themselves. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I wrote, “This Texas caucus fraud is sexy but, no laws were broken. Club members have no right to determine who will be the club nominee. As I have said before, the only problem associated with the Texas caucus was this.” Obviously, I meant, the only actionable conduct carried out through the caucus process, from a legal perspective, was what I go on to describe was the failure to obtain pre-approval for the delegate selection process.

    • Richard says:

      jbjd, responding to your response to confloyd at 8:00pm, you said, we cannot assemble the number of supporters…

      This is why i believe we “somehow” need to get major capitalization in your direction, and a major marketing game plan in certain states.

      We need certain individuals and corporate sponsors who would willingly support your efforts, and proactively help you go for it !

      They must be contacted, it only takes one or two “players”, and it’s off to the races.

      Richard: You have been a long-time reader here; and I know you understand the work. This explains your sense of urgency to ‘get it out there,’ coupled with the certainty, “it’s off to the races” after that. Of course, individuals are welcome to promote the blog and, to invite others to contact me with any questions. I have one more article to post that fills in the last piece of the picture of fraud, from inside the Convention. (And, of course, I will only use information pursuant to violations of law and not of club protocol.) After that, I will put together a ‘key,’ sort of like a more formalized ALL the PRESIDENT’S (HENCH)MEN. I heard from people who knew very little about this ‘stuff’ before they read this article but who were inspired to read more afterward. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. rlqretired says:

    Confloyd –

    You asked, Why do you suppose that no one will openly confront DNC/Obama?

    Political correctness, white guilt, willful ignorance, mainstream media bias and now that Obama is President of the United States, fear of retaliation.

    rlqretired: That last reason – fear of retaliation – is the one we can do something about. That is, gather enough support for the person we want to take action that s/he is willing to take action. Because the ‘action’ we are looking for from our state A’sG is the decision to exercise what is discretionary authority to initiate investigation into charges, members of the D party conspired to commit election fraud. And you are absolutely correct; why would ordinary people take action if it is going to cost them everything? We need to let them know, we have their backs.

    As to your first 3 (three) reasons for not taking action, well, not every AG citizens have petitioned for help, is white. For example, Thurbert Baker, in GA, showed courage during the primary. Briefly, GA is a vote binding state. This means, by law, pledged delegates elected through the primary must vote for the candidate they were elected to represent, at the Convention. I uncovered BO’s people were harassing HRC’s delegates to change their votes, BEFORE the Convention. I wrote to Mr. Baker to complain. (Of course, I left the signature blank so that citizens of GA could file the letter!) As a result, he issued a letter to GA delegates, reminding them of the law. (I posted this somewhere in the sidebar, which is all fablunged (mixed up) now, until WordPress helps!) ADMINISTRATOR

  8. azgo says:

    “Papers, please!”, seems to be the new motto here in Arizona as the far [left] side has so gratefully given to us. So, Hector, …Hector, …Hector, …papers, please! Show us the SoS letter! BO hasn’t shown us the papers yet, either.

    SoS Carnahan is one of the premier ‘results’ as claimed by the Secretary of State Project for the 2008 election, a known controversial web site.
    http://www.secstateproject.org/results/

    Her family are and have been quite the politicians in the state of Missouri.
    http://carnahan.house.gov/

    Great research on this subject and another state to add to the list of applicable states with presidential candidate eligibility ballot access state laws !!! What a mouthful!

    azgo: I just took a look at that SoS Project. Know what’s funny? Who knows whether pouring money into that web site has produced the results they claim.

    And what jumps out at me is the realization that all of the money in the world can be raised to support initiatives the purpose of which is to stuff the elective offices with candidates whose positions tend to be left of center, or right. Ha, these monies might even cancel each other out. But in the end, what will finally neutralize all of this money in politics, is educated voters. And educated voters do not jump from the frying pan into the fire, just because someone else like Mr. Maldonado comes along and speaks words they like to hear. Educated voters do not substitute substance for style. Simple as that.

    I absolutely believe, notwithstanding the personal interests of some voters, in general educated voters would not have allowed BO into office. Now,we must rely on them to get him out. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Strategist says:

    jbjd,
    While you did a good bit of research you failed to do the one thing a good journalist would do: talk to the parties involved. As a fan of Robin Carnahan as SOS, but not for the Senate, and someone who is personally acquainted with the Carnahan family, I tend to believe Mr. M. He should not have ignored the first request, but still, if his records are public then ALL records are public. I KNOW she was born here, I still don’t believe that BO was. Pick up the phone before you debunk this info. After all, what if he IS right?
    CM

    Strategist: Normally, I would not print messages like yours, which only exacerbate a ‘he said / she said’ type of back and forth, producing for the participants and observers alike no measurable useful information (except that the participants have much empty time to waste). I printed this because it exemplifies the disturbed analytical mindset that allowed BO’s fraud in the first place. That is, it shifts the burden to me, in this case, to prove a negative. Nope; as GHWB impersonators would say, ‘Nah gonna do it.’ Mr. Maldonado is a fake until he establishes otherwise; after all, he made the claim, and not me. Besides, the citizen is the sovereign. If he wants those votes, let him earn them.

    BTW, I am not a journalist. Thus, any comparison to such professional is inapposite to this discussion, anyway. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Peggy Sue says:

    It appears that people are disgruntled at anything these days. Instant jump down your throat if you don’t accept the most popular meme of the day.

    I found this piece, the caution to suggest, “okay, wait a minute–where’s the proof?” absolutely reasonable. Jumping from one half-baked conclusion to another gets us absolutely nowhere. And there are plenty of politicians out there willing to use the anger and frustration across the country to their own advantage, true or not. And use us in the bargain.

    I’m not quite sure what I just witnessed, jbjd [at that other site we both frequent] but “yikes!” All of a sudden I find myself in flaming wars with like-minded people I’ve known [online at least] for two years. Aren’t we interested in getting to the truth anymore? Or does “getting” Obama trump everything? I don’t like this Administration, didn’t vote for it. I hate what they did to Hillary Clinton. But if there’s any “getting” to be done, I want it square, legal and with a big, fat bow on top.

    Fortunately, the last run in I had online, the poster and I were able to bury the hatchet, shake virtual hands and start anew. But the hair-trigger tempers I’m picking up all over the Net is worrisome. It makes us vulnerable to bad decisions. And we see where that can wind up. Interesting times, a little too interesting.

