© 2010 jbjd

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” 5 USC §3331

Watch and listen carefully while John Dingell (D-MI), the Dean of the House administers this legally mandated Oath of Office on January 6, 2009, the opening day of the 1st session of the 111th Congress; to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, just re-elected by her peers to be Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, marking the second year in a row she was 3rd in line of Presidential succession.  (The only votes she got came from fellow Democrats.)

“…without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion…”

Following, Speaker Pelosi administers the Oath to the other 433* members of the House.

*The seat of Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), set to become the Chief of Staff of the incoming President, Barack Obama, was vacant.  Id.

Now, watch the Oath in action on November 6, 2007, when Dennis Kucinich, (D-OH), taking to heart the words which make up that oath, rose up on the floor of the House during the 110th Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney, charging Mr. Cheney had violated this same Oath of Office by deceptively promoting the weapons capabilities of Iraq so as to propel the U.S. into war against that sovereign nation.  (Note: As President of the Senate, Mr. Cheney  had sworn that same Oath “to bear full faith and allegiance” to the Constitution.)

On June 10, 2008 during the 2nd session of the 110th Congress, Mr. Kucinich stood up once again to introduce Articles of Impeachment, this time against President George W. Bush, charging he had deliberately lied to Congress by overstating the nuclear capability of Iran so as to propel the U.S. into war against that sovereign nation.

Little of the subterfuge which Mr. Kucinich charged both the President and Vice-President had  perpetrated on the American people (through their representatives in Congress)  was new.  And neither Resolution of Impeachment resulted in a Senate trial.  But significantly, his act gave life to the principle of governmental checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution, that document he had sworn an oath to “support and defend” “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Tragically, by Certifying votes of the Electors on January 8, 2009, two days after taking the Oath of Office; and by failing to exercise their Constitutional authority as to Impeachment since the January 20 Inauguration, Mr. Kucinich and other incumbent Representatives, along with their freshmen colleagues in the House have failed both individually and as a deliberative body to honor that Oath.  And that failure derives not just on the basis  they did not take affirmative steps to address the charges raised in the petitions submitted to them by their constituents that President (elect) Barack Obama appeared to be Constitutionally unqualified for the job; but also from the reasons they expressed to justify why taking such steps was not required.

Evidence is posted throughout the internet of the millions of correspondence and telephone calls sent to Congressional offices beginning before the November 2008 general election and continuing long after the President was sworn into office, pleading for help getting to the heart of the eligibility matter.  But whether originating with organized groups or individuals, the content was essentially the same:  Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, the requisite birth status for President under Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. And the responses from federal elected officials, which is also easily accessible, were essentially the same:  yes, he is; he posted a scanned copy of his COLB on his campaign website in June 2008 proving he was born in Hawaii. (The only claim relative to Barack Obama’s citizenship which has been posted on that site since June 2008, was that this electronic image establishes he is a native but never that he is natural born, as required under the Constitution.) (Even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, maintaining it was his idea as the Obama Campaign Communications Director to post this COLB on “Fight the Smears” in the first place; only claims it establishes his client was born in Hawaii.  PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS)  (Letters to constituents generated by both the House and Senate, with accreditation, can be seen at IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS is “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS IS un-AMERICAN, TOO)

None of these legislators has cited as a reason to guarantee to constituents s/he knew Mr. Obama was Constitutionally qualified for office; the fact that Speaker Pelosi, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention had signed the Corporations’ Official Certification of his Nomination swearing he was Constitutionally qualified for the job.  Why not?  Members of the Democratic Party had submitted this same Certification to state election officials to get them to print Mr. Obama’s name next to the “D” on the general election ballot even in those several states with laws that only allow the names on the ballot of those candidates who are qualified for the job. (See, for example, Citizens of South Carolina Complaint of Election Fraud to AG McMaster, in sidebar.)

(Members of the House are not alone in eschewing the use of the Speaker’s Certification of Mr. Obama’s Nomination as proof he is Constitutionally qualified for the office.  Even when provided with an opportunity to obtain judicial notice his client was ‘for real’ White House Counsel Bob Bauer, then Counsel to Mr. Obama’s Campaign (and the DNC Services Corporation), only asked the federal court to find Mr. Obama had ‘publicly released his “birth certificate,”‘ and not that Speaker Pelosi had sworn to state election officials he was legitimate or that her Certification alone was proof enough for those officials to print his name on the ballot.  COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE for FEDERAL COURT)

Did Representatives of the 1st session of the 111th Congress, including Speaker Pelosi, believe those words they swore when taking the Oath of Office back in January 2009, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion? Did they believe at that time an electronic image of a redacted document posted on the campaign website of a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President at the behest of the Communications Director of the candidate’s campaign, which image is only accessible with the aid of a computer screen; is tantamount to evidence that the  nominee wannabe is Constitutionally qualified for the job?  Or did they knowingly offer ‘bones’ just to fob off their desperate constituents, thus violating both the spirit and the letter of the laws that put them in office?