    Keep up the splendid work!

    PS: I am so glad you came to visit me at home, where it’s safe! I anticipate feedback (to differing degrees) when I tackle certain topics; and I was not surprised that, having seen my post, the woman of several names responded the way she did. (She posted under a different name on that other blog she mentioned in one of her comments on [that other blog we frequent] but also included her real name, along with her email! But what really surprised me was the concurrence of blog regulars to her first nasty remarks about me. I thought they ‘knew’ me better. Hmmm.

    As for the situation in MO, well, I was really disappointed to see how easily so many people who ‘get’ the election fraud I have been working on for the past 2 (two) years were nonetheless captivated by Mr. Maldonado’s narrative, sans documentary evidence to support his story! (By the way, down thread from the initial zingers on that other blog, the same poster accused me of stealing the work of others for the past 2 (two) years, obviously referring to caucus fraud but not election fraud viz a viz getting BO’s name on the ballot! Geesh.)

    You wrote, “I hate what they did to Hillary Clinton. But if there’s any “getting” to be done, I want it square, legal and with a big, fat bow on top.” And I would just add, “And I want voters to become so educated that no one else will ever be able to do ‘this’ to us again.’ But that takes real work. Because those people who walked all over us had a huge head start in the knowledge game. Our bad.

    PS, thank you for appreciating the work. Your opinion matters. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Michelle says:

    jbjd-PeggySue-described many of the same things that I was seeing. I’m a firm believer in two wrongs don’t make a right, and you don’t remove presidents just because you don’t like them. I also believe none of us is above/below the Constitution that includes presidents (I think people are forgetting that it is a job, just like everyone else has a job) not some Mt. Olympus deification.
    “square, legal with a big fat bow on top” is the way it will have to be with this guy because of the media creation of the demi-god there is a faction that would never believe that Obama would lie to them to the extent that he did. Election fraud-getting the name on the ballot is where this began and it will be where it needs to end. Part of this insanity involving Obama is he has so many lies, going all over the place, I really have no idea how he can put them out anymore, and now lots more people are looking. I think I will always view Obama as a media created entity.
    I always feel bad when people attack you, that is so not fair you didn’t create the mess, but have been working diligently to find where the fraud originated, and remedies and solutions to the problem. Thank you for all your work, personal attacks just not right.

    Michelle: Thanks for weighing in. I keep thinking of the ‘electron cloud’ when I think of this whole situation. Studying the architecture of an atom, we learn that electrons, those negatively charged particles outside of the nucleus, are really merely energy droplets with virtually (or actually?) no mass; move so fast, they create a kind of electron cloud. I am glad you are seeing through the ‘electron cloud.’ As for these personal attacks, well, the fact these people demonstrate they are more interested in going after me than in examining the work for flaws so that these flaws can be fixed; tells witnesses like PS and you all they need to know about my attackers. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Al says:

    Absolutely brilliant analysis, jbjd! Have to admit when I initially heard this story I was hopeful that we had finally put the ball into play(a legitimate lock on genuinely questioning Obama’s eligibility); however, thanks to keen folks like yourself, we all can adopt Missouri’s “Show Me” sense of wisdom and proceed with caution when the opposition tries to throw us off track.

    Simply poetic justice that your hardwork brought you a well deserved reward, adding the good folks in Missouri as another option to challenge the hocus and pocus shenanigans of election 2008. Great job! Back next week to lurk and learn.

    Al: Thank you. Yes, your reaction to this bonus was the same as mine (although I hadn’t thought of the phrase “poetic justice”). Plus, hopefully, after this experience, people will become more adept at filtering the ‘noise.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Joe D says:

    jbjd,

    I am a little taken aback by the tone of your skepticism. Not because you are skeptical, that’s a good thing, but because I perceive that you “smelled a rat” just because the letter wasn’t readily available to you. I almost feel that you automatically rebuffed the story without any due deference.

    While you point out that there was no evidence anywhere to confirm the veracity of Mr. Maldonado’s statements, it doesn’t appear that you asked him either. People normally don’t post things all over the place. They don’t naturally assume no one will believe them. All you had to do is simply ask.

    Here is the letter that you need to prove his statements are true:

    (link omitted by jbjd)

    Here is an article I wrote about it:

    (link to FR posting omitted by jbjd)

    (offensive sexual innuendo removed by jbjd)

    Joe D: It appears that you are attempting to bamboozle FR readers – no a priori moderation there – and subvert my nom-de-plume in the process. “jdirt”? When you chose that moniker, you effectively announced to your audience that any forthcoming work product was suspect. (The sexual remark, while indicating you have a problem with women; did not signal to me you necessarily have a problem with the truth.) You claim to have a letter that “proves” charges lodged by Hector Maldonado against the SoS of MO, related to confirming his eligibility to appear on the R primary ballot (for U.S. Senate), given that under law, all candidates whose names appear on the ballot in MO, must be eligible for the job. Indeed, several questions arose even before I clicked on the Scribd link to that letter you sent to this blog. Who are you? What is the provenance of that letter? In other words, how did this letter ostensibly addressed to Mr. Maldonado, happen to come to you? Why isn’t this letter posted on the candidate’s U.S. Senate primary web site? I looked at the letter which you linked in a comment to my web site. Seems you created both that page and your new name just for this purpose. Immediately visible were ‘cosmetic’ concerns. What happened to the state seal (and the address in the footer and several words clearly missing from the margins)? Where is the designation this was a Registered Letter? Even with these telltale warning signs as to the authenticity of any letter you provided, nevertheless, I read the letter. Again, more questions. The election official in your letter says, ‘We could have accepted voting records to verify the 9-year citizenship required to be a U.S. Senator but you only registered to vote in 2008. Now, we need further evidence you have been a citizen for 9 (nine) years.’ This would indicate to me, the question was never whether Mr. Maldonado was a citizen but rather, was he a citizen for 9 (nine) years. It appears from the clear language of this letter; he could have established this 9-year citizenship with his voter registration alone.

    jdirt, given that you are shilling for citizens’ votes for Mr. Maldonado so that he can become a U.S. Senator – did the candidate authorize your efforts on his behalf? – both you and he will have to provide better evidence of his veracity than this, before I will concede, he is exactly who he says he is, let alone subject readers of this blog to such obvious subterfuge. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I liked your electron cloud analogy, it reminded me of a conversation I had with a person who handles cash all day. The subject was counterfeit twenties that were being passed around town (I assuming the counterfeiters target towns) so they were re-trained on the latest ways of identifying real from bogus twenties-so I asked well what is the difference and she showed me, hold it up to the light, they had some kind of pen, and various etc. We all need to be as well trained as clerks to spot real from counterfeit, in each state. One thing I think that is a very important issue is the issue of trust. Once you have lost trust in a person, place or thing it is broken forever. Trust may be a nebulous concept but it is so important, it is just such an important tie that binds, only hard work can fix it. Some are not worthy of trust as we have all found out the hard way, but those who are worthy should be valued for the courageous way they continue to live their lives.

    Michelle: Ha; you made me laugh by the use of the word “nebulous” (in the same comment as discussing “electron cloud”) and I would bet you did this inadvertently! As for ‘trust,’ well, see the just-posted exchange with “jdirt.” ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Bill Cutting says:

    jbjd
    Phil @ RSOL has posted a copy of the letter in question. Interesting if legit.

    Bill Cutting: Poor baby, is it so hot outside, you are not seeing straight? Read the update to this article. There is no letter from the MO SoS. I keep donating my time and energy trying to keep it ‘real’ and people with no respect for you, or fellow voters, keeps muddying the waters! GEESH!

    Please, pass around the link to this article! I am weary of trying to change the world all by myself! ADMINISTRATOR

    • Bill Cutting says:

      Yeah Poor me, I didn’t see your update.

      Bill Cutting: Thanks for getting back to me. FYI, I got a hit from a site with which I was unfamiliar and so, I clicked on the link. From just a brief look, I gathered the site was anti-Birther, because the owner was making fun of Birthers who believed Mr. Maldonado, ‘sight unseen.’ However, my article was also mentioned. Only, the owner conceded, at least I did not swallow all of the inconsistencies. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Bill Cutting says:

        Thanks for looking into this.
        We might have another SC(D) Greene situation here. I have seen this scam in local elections many times.

        There are many (R) candidates in this one, we will see who is legitimate.

        Let the games begin….

        Bill Cutting: I don’t know. I must say, though, I was disheartened to see that 2 years after the D’s stole the election, so many people still fall for these shenanigans. To BO and David Axelrod et al., pulling this off must have felt like shooting ducks in a barrel. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Miri says:

    jbjd: Despite that it is very disappointing that there’s apparently no “there” there with regard to Maldonado’s claims (pending proof), I applaud you for asking the hard questions about Maldonado. In this new reality, we can take nothing at face value. It’s possible there are plants in any party, even the Tea Party (if there is such a thing).

    Believe nothing without proof; verify!

    As for people attacking you personally, that’s because they can’t argue with your solid, logical arguments. So they deflect and obfuscate, or blame the messenger.

    Bottom line, since it’s hard for me to sift electrons from this nebulous cloud: Is there a requirement in MO law for the SoS to ask for and retain for public view EVIDENCE that a person meets eligibility for any specific elected office?

    Since Maldonado is, apparently, a naturalized citizen, it’s to Carnahan’s credit that she examined his qualifications for the office, especially with regard to length of citizenship. However, if she didn’t do this for EVERY candidate, that’s a problem.

    If there’s no evidence on file in MO, available for public view, that she asked Obama to prove his eligibility for office AND if there IS evidence on file that she asked others for such proof, has she politicized her position as SoS?

    If so, what steps can the citizens of MO take to right this wrong or, at least, learn the truth about how this all goes down?

    Miri: Here’s the thing. When an act is discretionary, that is, when there is no requirement it be performed, under clearly delineated circumstances then, it’s difficult to go back and examine all of the reasons it was performed. I don’t have all of the facts here; but start out by acknowledging, having an unknown candidate apply for a spot on the ballot to become the nominee for U.S. Senator from the major political party; versus having a U.S. Senator apply for a spot on the ballot to be awarded pledged delegates who will vote at a Convention to determine whether s/he will become the nominee for POTUS whose name will be on the ballot as the front for the Presidential Electors voters will choose from the major political party; are two completely different scenarios.

    In the case of Mr. Maldonado, it appears likely to me that he registered for the ballot through the mail. (Recall, I presented evidence that he was on active military duty at the time he registered; and that active military are exempt from the in-person registration requirement.) Plus, it would appear, MO election officials did try to establish he had some pedigree by accessing his voter registration. Perhaps seeing he only registered to vote in 2008 triggered concerns as to whether he is who he says he is.

    Besides, all things being equal, maybe in 2007, when BO would have registered for the Presidential preference primary; election officials were less concerned as to whether prospective candidates were qualified for the ballot. A lot has happened since that time. So, acting on the side of caution now, it would make sense to ask for evidence of eligibility. And this points to something I said previously about efforts to write laws to demand eligibility vetting.

    I said, if states already have laws saying, candidates whose names are printed on the ballot must be qualified for the job then, we don’t need new laws to require vetting; we just need election officials to write new rules regarding how their offices will ensure the candidates are eligible. To set this in motion, voters needs to contact these state officials (members of the executive branch) both directly and through their legislative officials. (Of course, states without such laws need to enact them!) ADMINISTRATOR

  17. bob says:

    jbjd: Perhaps you can answer this question for me: Assuming Carnahan did ask Maldonado for proof of citizenship, under what provision of Missouri law could have Carnahan asked Maldonado for that proof?

    Bob: Good question. Under MO law (statutes), candidates whose names appear on the ballot must be qualified for the job. Under MO law (statutes), the SoS oversees elections; under MO law, the SoS is required to write laws (rules/regulations) to carry out statutory requirements.

    Here’s a question for you. After I began challenging the veracity of Mr. Maldonado’s claims, Ms. Carnahan insisted he prove he is a U.S. citizen; a letter from the MO SoS to Mr. Maldonado suddenly appeared saying these officials had accessed Mr. Maldonado’s voting registration records and learned he only registered to vote in 2008. Since candidates on the ballot must be eligible for the job; and a U.S. Senator requires 9-year citizenship under the Constitution; they asked him to provide proof of length of citizenship. Yet Mr. Maldonado is claiming publicly, he was asked to prove he is a U.S. citizen. Which explanation makes sense to you?

    Here’s what I think. In order to vote, a person must be a U.S. citizen; and registering to vote is done through the office of the SoS. This means, assuming Mr. Maldonado is registered to vote in MO, then Ms. Carnahan’s office already knows he is a U.S. citizen, right? But without accessing additional information, they still have no idea how long he has been a citizen.