We might generously assume the 62 freshman legislators were so green when they took office that they didn’t know the difference between a paid political advertisement and a proffer of proof, notwithstanding 15 of them are lawyers.  But can they have reached the second half of the 2nd session of the 111th Congress and still think these two are the same?  Have they ignored ongoing correspondence from constituents documenting that members of the Democratic Party, including their Speaker, who signed these Certifications of Nomination in August 2008, have refused to identify  any documents that were the basis for their determination Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen?  Even in those several states in which the nominee for President of the major political party has to be qualified for that office before election officials are  legally authorized to print his name on the ballot?

Our Representatives told us in January 2009 according to ‘evidence’ they relied on, they believed Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified for office.  Notwithstanding we have since torn that evidence apart, they have not exercised their authority to seek more.  In other words, they still believe the record establishes, he is a natural born citizen.  Assuming, that is, they still believe in their Oath of Office.  Because they still haven’t introduced Articles of Impeachment.


I want you to understand the solemnity this particular question holds.

The first time I heard that question, I was the state’s complaining witness in a criminal trial.  That is, I was the victim of the crime.  I managed to escape my attacker; he fled moments before police arrived.  The next day, he called to threaten me into silence.  I hung up the phone and called police. Two officers arrived immediately.  They said not to worry, clumsily trying to reassure me, he would be caught any minute.  ‘We’re not the only jurisdiction looking for him.’ Even drowning in trauma, I ‘got’ what that meant.  ‘Why are police in another jurisdiction looking for him?’  The men, unable to conceal they had let the proverbial cat out of the bag, only stared sheepishly at each other. ‘TELL ME WHAT HE DID!’

He had killed someone before he attacked me.  And that wasn’t all.  At the time, he was on parole from a multiple year sentence stemming from convictions on several counts of armed robbery.

Police in my jurisdiction caught him 3 1/2 months after my attack.  Having violated the terms of his parole, he would have to serve out the 6 or 7 years remaining on those prior convictions.  But apparently anxious to avoid prosecution for the attack against me, he voluntarily gave sworn statements to both police and prosecutors, concocting a whole narrative which could exonerate him in this crime.

Prosecutors in the other jurisdiction, charging 1st degree murder, were given first dibs.  They figured, if they got a conviction on that charge, he would be sentenced to life without parole; and my case would never have to go to court.  Only, he got a hung jury. In just a few years from now, he would be back out on the streets.  I agreed to testify but, always mindful of his threats, hoped for a plea.

We went to trial 1 1/2 years after the attack.

I was sequestered until closing arguments, meaning I wasn’t allowed inside the courtroom during the trial except during my testimony.  The District Attorney provided me with status reports during intermittent breaks in the proceedings. Then, it was my turn to testify.

I had told the Victim/Witness Advocate, I hoped more women were seated on the jury, explaining I thought they would be more sympathetic.  She said more men would be better because women tend to make themselves feel safe by rationalizing, ‘She must have done something to place herself in harm, which I would never do.’  Men would know this man was capable of doing harm.  The jury was mixed.

I took the stand to recount the attack  only yards away from this man who had threatened my life if I talked.  He cleaned up quite well.  Indeed, given the fact his prior convictions and even his present place of residence were unknown to the jury, he made a good first impression.

My testimony  proceeded for some time without interruption.  Several jurors – men and women – were crying.  Finally, I was reliving the moment I managed to separate myself from my attacker.  This was surreal; I stopped talking.  Now, the DA took over.  Q:  “What happened next?”  jbjd:  “I screamed (deep breath) and I screamed (breath) and I screamed.”  Silence.  Then, like a soap opera, the Judge leaned forward, declaring in hushed tones, ‘And now, the Court will recess for lunch.’

I completed my testimony after lunch, and the Defense Attorney briefly cross-examined.  As I was about to leave the courtroom I learned, the Defendant would exercise his option to take the stand.

The DA came out after finishing his cross-examination.  The Defendant, trying to manipulate my testimony, had played it all wrong.  The DA smiled.  ‘While he was lying under oath, I realized, he must have forgotten about his earlier statements, which were in one those boxes I brought into court.  So, as I began my cross-examination, I put a box up on the table.  I took the testimony he gave today which contradicted his earlier statements, and restated his words in the form of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.  Then, after each answer,  I turned around, reached into the box, and whipped out one of the earlier statements.  ‘But I have here a sworn affidavit signed by you which contradicts what you just testified here under oath.’  “Were you lying then or are you lying now?”   That’s when I began to feel safe again, knowing no matter how charming and handsome, he had lost all credibility with the jury.  They were certain to convict and, no doubt, the judge would impose a multiple year sentence, to be served ‘on and after’ the terms of his present incarceration.