    And perhaps none of this would have been at issue, had he registered for the ballot slot, in person, with required identification. Assuming, that is, that he did not register in person. ADMINISTRATOR

    • bob says:

      I agree that Maldonado story seems to be shifting.

      I take it from your answer that you are not aware of any law, regulation, or rule that would require Carnahan’s office to verify Maldonado’s eligibility.

      bob: Your statement is only technically correct; but it is nonetheless misleading. 1) The Maldonado story is shifting but, who or what is responsible for that shift? The only discernible ‘shift’ or, (material) inconsistency of purported fact I detected directly from the candidate, is his claim in June the SoS sent him a “Registered” letter contrasted with his claim in July, this was “Certified.” As for the bumbling attempt to introduce the image of a letter to bolster the man’s credibility, well, with no evidence this image is real; or that the release of this image was in any way authorized by the candidate; I would hate to see his already suspect credibility further tainted by acts outside of his control.

      As for what policies/procedures/customs, written or otherwise, exist within the office of SoS Carnahan regarding the oversight of state elections; well, I have no idea. This in no way means, such recipes for ‘the way things work’ do not exist. People in MO (or any other state) who want to know how their government works, just have to ask. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. Miri says:

    jbjd: People who are registered to vote are supposed to be citizens, but with the Motor Voter laws, there are instances of people who registered to vote and who did vote, yet who are not citizens. I’m not sure that just because a person is registered to vote, a SoS knows that the person is a citizen. It depends upon the individual process for how that state verifies people who registered at drivers’ license offices. This is as lax as the non-system for verifying names on the ballots.

    Miri: Yes; and know what? I registered to vote by mail, and received a confirmation saying, I would be asked for identification at the polls. Well, not only wasn’t I asked for identification but also I was handed 2 (two) ballots! Of course, I handed one back. (I would bet we all know people who would not have!)

    The reason I speculated at all about any relationship between voting and citizenship verification; is that the image provided by an anonymous donor (who claimed in subsequent emails to me, he was in touch with the candidate, who was too busy to post a letter on his web site) indicated, the SoS usually verifies eligibility through voter registration. The letter specifically says, since the registration only occurred in 2008, this failed to establish the 9 (nine) year citizenship required by law. Thus, whatever documentation provided, needed to establish length of citizenship. (Or else, maybe considering the combined circumstances that Mr. M., an unknown, didn’t register for the primary ballot in person AND hasn’t been registered to vote for 9 years, raised sufficient doubts that election officials are now exercising their discretion just to make sure he is even a U.S. citizen!)

    Who knows? Who cares. The only question that counts is this: On what documentary basis did Nancy Pelosi ascertain Barack Obama is Constitutionally qualified for President before swearing he was, to state election officials in applicable states, to get them to print his name on the ballot? ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. While I was trying to find out who submitted the Certification of BO’s Nomination in MO; I found a state law saying other nominees on the ballot can challenge a primary candidate on the basis, s/he fails to meet Constitutional qualifications for the job, as required to get on the ballot! Thank you!

  19. Bill Cutting says:

    I wonder this applies to federal offices as well?

    “When a party’s lone August primary candidate is removed, party officials are authorized by state law to choose a candidate to run to ensure that someone will represent it on the November general election ballot.
    There appears to be nothing in the law barring Democratic officials in the House district in question from selecting Boedeker to replace herself, said Betsy Byers, an official with the Ethics Commission. The officials who would make that selection would be county Democratic committeemen and committeewomen in the district.”

    http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2010/04/st-louis-area-candidates-knocked-off-august-primary-ballot/

    Bill Cutting: Funny you should send this article at this time! I just told Miri, I had been looking at MO statutes. There is a section of election laws – and most state laws I have seen are set up similarly – that qualifies, laws related to primary elections apply to general elections; or laws related to state elections apply to federal elections (except where noted) or some such language. Anyway, having just visited there, I can tell you, SoS Carnahan has a well organized site. So, check out the SoS site, and click on the heading Election Laws. (Thanks for sending the link!) ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Are you by any chance from MO? I need someone from that state to contact me so that we can acquire the addition information I need to draft a citizen complaint of election fraud to the state AG.

  20. Bill Cutting says:

    Thanks, I was just there. Interesting scenario.

    I would think they could still refuse to print the candidate on the ballot. I am sure this would go to court immediately.

    Citizens of Missouri need to be ready this time around.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C100-199/1150000363.HTM

    Bill Cutting: Voters in all states learn from accessing the information provided through these back-and-forth’s regarding elections in MO. Thanks for including the link to the .gov site.

    As for ‘going to court immediately,’ I think you are using this in the context of a candidate (or party represented by that candidate) challenging the state’s refusal to print on the ballot the name of the ‘substitute’ candidate for the primary. But when I mentioned earlier to Mimi that MO law allows a fellow candidate to challenge a name on the ballot; I left out that the law said, such challenge would be heard expeditiously by the court! ADMINISTRATOR

  21. Miri says:

    I’ll add a little fyi here: The well-organized website at the MO Sec. of State’s office was actually developed under the previous Sec. of State, later governor of MO: Republican Matt Blunt.

    I’ve been searching genealogy records on the MO SoS’s website for years, since the MO archives were put online there, long before Carnahan took office as SoS. When Blunt was SoS, that exact design for the website was in existence.

    That website, interestingly enough, contains downloadable death certificates. If only Hawaii had the same open records system. The site is a boon to genealogy researchers. Matt Blunt started that program, which genealogists remember very clearly because it allowed everyone to fill in family trees for people from MO, without having to pay for and ask for the information via snail mail. Or actually go to MO to look in their archives.

    The website of course has been added to and tweaked since Carnahan took office, but she basically placed her face on the front page on the day she took office, even before she was sworn in.

    It’s a pet peeve of mine that some of her supporters, who frequent genealogy mailing lists, immediately tried to give her credit amongst genealogy researchers for the wonderful digitation project and for the ability to search the many indices on that site.

    I didn’t then and still don’t appreciate them mixing politics with genealogy, but politics has infiltrated nearly EVERY aspect of our lives these days. Have you seen Law and Order, recently?

    Anyway, I’ve had to correct these political operatives on mailing lists, for the sake of accuracy and fairness. Not that it really matters in the long run so far as genealogy goes, but it bugs me that her supporters try to give her credit for something that I know she didn’t do. (I noticed one new item: a video of Robin Carnahan, touting “the importance of researching your own family’s piece of Missouri history.”)

    The staff continues to digitize more years of records, because it takes a long time to digitize archives, but MOST of what’s there was done before she became SoS, including putting the SoS office onto the Web. I can’t say exactly who first made a MO SoS website, but I know it wasn’t Carnahan and I know that the website, under her, appears and operates nearly exactly as it did before she took office in 2004.

    Her supporters try to drum up votes anywhere possible, even if they, shall we say, prevaricate or exaggerate. (btw, I’m an independent; I’m not a Republican. It simply bugs me when people lie for political gain, especially on a genealogy forum.)

    I don’t know how to go about looking for proof in the form of a link. I tried, but can’t find a newspaper announcement of the website project. I’m simply giving first hand testimony to the truth.

    I mentioned it only because you gave her a plug about the wonderfulness of that website. If you look at the timeframes, it becomes obvious that government websites showed up before Carnahan ran for SoS in 2004.

    Internet access to SoS information was part of Matt Blunt’s campaign, when he ran in 2000:
    http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=KC&p_theme=kc&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF48CE2BAC5FE4&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

    The above link takes you to a paragraph from what looks like an editorial:
    “Blunt for secretary of state
    Matt Blunt is a talented, qualified state representative who hopes to follow in his father’s footsteps as Missouri secretary of state. Missouri voters should give him that chance on Nov. 7.

    Blunt of Fair Grove in southwest Missouri has positive ideas for improving the office of secretary of state. We particularly hope that, if elected, he follows through with his ideas for reforming the access of citizens through the Internet to documents and information in the secretary of…

    Published on 2000-10-25, Page B6, Kansas City Star, The (MO)”

    There’s little use for me to sign up for an account to see the entire article, because the link wouldn’t work for anybody else who doesn’t sign up to see it, too.

    This link talks about how some records were added to the Archives page on the website when Blunt was Sos:
    http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/instrtech/newsletters/february04.html

    This link goes to a pdf talking about Blunt and why developing this website was so important to him (he’s an amateur historian):

    http://www.sos.mo.gov/BlueBook/2001-2002/0072-0083.pdf

    Miri: Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to assemble this information clearly supporting your claim that Mr. Blunt is responsible for creating the web site for the MO SoS which I mentioned I found so easily navigable. Glad I could give Mr. Blunt credit for accomplishing this clarity which credit might otherwise have accrued to Ms. Carnahan. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Wait until citizens of Texas find out that had AG Greg Abbott done his job in the first place re: Boyd Richie the citizens of Texas would not be having the problems that they are having now-murders, rapes, shootings,violence etc. This video is about Greg Abbott trying to get the Federal Gov’t to do their jobs-still ironic after all these years.

    As bodies pile up, Texas AG joins Arizona against federal immigration lawsuit

    Michelle: Thank you for supplying this video. Pardon me for using this analogy, given the BP mess but, AG Abbott should have fixed the leak (citizens’ complaints of election fraud) before it became a gusher (Obamacare, BP, (undocumented) immigration…). ADMINISTRATOR

  23. azgo says:

    Hi jbjd,

    Did you see this interview in today’s postemail?

    “It all happened rather quickly. The first letter was dated April 28. Then after I made the joke, a lot of people called me and said, “Hey, people are calling you a liar, and there’s this blogger in Texas who said, “I’m an in-your-face kinda gal.”

    (link omitted by jbjd)

    azgo: Geesh, haven’t people learned anything about the political process since the 2008 election cycle? They are so quick to be taken in by the same ‘traps.’

    I read the piece you sent. How many ‘interviews’ is it going to take to get out the whole story about Hector Maldonado?

    Let me say up front, we cannot call ourselves competent stewards of our Constitutional Republic unless we stop taking every discretionary act performed by a public official which on its face appears not to be identical; as prima facie evidence of discrimination, just because such a warped viewpoint jives with some preconceived notion of victimization!

    As I suggested in both this article and in responses to readers’ comments, too many facts are missing from this narrative on Mr. Maldonado to reach any conclusions. That is, even if SoS Carnahan required different evidence of eligibility for MO’s ballot from Messrs Maldonado and Obama; this in no way indicates she acted disparately, let alone that she discriminated against anyone.

    First of all, when Barack Obama registered for the D Presidential preference primary in 2007, he was a sitting U.S. Senator. Before that, he was a state Senator. Thus, an election official could rightly assume, somewhere else along the line, some other election officials had vetted his Constitutional eligibility for that office. Mr. Maldonado was a complete unknown. (This reminds me of the situation in CA, when SoS Bowen removed Mr. Caldero from the Presidential preference primary ballot because he was born in Nicaragua. People went crazy insisting this act means she is required to vet Mr. Obama, too. ‘MANDAMUS! MANDAMUS! MANDAMUS! Give me money to go to court!’ But as I pointed out so many times, just because an election official has no lawful mandate to vet candidates for eligibility for office does not mean, s/he lacks the discretion to remove from the ballot the candidate s/he knows is ineligible for the job.

    Why didn’t Ms. Rondeau ask Mr. Maldonado the question running through my prior comments here:

    DID YOU REGISTER FOR THE R US SENATE PRIMARY IN PERSON? If he did not then, one could understand why the SoS would require some form of identification. If he did then, WHAT IDENTIFICATION FROM THE LIST OF APPROVED IDENTIFICATION DID YOU DISPLAY AT THAT TIME?

    Months after he registered for the primary, the SoS asked Mr. Maldonado to produce identification verifying he had been a citizen for the Constitutionally required 9 (nine) years. I suggested previously, this would indicate to me, citizenship was never the issue but rather length of citizenship. Ms. Rondeau’s interview with Mr. Maldonado would appear to prove me right. That is, the candidate ridicules the statement by the SoS that they would have used voter registration to confirm eligibility except for the fact he only registered to vote in MO in 2008; by pointing out, voter registration is a poor indicator of whether one is a citizen. Perhaps; but it would be a pretty good indicator, assuming one is a citizen, that s/he had enjoyed this status for the requisite length of time.