In other words, for me, this question, ‘were you lying then or are you lying now,’ has somber connotations.  Accordingly, I did not choose it casually for the title of this article; nor do I ask it lightly.  But it is the only question that can be asked of and remains unanswered by all 435 members of Congress petitioned by their constituents to inquire formally into whether Barack Obama satisfies the Constitutional qualifications of the office of President.  Including Madam Speaker, who refuses to respond to voters’ questions as to what was the documentary basis for swearing in that signed Certification of his Nomination that he is a natural born citizen.  (See Citizens of Virginia Complaint of Election Fraud to AG Cuccinelli, in sidebar.) Because even though for 2 (two) years now, these federal legislators have been telling their constituents, they believe, he has satisfied a showing he is Constitutionally qualified for office; in fact, based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence constituents have assembled even without their help; he has not.

On November 2, 2010, all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for election.  Based on the failure of all our Representatives, now incumbents, to demonstrate they appreciate the solemn public trust inherent in their positions, as evidenced by their ongoing decision to ignore constituent petitions for an inquiry into the President’s Constitutional qualifications for office; why would we want any one of them back on the job?

Each member of the House of Representatives will constructively forfeit the privilege of reelection by failing to introduce a Resolution of Impeachment before the November 2010 election.  That is the only mechanism through which we can examine Mr. Obama’s role in the criminal conspiracy of fraud that got state election officials to print on the ballot the name of the candidate who overwhelming circumstantial evidence establishes is Constitutionally unqualified for the job.  And, assuming the focused investigation and trial by the Senate validates our findings then, under the Constitution, Impeachment is the only way to remove him from office.

Several jurors began crying.


  1. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I had to look up the dictionary meaning of the word oath-just to make sure it did NOT mean a bunch of words you say in front of a camera for a photo-op.
    It is a solemn promise-sacred even-witnesses-promises-truth-I can’t tell who they are trying to mock here their fellow citizens or God Almighty himself or both. My mother always told me God is not mocked. They have to examine their consciences and do the right thing–this is not about Republican/Democrat/Independent/right/left/liberal/conservative it in the final analysis about doing the right thing. Is one or more up to the challenge, in order for a usurper to usurp he needs to be propped up, they can end this tomorrow by removing the props.
    An oath (from Anglo-Saxon ‘, also called plight”’) is either a statement of fact or a promise calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually God, as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact. …
    “So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof”
    It is beyond time for all in our government to show their sincerity by requiring the proof, no ifs ands or buts.
    Unless you are a victim yourself, I don’t think you can imagine how frightening it is to be near(physically) to your attacker-it is the hardest work you will ever do, to swallow your fear and go on.

    Michelle: Did you see all of the children surrounding the Speaker on the platform? They ‘belonged’ to the members being sworn in. I will never forget my very first thoughts on becoming a mother: “From now on, everything counts.” Whether my child sees he has a Mom who stands up for our country, counts. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. jbjd says:

    Dear Readers: Here is the update to the court saga. The jury found the Defendant “Guilty” on all counts. The judge imposed an extensive sentence, ‘on and after.’ But it wasn’t life. So, the other jurisdiction re-tried him on the murder and, this time, won a conviction. Now, he got life, without possibility of parole.

  3. Peggy Sue says:

    Strong piece, jbjd. Makes me furious just thinking about it. But your question: “were you lying then or are you lying now?” has far reaching implications.

    We seem to have entered a decade-long stretch of lawlessness in this country. On a thread [on that “other” site we both frequent] I mentioned my surprise that Judge Napolitano, a frequent guest host on Fox, a Libertarian and someone who I think is regarded as a strict Constitutionalist, has stated quite bluntly that Bush&Cheney and a number of their cohorts deserve/deserved to be indicted for a variety of criminal acts during their eight years in office.

    But, of course, they weren’t. In fact, the link I provided went without comment because the ease at which people want to forget all that is more and more evident. But in a climate where there is no accountability, no one willing to apply the brakes then the question of Barack Obama becomes more understandable. Why not cheat, why not lie, why not break a solemn oath to the country? Why not even break the law? Anything is possible because there are no reprecussions for the high and mighty. People are willing to turn a blind eye, make up ridiculous excuses, even turn on the whistleblower. If the price is right, the squeeze put on the right pressure points, the morally weak fold like a deck chairs.

    I believe the corruption is that deep and it has spread like a virus throughout our political, financial and regulatory system. Napolitano’s statements? The message goes against the popular meme, even when the messenger would otherwise be considered beyond reproach.

    Btw, your personal story is horrendous. So glad you came through it and had the courage to testify. I’m sure that wasn’t easy.

    I did pull up the info on Gibbs. What a web of deceit! And that Passport Department breach always bothered me. It never made sense, unless you suspected as I did that it was absolutely purposeful. Another piece of the puzzle.