    Mr. Maldonado admits, he ignored a request from the SoS to produce identification. Why is this conduct from a public official wannabe acceptable to so many people who believe Mr. Obama is not a NBC? If ignoring official requirements for the ballot is acceptable from Mr. Maldonado, a R; then it is acceptable conduct from Mr. Obama, a D. The fact Mr. Maldonado laughs at this transgression makes his conduct all the more inappropriate.

    I also resent Mr. Maldonado’s reliance on his military service to justify that he only registered to vote in MO in 2008 and so could not establish a 9-year citizenship based only on this voter registration. ‘I moved around a lot.’ Well then, produce another voter registration that occurred before 2002. And stop treating the vetting process with such contempt.

    Finally, let me say, I have never received so many threats in response to any story I posted, or any comments I have made throughout the blogosphere, as I have to my story on Mr. Maldonado’s candidacy in MO. And these threats come from people claiming to be in touch with the candidate. How can these anonymous harassers think this makes their man appear more desirable to grace the halls of the U.S. Senate? ADMINISTRATOR

  24. azgo says:

    A little tidbit on Robin Carnahan;

    “Last year, the Missouri GOP obtained more than 1,400 pages of email correspondence between Robin Carnahan’s office and ACORN—emails detailing what ACORN called “a great team effort.” Now it obvious that there is a revolving door between Carnahan’s office, her campaign, and the ACORN-linked special interest groups trying to get her elected to the U.S. Senate.”

    http://www.acorncarnahan.com/

    azgo: Ah, so she has ACORN; and Mr. Maldonado has music producer Gary S. Paxton who helped to make the CD sold at the candidate’s “concerts” – he says so in his P&E interview – and Jonathan Cousar and FreedomTorch and whoever set up the radio interview in Branson… ADMINISTRATOR

  25. Miri says:

    jbjd said, “. . . even if SoS Carnahan required different evidence of eligibility for MO’s ballot from messrs Maldonado and Obama; this in no way indicates she acted disparately, let alone that she discriminated against anyone.”

    True, but there would be no way anyone could even consider accusing her, if she merely required all candidates for office to submit the same documents to prove eligibility. Seems to me that any business person could advise the MO SoS how to avoid even the appearance of bias.

    Miri: Yes, theoretically, treating everyone the same might resolve some problems. But not everyone is similarly situated. And besides, we still have insufficient information to know whether she did require the same documents of all candidates!

    Let’s say, in 2007, all candidates who wanted to register for the Presidential preference primary ballot of a major political party showed up in person and flashed a driver’s license. Check. Filing fee? Check. Notice from party? Check. Okay, registration complete.

    Now, let’s say in 2010 all people who want to register for the mid-term primary – see, already we are changing conditions but, let’s ignore that for this analysis – show up in person, and all are subjected to the same ‘screening’ criteria applied in 2007. So far, so good.

    But what if a primary candidate registered through the mail? Then what? We know that Mr. Maldonado was on active duty in the military at the same time he registered to appear on MO’s primary ballot. And we know that active duty military need not register in person to appear on the ballot. This difference cannot be ignored.

    So, in conducting an analysis as to whether Mr. Maldonado was treated disparately, are we comparing/contrasting to 1) candidates who registered in another year; or 2) candidates who registered for the Presidential preference primary versus the mid-term; or 3) candidates in office in their respective states at the time of registration (think full faith and credit) versus unknowns; or…

    Too many variables to compare and contrast so as to reach an informed conclusion as to whether Ms. Carnahan’s present conduct in respect to Mr. Maldonado can be said to evidence disparate treatment. For these same reasons, I would imagine no court in the country would find Ms. Carnahan’s conduct somehow deprived Mr. Maldonado of any equal protection or due process rights.

    Oh, and another reason the SoS might be more attentive to eligibility issues in 2010 than she might have been in 2007; is that questions have been raised about the ease with which even ineligible candidates can get their names printed on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. jbjd says:

    People, please, stop sending me more self-validating videos from Mr. Maldonado. Instead, read my article again, as well as the comments, because you are missing the point. Geesh, even in his subterfuge, the candidate admits, state laws regarding ballot registration are different for U.S. Senate versus nominee of the major political party. (I already suggested this could be the case!)

    Let me try this riddle.

    Who am I?
    I had never held public office and was a complete unknown before I decided to become a U.S. Senator.
    In my state, the law says only the names of candidates who are qualified for office may be printed on the ballot.
    The SoS routinely checks eligibility to be U.S. Senator by requiring evidence of eligibility at in-person registration.
    I could have registered with the SoS in person to have my name printed on the primary ballot, establishing my identity with a driver’s license, birth certificate, voter registration, or other picture identification spelled out in the law.
    I could register through the mail coincidentally avoiding the in-person identity validation.
    I registered through the mail to have my name printed on the ballot.
    The SoS, attempting to verify qualifications of candidates who registered via mail, sent me a letter asking for eligibility verification since her check of voter registration had not provided such proof of qualification, specifically, that I had been a U.S. citizen for 9 (nine) years.
    I ignored the SoS’s letter.
    The Sos, attempting to verify qualifications of candidates who registered via mail, sent me a second letter asking for eligibility verification since her check of voter registration had not provided such proof of qualification, specifically, that I had been a U.S. citizen for 9 (nine) years.
    I showed up in person months after my ballot registration; with the required documentation.
    The SoS also wants to become the U.S. Senator.
    Some time after providing the requested documentation of eligibility spelled out in law and by two letters of request from the SoS, I realized I could attract attention to my failing candidacy by accusing the SoS of discrimination.
    I began accusing the SoS of discrimination.
    Who am I?

  27. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    Florida also has a citizen complaint statute for a short period after an election. Do you have a template for that?

    Mick: I am not sure what you are talking about (without the legal citation). But we have already examined FL law; and nothing says, the candidate whose name appears on the ballot must be qualified for office. See, it is this requirement of eligibility that makes a criminal fraud where a false swearing is made as to eligibility just to get election officials to print the name of the candidate on the ballot. (A false swearing is the same as swearing to a ‘fact’ without ascertaining beforehand whether this is true.) Thus, all of the states for which I drafted citizen complaints of election fraud had these candidate ballot eligibility laws. And in each of those states, a D Certified BO was qualified to be printed on the ballot, notwithstanding we know, no documentary evidence exists in the public record that would confirm he is a NBC. Do you understand? ADMINISTRATOR

  28. Mick says:

    Yes there is. Fl. State statute 99.021(2) is the “Candidate Oath”, where the SOS SHALL get an oath from ALL FEDERAL CANDIDATES. This oath has been superceded by the Presidential Primary Selection Committe in which only a member of the candidate’s own party canchallenge the appearance of the candidate on the ballott. There has been no law that says that this committe should not administer the oath, and the SOS is actually on the Committee. NO LAW says that FL. State Statute 103 (PPSC)takes the place of the Candidate’s OATH (99.021(2)).

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0099/SEC021.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0099->Section%20021#0099.021

    Presidential Primary Selection Committee (Fl. St SS 103.101)

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0103/SEC101.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0103->Section%20101#0103.101

    There is also a Statute that says that any TAXPAYER can challenge an election within a period of 10 days time after the election has been officially certified.
    (Fl. St SS. 102.168)

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=102.168&URL=CH0102/Sec168.HTM

    Mick: Several states require the candidate for federal office to take an oath as to eligibility for office. This requirement is separate and distinct from a law that requires any candidate whose name appears on the ballot must be qualified for the job. Here are some differences in avenues for redress if a citizen supposes the candidate is not actually qualified.

    You can file a challenge to the election official charging, the candidate lied when he said he is qualified for office. However, in any of these laws I have examined, consistent with laws regarding charging fraud, the burden of proof and production is on the person charging. In other words, you cannot just say the candidate is not eligible without offering specific evidence to support your allegation. BO swore in writing to election officials in NH and AZ he was eligible to be President in order to participate in the Presidential preference primary. Presumably, he knows whether he is telling the truth. Assuming the laws in these states allow for challenges; what evidence could someone possess that would establish, BO lied? (In other words, how do you know what information is inside of his head?)

    Now, some states have laws that say, the candidate must be qualified for office to appear on the ballot. And that to appear on the ballot, the name of the Presidential nominee of the major political party will be submitted to election officials (within so many days of the nominating convention). In this case, the party is swearing the candidate is qualified for the office so as to appear on the ballot. (In some states, like HI and SC, the party must explicitly Certify this qualification.) I have assembled overwhelming circumstantial evidence that indicates, in any of these states that require eligibility to appear on the ballot, these ‘certifiers’ lied. And they cannot just know ‘in their heads’ the candidate is qualified to circumvent this law.

    Likewise, a statute that requires the SoS to get an oath from someone other than the candidate, that the candidate is qualified can be the basis for a charge that the person acting on behalf of the candidate, lied. The evidential burden is still the same; but I believe the evidence I have assembled satisfies that burden. Do you have evidence that before the primary, such oath was taken/given?

    A law that allows citizens to challenge the results of the election is different from a law allowing a challenge to names on the ballot, which differences are spelled out in law and in cases argued under that law. (Gore challenged results in FL in 2000. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html ADMINISTRATOR

    • Mick says:

      jbjd thanks for your reply, but this oath is in writing and requires “federal candidates”, and SHAKLL take this oath. Now usually if there are exceptions to a statute, like except for federal judge candidates, etc. that is stated, and you would be led to the statute that applies to that candidate. There is no exceptiion made. It says ALL FEDERAL CANDIDATES SHALL take the oath. I have spoken to attorneys for the SOS that say the process of Statute 103.101 itself serves as precedent that POTUS candidates don’t take that oath. I say BS. I had first made a FOIA request for these oaths, and they stated that they did not exist.
      As for the taxpayer contesting of an election (Fl. St. SS. 102.168) it specifically lists INELIGIBILITY of CANDIDATE as one of the reasons that a taxpayer can contest. It would be great if you could draft a template suit for that occasion, as i plan on taking advantage of it.

      Mick: Sorry; I am confused as to 1) what action you think you can initiate 2) to contest what result. If BO took an oath, as I explained before, there is no use contesting this. No evidence exists in the public record to establish, he lied. (Of course, no evidence exists in the public record to establish, he told the truth, either. But the burden is on you to show he lied, and not on him to show, he told the truth.)

      Okay, now that I looked at the statute you cite, yes, ineligibility of the candidate is grounds for challenge BUT ONLY IN COURT! (Even in states like GA with laws that allow ballot challenges to the SoS; if s/he fails to pursue such challenge or decides against the Petitioner, that person may file a complaint in court.) I am only discussing challenges allowed to the election officials regarding the integrity of the ballot! Besides, in court, your burden would be even higher to avoid dismissal! In other words, you could not avoid Dismissal where you are unable to produce documentary evidence BO is Constitutionally unqualified for the job.

      It would seem that you are saying, according to FL law, candidates must take an oath; and yet when you ask for evidence of such oath under FL public records laws, FL officials are saying, no records exist because no oath was taken. Your best bet would be to complain to the AG, the SoS claims no public records exist of an act that is required by law. Let the AG get a statement from the SoS, ‘We routinely fail to require such oath.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  29. Mick says:

    They have already said that they routinely do not administer the oath. I really don’t understand your response. If I were to challenge his eligibility, I would cite many sources for the definition that a Natural born citizen is born in the US of US Citizen parents. He would have to prove that that is not the correct definition, then would have to prove that he even complies with the definition he would present, i.e born in HI. equals Natural born.

    Mick: You can disagree with me all you want but disagreeing won’t change the law. These definitions have never been ‘codified’ through the courts. As for state officials failing to carry out their ministerial duties; you can always file an action in Mandamus to compel such compliance next time, in advance of registration for the Presidential preference primary. ADMINISTRATOR

  30. jbjd, I just came across this post of yours! Wow! You make it all sound so conspiratorial! Here’s the deal. Hector and I have been talking through Facebook since early in the year. It took me awhile, but I came to appreciate his stands on the issues and his genuine love for America and the principals upon which it was founded.

    Then we met in Washington where we both showed up during the week of the health care vote. What a true Patriot he was. Because from what I can tell, he’s going through considerable personal financial sacrifice to run in this race and going to Washington was probably about the last thing he needed. But he went for the same reason I did… he loves his country more than himself. And he knew, like all conservatives knew that if this bill passed it would be the end of America as we’ve known it.

    Anyway, to suggest that something nefarious was going on when I interviewed him for the FreedomTorch podcast is really stretching matters. First, to suggest he was using this situation with Robin Carnahan as a publicity device, I think you can discount that just by listening to the podcast. You may notice the great majority of the podcast was spent on other issues. I opened with this issue because I knew so many of my listeners would be interested in it. But we quickly moved onto other things.