    We are in deep, deep trouble.

    PS: Know what though? I think, there are more of ‘us’ out here than we know. That is, people of all political bents, who not only recognize the difference between right and wrong – not solely from a legal perspective; laws do not always codify justice – but who will speak up in defense of what they know to be right. But most people cannot ‘get around’ this personal baggage. Without going into detail, I was involved in a situation in which I was trying desperately to get immediate help for a child wrongly placed in state custody where he was being abused and neglected. (I know, common story.) Everywhere I went for help, the conversation seemed to turn to me, for example, ‘Maybe no one will help you because you are too pushy.’ Know what I ended up doing? I conceded EVERYTHING! ‘Yes, okay, I am rude, and pushy, and disrespectful, and think I know it all… now that I have admitted I am a terrible person, please can we talk about the child?’ (I am not saying, people used all of those terms specifically but, clearly, they were trying to steer the conversation away from the child who desperately needed intervention against powerful forces in the state who were disinclined to help him because they had illegally placed him in harm’s way.)

    Sometimes, when I ‘throw the book at students’ who would rather not have to do the work, someone will say, ‘Racist.’ I immediately advise the student, s/he has a right to be taught by a teacher who is not a racist, and advise that student to go see the Headmaster to file formal complaint, ‘My teacher is a racist.’ (Invariably, another student present knows my son is black, and laughs. ‘Ooh, you picked the wrong teacher; her son is black!’ And we laugh, even the accusing student. (Except once, when the student actually complained to a black Administrator who came up to the room where I was filling in for another teacher and, seeing this was ME, began laughing.)

    So, when people try to silence us by calling us names; I wish we would just concede to the names to end the obfuscation and get back to the substantive problem.

    And in an odd way – and I am no psychologist – I think, it is harder to get one of 435 members of Congress to speak up; than say, a pundit on a current events show. Something about ‘group think.’ Or an individual victim of a violent crime.

    I spoke up against my attacker because I had no other choice. First of all, while I was in no way responsible for what he did to me, I would feel responsible for what he did to the next person, if I did nothing to try to stop him. Plus, when he threatened if I testify, I would die, I figured, if I remained silent based on this threat then, he already had my life.

    As for the ‘info on Gibbs’ you mention… Was that the Bill Press story? If so, Miri will be happy with your take on events! ADMINISTRATOR

    • Peggy Sue says:

      I hope you’re right, jbjd, that we’ve reached a tipping point and the electorate will reject further ping-pong political decisions, that those in power now and in the future will start doing the right thing, have the fortitude to stand up and buck the wave of corruption and collusion. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised by Judge Napolitano’s comments to Ralph Nadar [an unlikely partnership]. But that’s what we need–people from all over the political spectrum to say: Enough dammit! Enough.

      Btw, yes it was the “convenient” Q&A between Press and Gibbs I was referring to and Gibb’s off-hand remark on the time frame [that just “happens” to coincide with the Passport Dept.’s breach]. These people are truly shameless.

      Keep up the excellent work!

      PS: I post on blogs populated by others of both like and unlike political bent. After the initial trepidation, virtually everyone comes to know what binds us together is our love of country if not our individual politics. This is as it should be. Of course, on this blog, we come in all stripes. Good for us!

      As for ‘keeping up the excellent work,’ I am dancing as fast as I can. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Yes, I did notice the children and that part made me sick, I thought is she using them for cover, participants in her frauds-trying to make everything look innocent. Nancy sold her soul and her conscience for power in my opinion, what a terrible example she and others are to our nation and her children. Lying, cheating, dirty-double dealing,blaming is ok, as long as you don’t get caught, well being the evil geniuses they are they got caught-big time. How much circumstantial evidence does one need? If anything this group has over supplied, not under supplied evidence. I have since summer of 08, tried to figure this out from the point of view of the plotters-I think they are totally devoid of honor, integrity, patriotism-all the values Americans hold dear. I swear the laws of physics are going to take over, they will implode on all of their lies, what goes up must come down-Sir Isaac Newton
    I believe in God and I think in America’s darkest hours of need heros and heroines will emerge.
    America’s beauty will not be sold for old mens gold, she will not be a bird in a gilded cage.
    For all the naysayers America survived the Nixon resignation due to impending impeachment, a weary and exhausted nation was glad the long national nightmare was over (lots of lies from gov’t entities). Obviously they learned nothing from that exercise, hopefully WE THE PEOPLE will do better this time.

    Michelle: I don’t know how we will quantify this but, I believe, so many of us know so much more now about how our political system works than we did at the beginning of the 2008 election cycle. I mean, I absolutely HATE having to look at the proverbial glass as half full when my general temperament would rather call it half empty, but… I am actually glad to have learned all about this stuff. At first, it was so complicated but, once I saw the larger picture, it got easier. For example, as late as August 2008, I wasted – okay, there I go – I mean, I spent endless hours de-bunking that COLB based on these facts: it was an electronic image, posted on a web site owned by the candidate. But what if I had said, it was a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT governed by the U.S. Code? That sophisticated analysis did not come about until after I started this blog. (Remember azgo and I went back and forth about the attributions in the ever-changing footer on “Fight the Smears”?)

    Yes, Michelle, they did get caught. And I have no doubt all of them – Nancy Pelosi, and Boyd Richie, and Bob Bauer, and Robert Gibbs, and Bill Press, and all of them involved in this massive fraud know they got caught. (But just in case, we should send this article to all of them.) ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Michelle says:

    jbjd-you know what would be interesting/fun/whatever is to send this/these articles to CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX all the majors and cc: Pelosi, Richie, Bauer on the same day bit of a “gotcha” and so what are you going to do about it oh great and glorious media potentates or whatever they are pretending to be other than loyal Americans. They ought to be ashamed or maybe they are just waiting for someone to do this??? No guts, no glory. Do they really think this is going away, it is a festering wound, and I am sure every country on the planet knows about our Constitutional shame-and it is a huge stain on our nations dignity and honor-more so on those who pretend to represent us. I don’t think you wasted one second on your endeavors-I’ll never think that-I remember in 08 being so confused, sometimes I read until 2 am and just could not figure it out. I got it after Out of the Mouths of Babes and the COLB was a PAID POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT-oh what a little semantic charade they had going on in and amoungst their weaving of a tangled web. Duh, to Michelle-their purpose was to deceive and on that they succeeded quite well-interchangeable words–certification of live birth, birth certificate and on and on it went, but will we respect them in the morning? Once morning came (the solution) we no longer respect any of them. Why should we? They are beneath contempt. In the end all the plotters will have remaining is themselves- not one American will respect them, none, mainly because I think they have lied to everyone including their supporters-used and abused them and played with their heads.
    I remember you and azgo going round and round, I was confused at the time, good thing you both kept at it, until it made sense to the both of you and a solution was found.

    Michelle: OMG, you have brought up points in your communications to me today, both here and via email, I had forgotten I even said! Did you know that, I am the one who first noticed that “certificate” versus “certification” was a distinction with a difference, because in order to gain HI Homeland Status, a person needed a “certificate”; the web site specifically said, don’t bother using the “certification” because we need something more official! I posted this on NQ, people went crazy; I contacted Phil B., Andy M., anyone already involved in legal maneuvers in the summer of 2008. I contacted the press. Then, guess what? HI changed their web site!

    I need to mention OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES more. (But I wonder whether things would have ‘clicked’ for you just by reading that article, if you hadn’t already done your homework.) (Oops, bad jbjd, glass half FULL, not half empty…)

    I hope everyone who reads this passes it on to his or her Representative, or candidate for the House; and political party; and the press. Enough pussyfooting around. All of the ‘evidence’ one needs to establish the criminal ballot fraud is in. REMEMBER: I ONLY CONCENTRATED ON CONDUCT THAT BROKE LAWS. And if enough evidence exists to establish, those Certifications of BO’s Nomination fail to establish he is a NBC, sufficient to trigger state criminal investigations; then enough evidence exists that should trigger an investigation by Congress of BO’s involvement in that fraud and his Constitutional eligibility for office. (The only fraud left to spell out is what happened at the Convention with the pledged delegate votes from binding vote states. But this involved violations of law separate from state ballots.) ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I hope people sent Bill Press the piece on him and his pal, Robert Gibbs. (There’s a link to that piece in this article, too.) I want the people who put out the crooked story to know, we caught them, too!

  6. Benaiah says:

    Thank you jbjd…

    Benaiah: Ah, my ‘converted’ friend. You are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Pete says:


    I think the answer is basically……Yes…..

    Nicely written, sorry for your past misery.


    Pete: Thank you. Yes; that’s the point. Believing in the Oath of Office is contraindicated with believing the ‘evidence’ proffered thus far establishes Barack Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the job and Nancy Pelosi based her Certification of his Nomination on just such evidence. Now, get the word out; and get these incumbents out of there. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. bob strauss says:

    Michelle said,

    I believe in God and I think in America’s darkest hours of need heros and heroines will emerge.

    I believe jbjd is one of those heroines, for her work in exposing the fraud, that is Obama, and the DNC.

    bob strauss: Thank you but, had I been doing my job as a citizen of our Constitutional Republic, being the expert on how my government works; I would have prevented this fraud from occurring in the first place, instead of playing catch-up. (Each of us has to learn enough about how our political system works that we never have to play catch-up again.) However, I will accept accolades for donating a great portion of my time and energy to creating this blog and getting out the word on what I have learned. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Sorry for once I have to disagree with you, and I agree with Bob Strauss you are a heroine, no one person could know all the “things” our country legislates which has become part of the problem-how many pages did Obamacare end up being? 2700 ish? Crazy, written in their new language gobbeldy-gook-ese. That is something that definitely needs changing, I thought during this entire time we need better tests on candidates like a lie-detector test, a character test, a psycho evaluation? I wonder, I’m pondering on this, I really am, maybe bonding them out, if they can’t be bonded they shouldn’t be allowed near the people’s money…

    Michelle: You bring up a point which needs to be considered now only because we don’t trust our legislators. See, we elect people who we think will make good legislators. And, we pay them well – $174,000 without committee assignment extra – so that they will devote ‘full time’ to the job. We assume given those full time hours spent learning the issues, consulting with experts, conferring with colleagues, and the like; they will craft the best legislation for the times and circumstances. But then we found out otherwise. Now, we feel we have to become the experts. Because when our legislators get it wrong, we are the ones who suffer.

    And regardless of how many laws we pass, or how cleverly crafted we think is the enforcement mechanism, nothing substitutes for an informed electorate. Look at how many people have been screaming for verification that BO is a U.S. citizen. But even without such evidence of citizenship; millions voted for him, anyway.

    No offense to anyone here who voted for BO but, once the D’s who stole the election saw how many people still supported their team; there was no incentive after that to do the right thing, once in office. (Of course, I would maintain, people capable of holding the governed in such disdain before the election are incapable of improving their conduct after the fact.) But what about the several legislators who I believe were really too naive to appreciate the fraud that permeated the election cycle? The ones who take their jobs seriously, and might have believed the hype, only ‘haters’ question BO’s Constitutional qualifications for the job. These are the ones I hope this article reaches.

    We have to send this to those legislators who did not intentionally abrogate their responsibilities but who just did not have all of the information. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Michelle says:

    jbjd-before I forget to ask you are you still going to write the article re: election fraud at the Convention?
    As a former Dem (due to Obama’s election fraud) now Tea Party I did not vote for Obama for several reasons but one of the primary reasons was I am from Chicago, no one-no one goes candidate shopping in that cesspool of corruption Southside of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois-no one in their right mind does something like this unless they are looking for the most corrupt candidate possible for reasons unknown to me, malleability perhaps-or they like people who vote “present” but does present mean conscious-due to his lack of knowledge on anything I believe he slept through any type of work that demanded his presence.
    Some of my friends are the naive people that you spoke about, I tried to tell them, but they wouldn’t listen. I am sure that we have many decent, honorable people in government who were “fooled” by a master of deceit, how can you make an informed decision when much of this material was suppressed by a an out to lunch, or bought and paid for media, I know in the beginning I was half crazy trying to figure this maze out, instinctively I knew many things were wrong, or didn’t add up, but I needed to prove it/figure it out for myself. I think Nancy Pelosi is one of the major instigators of this fraud and got the “boys” to go along with her-Bauer,Reid,Gibbs.
    If the love of money is the root of all evil, maybe the lust for power is the root of all this insanity. I believe the Founding Fathers really understood how power can be abused in terrible ways, that is why they wrote the Constitution in the way that they did, so that forever there would be a balance of power-Executive, Legislative and Judicial-we must do our best to restore that balance. As nature abhors a vacuum, the Constitution abhors an unbalanced government that does not benefit, but actually and in fact harms WE THE PEOPLE.

    Michelle: Yes, I am going to finish writing the article on Convention fraud. Before I continue with this answer, I want to point out something.

    I am a relative novice when it comes to blogging. With NO BUDGET, I am relegated to both managing this blog and creating the articles I post here. I could become an expert webmaster; but then, I would not write for a year. So, I do my best to do both. For example, some of you may have noticed a few days ago, the blog looked gray. I had inadvertently added an extra code when I posted the quiz, which I get from another web site. But I didn’t know that; I had to contact WordPress and await their magic response to restore the blog to normal. As a result, just finding a quiz I could port into this site; and set it up, took hours. I have been in the process of writing several articles not yet posted. And every time something else comes up, well, everything needs attention, now.

    That piece of the fraud puzzle – the laws that were broken to rig the Convention – must be told. Coincidentally, this involves vote binding states. Remember these? I began writing about them in the summer of 2008. Stumbled on them, really. Like you said, saw something in the news that didn’t seem right and looked into it. What I landed in was a huge problem for anyone who wanted to hide the votes of pledged delegates from what I dubbed ‘vote binding states.’

    (Quick note here. I recently learned about alexa, the web site counter plus. Well, turns out, while this blog is doing all right considering I show up on no search engines (?); guess where I am doing well comparatively? Washington, D.C. What a riot. And considering alexa says, my demographics are overrepresented by women over 40 with graduate degrees; I would imagine, these ‘clicks’ are not coming from the private sector.)

    So, yes, I have many more fraud related articles to write, including the Convention. (Did I answer your questions?) ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Michelle says:

    jbjd-yes, Thank you for answering my question. You are in the process of writing the world’s most interesting detective novel, truth is stranger than fiction and this Obama criminal conspiracy is the strangest of all,
    they said it was going to be historic, well didn’t their wish come true. One historic rip-off, wish we had lemon laws with candidates, like some states have with cars, if the car is defective like Obama is defective-off to the scrap heap of wherever lemons go.
    So DC is interested in jbjd’s blog site, I hope they are learning as much as we have learned. Thank you for educating all of us, also ironic that many of the hits come from women with graduate degrees. In the last election cycle of 08 the only two with no eligibility issues were the ladies-Hillary and Sarah-it is beyond disgusting that McCain had his issues with eligibility but Obama’s are far worse if you get into comparative not eligible, and both ladies clearly NBC, remember “you’ve come a long way, baby”, with this it seems like the word backwards would apply.

    Michelle: You might think that is a joke – “lemon laws with candidates” – but actually, listen to this. Several states I looked at have laws that say, if a major political party fails to place a candidate on the ballot in one Presidential election year; it forfeits the right to place a candidate on the ballot the next time. Now, this does not mean, it cannot earn a spot on the ballot in the same way as a candidate from, say, the Green Party, or the Nazi Party. The law (passed by the citizens of that state) merely says, the major political party loses the right to have its candidate on the ballot.

    Wanna give back the D’s like a bad car? Establish they did not place a real “candidate” on the 2008 ballot. (Let’s get one Representative to introduce a Resolution of Impeachment!) ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. A commenter on another blog just said s/he found this article powerful and gave it an A+. Here was my response.

    Thank you. Have you accessed the links in the article? That is, are you aware of the collusion between radio talk show host Bill Press and WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to perpetuate the myth, the COLB on FTS is anything but a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT? Have you read any one of the citizens’ complaints of election fraud to their state AG, alleging Nancy Pelosi swore BO was Constitutionally qualified just to get them to print his name on the ballot, before ascertaining he was a NBC? Have you read the article on WH Counsel Bob Bauer’s slight of hand in federal court, in the Hollister case brought by Phil Berg, where Mr. Bauer tried to trick the court into finding, the COLB was real (and not just an electronic image available only with the aid of a computer screen)?

    I found the finished article powerful, too. And I am just like you, I read it as if I am seeing it for the first time. Because while I am putting it together, from counting lawyers in the freshman class of the 111th Congress to finding videos of Mr. Kucinich’s Resolutions of Impeachment, I am too busy to see the whole product. But this time, I really packed a punch. Because any legislator reading this AND accessing the links provided, would finally see quite clearly why we are so angry, still, after the fraud perpetrated during the 2008 election cycle.

    And, after all, this was the point.

  12. Cabby - AZ says:

    Greetings, jbjd – I’m compelled to respond right now after meditating on your fine essay and then reading the various comments. The hour is late and my mind is a bit tired, so later I will share more of my thoughts in depth.

    I just have to say that this is a very compelling read, for two reasons. First, the main topic about the failure of the House to honor the oath has not been covered anywhere to any extent to my knowledge, and yet it is so basic and so vital.
    Secondly, you have woven in the truth of your own personal crisis in a masterful way. The combination is a whiz-bang, imo. And may I say, what a saga you experienced!

    On a practical note, would you suggest that I print out your article and distribute it in that manner, or should I e-mail it? Is there a risk of violation of copyright laws?

    Right now I’m exploring legal background re. “double jeopardy” as it could pertain to impeachment.

    How do you handle all that you have undertaken? May you receive the strength and wisdom that you need.

    C-AZ: Thank you. As I said in my response to Michelle, sometimes, I am as surprised as you at the impact of the finished product. This was one of those times.

    Please, feel free to distribute this article via email as you see fit. As long as I receive accreditation (and you are not selling the product!) there is no problem. I think email is preferable because that way, recipients can link the articles. But certainly, if you want to download, say, a citizen complaint of election fraud to a state AG, which spells out the ballot fraud; be my guest. (These citizen complaints, however, contain further links, for example, to both NP’s Certification of Nomination as well as unanswered requests for the identity of documents that were the basis for her determination, BO was Constitutionally qualified for the job.) In other words, just get the word out; but better to do so, in person. At the Congressperson’s district office. With fellow voters. And the press. (Take college students along!)

    This has been an arduous process. But given the level of civic expertise writings here have engendered, well, I would have to say, all things being considered, it is a task worth doing. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Michelle says:

    I would love to see Nancy Pelosi receive her bad car (lemon) back with a great big bow on it, that would be such a hoot if Dems could not place a candidate on the ballot in applicable states, they sure have created a mess for themselves, they better get to solving it. I hope they reap what they have sown. I have also lost the forest for the trees many times due to there was that much fraudulent activities, it is nice to know that there are some remedies available here and there. Obama is like a one man crime wave, with a little help from his friends.

    Michelle: I know; there are many remedies prospectively for what went wrong in 2008. I still want to fix 2008! Certainly, even if all laws remain the same, in 2012 voters in applicable states will be prepared IN ADVANCE to file challenges to having BO’s name on the ballot (assuming he is again chosen to be installed the D nominee for POTUS). And these challenges will occur during the primary. Nancy Pelosi will not be the Chair of the Convention; I would imagine, whoever is will not be as fortified against the public outrage at even the hint of fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Michelle says:

    jbjd, exactly correct, many things need to be corrected so something like this never happens again. I just hope all the fraud/criminals are in the slammer long before the next DNC convention. I hope the country realizes that all of us Dems (current) and now Tea Party (me)are very disgusted we want these wrongs righted.
    I sent this article to Lt. Col Allen West running here in FL., he may as well know what kind of corruption he is up against-I would say from the Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Bauer side the corruption is total.

    Michelle: I saw on another blog that had linked to mine; one of the commenters dismissed attempts highlighted in this article to get constituents to convey to their Representatives the need to introduce Articles of Impeachment. S/he mistakenly conflated these present attempts with the campaign of desperation at the beginning of their present term in January 2009, when people shouted Impeachment based on a belief BO was not a NBC but nothing else. ‘Millions of people called for Impeachment then and it didn’t work!’ Apples and oranges. Now we have developed an actual case of election fraud viz a viz getting BO’s name on the ballot. And this well developed case includes examples that members of the WH staff, like Press Secretary Gibbs and Counsel Bob Bauer, remain actively involved in perpetuating the deceit. This is why I said in the article, we could conceivably exonerate any failure to act in January 2009, as the disarray of the case record combined with the greenness of the legislators could make such a momentous act as calling for Impeachment seem premature. But no such barriers to action can be said to exist now where we are not just taking tantrums but pressing our case with facts and logic.

    Soon I will put together a more comprehensive primer so that even people ‘late to the fair’ can get up to speed. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I think the primer for the folks late to the game is a very good idea. I remember in summer of 08 and thru 09 just trying to figure out who did it, how they did it, etc. I remember “suffering” thru it since much of it at that time was so confusing (to me), but you recently tied up all the loose ends, with the criminal activities-named the names, date of crime, criminal act committed so yes I think a primer would be very helpful and for those who have family and friends that give them “grief” they could print it out and say “Here, now you tell me”.
    About time people started asking the ONE questions that he can’t escape/ignore-he’s gotten away with this nonsense far too long.
    Saw on one of the web-sites they are doing Knock-Knock T-shirts-goes something like this Knock Knock Kenya-Kenya show us the birth certificate. I wonder what it means when you deteriorate into a knock-knock joke???

    Michelle: Ha, good point. But I never ask for anything from BO. What’s the point? He and his handlers have already insisted, the COLB on Fight the Smears is an actual photocopy of his birth certificate. Take them at their word. Then, discredit their word. That’s what I have tried to do. (And I think I have succeeded.) I don’t want to engage in another extended on-line analysis with supposed electronics experts as to whether any ‘new’ document is real. Who would say? And anyway, no new document is material to an inquiry into this question: What did NP or Boyd Richie or Alice Germond or Kathy Hensley use in 2007/2008 to ascertain Mr. Obama was a NBC, when they swore he was to state election officials to get them to print his name on the ballot?

    (Technically, even assuming documentary evidence exists that could establish BO is Constitutionally qualified for the job, NP still perpetrated fraud if she failed to rely on any such documentation. But adhering to such a strained application of the law would be absurd.) ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I guess I just didn’t get their puckish sense of humor Obama/Gibbs/Pelosi-the day I figured out due to you enlightening me that the COLB was merely a PAID POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT everything just fell into place. Anyone having the real deal Obama/Gibbs/Pelosi would have used in the upfront I think they gave themselves aways when they denigrated anyone who dared ask, compounding that with the rough fraudulent tactics at the DNC convention and many other places-the SEIU scandals, ACORN and a whole lot of other(for lack of a better word) craziness can only lead to one place something is very rotten to the core in the state of Demark.
    Now that I am not a Dem anymore I am proud to be astroturf (per Pelosi) and Tea Party (because they are attempting to fight government corruption. WE THE PEOPLE now that we are aware will not let our country be tainted by corrupt politicians which is why I hope the guilty go to jail, after what they did-too disgusting for words. Whole different electorate out there, much more informed.

    Michelle: Actually, I think that only meant as much as it did to you because you had already read, OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES, and ‘got’ the whole picture.

    See, for me, the reason the material posted on that FTS web site launched in June 2008 was so signficant to the whole eligibility issues was this: on