    And in hindsight, I realized I didn’t even do a good job interviewing him on the issue of the birth certificate because I never got around to the big questions. So I didn’t even make that segment as interesting as it could have been.

    I know at the time there didn’t seem to be any awareness at all on my part or Hector’s part that this would turn into a bigger issue. I think we both just thought it was supremely unfair that he was asked to prove his citizenship but other candidates for other offices apparently haven’t been asked to prove theirs. Can a secretary of state selectively enforce the law… making it harder on her political opponents and easier on political friends? Is that really right?

    Oh and as far as money… PLEASE! I have NEVER asked for money for my organization, FreedomTorch using Hector as the cause. We’re a 527 political organization and we are allowed to raise money from donors and to spend that money supporting specific candidates. However, we can’t participate in Hector’s campaign because the law (anti-Constitutional law if you ask me) prohibits 527s from having any contact with the candidates they support with their donated dollars.

    So we are supporting Patricia Lightner in the third congressional district in Kansas. You can see this by visiting our home page (FreedomTorch.com.) where we are highlighting Ms. Lightner and we are indeed taking donations that will be used to run ads to support her candidacy in Kansas’ Republican primary next week.

    You’ve done some pretty good investigative work here in terms of uncovering the intricacies of Missouri law when it comes to candidates and their birth certificates. I was educated by that and appreciated what you found. But you really slipped up when you apparently accused me of using Hector to raise money for FreedomTorch. I mean just listening to the podcast you could hear that specifically asked people to go to HIS website and make a contribution. He needs help badly. And he’s really too much of a gentleman to ask for it as much as he should! So I thought I’d help him out in that case and do the asking for him.

    Jonathan Cousar: I can only imagine what motivated you to charge I printed inaccurate statements when the very statements which you cite to support these charges expose that your claims are not true.

    Here, you admonish, “[y]ou really slipped up when you apparently accused me of using Hector to raise money for FreedomTorch. I mean just listening to the podcast you could hear that specifically asked people to go to HIS website and make a contribution.” I “apparently” accused you? On what basis could you possibly make this veiled accusation? On the contrary, I wrote that at the end of the interview, you requested funds for his campaign (website). Thus, my statement is consistent with what you now charge I should have said! Well, that is what I said! For your benefit, I have repeated the narrative I published, highlighting in bold the material statement.

    Well, back on June 11, 2010 the candidate did a telephone interview with Jonathan Cousar from freedomtorch.com. A Google search obtained this definition of the site: politics, conservative, republican, libertarian, reagan, christian, faith, freedom, ann coulter, michelle malkin, gingrinch, sarah palin, rush limbaugh.” During the show, both men admitted their close personal ties didn’t start there. No; as they tell listeners, they traveled together to Washington to protest against ‘Obamacare.’ (Maybe their pre-existing non-professional relationship explains why the interviewer did not ask Mr. Maldonado to provide evidence of his claims of harassment by SoS Carnahan, either.) The show ends with a plea for cash to be sent to Mr. Maldonado’s campaign web site.

    In addition, I invited readers to confirm my report of your interview with the candidate by listening to that interview, a link to which I also posted for the convenience of my readers.

    So, you see, in my article, I not only report verifiable ‘facts’ but also invite readers to verify these facts for themselves. And, notwithstanding your objections to the accuracy of my article, one can only conclude based on these same objections, apparently, you actually agree that the statements in the article are, in fact, true. Which leads me to ask, again, what motivated you to allege, they are not? ADMINISTRATOR

  31. Ah, yes you did! Thanks for pointing that out. However, you followed that paragraph with this paragraph:

    “Indeed, dozens of web sites began begging for money with a tie-in to Mr. Maldonado’s passion play out of Missouri. And I have no doubt that, notwithstanding I have been spelling out for you on this blog for 2 (two) years now the massive fraud Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Bauer, Axelrod, Gibbs, and other players in the DNC Services Corporation pulled off in the 2008 election; many of you were still suckered by these latest ‘save America’ pleas. (In contrast, PayPal contributions over the past month to “jbjd” totaled $100.)

    Thus, as in most big cons, the moral of this story is, ‘follow the money.’”

    I don’t know… I think there could have been some confusing on who exactly was getting accused of what. You were just talking about me and my website in the paragraph above and then followed it up with a general accusation that people who run websites were using this as a plea for cash. I just wanted to make clear that FreedomTorch was in no way doing that.

    Although I don’t have a problem with a website that does – IF they’re set up as a 527 political organization and plan to use the cash to vote people out of office who support the current occupant of the White House. I think that’s certainly a legitimate reason to “use” this story to raise donations – if they’re going to be spent for that purpose.

    Jonathan Cousar: Yes, I did correctly point out, you hosted Mr. Maldonado on your show and then asked people to send him money. I also pointed out that you asked people to send him money after he charged the SoS had discriminated against him by asking him to verify his eligibility for the MO ballot and, apparently, not asking BO, notwithstanding MO law provides different methods to obtain a spot on the ballot depending on whether the candidate is entering the Presidential preference primary or the U.S. Senate primary; no evidence exists to indicate Mr. Maldonado registered IN PERSON to appear on MO’s ballot; and the candidates admits he ignored the SoS’s initial request to submit documentation that would establish he is even the same person who ‘sent in’ the ballot registration!

    The point I was making is this. All Mr. Maldonado had to do to rake in the campaign contributions was to disingenuously suggest the SoS had given BO a free ride with regard to ballot registration. And neither you nor anyone else promoting his candidacy ‘called’ him on that. ADMINISTRATOR

  32. jbjd says:

    Readers, I want to let you know, having determined that MO requires candidates for office to be eligible for the job to appear on the ballot and therefore is an applicable state for a citizen complaint of election fraud in the 2008 general election; my offer to post a citizen complaint of election fraud to AG Koster in Missouri has gone unclaimed. I still need a citizen from MO to contact me in order to arrange to obtain the documentation from SoS Carnahan necessary to fashion a complaint fact-specific to the circumstances in MO.

    (I find quite revealing the fact that Mr. Maldonado hints at taking action against SoS Carnahan for conduct I find completely consistent with the law and the facts on the record; but he will not put his name on a citizen complaint to the AG based on a Certification from someone in the D party, to election officials that Barack Obama is Constitutionally qualified for POTUS to get these officials to print his name on the 2008 ballot.)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: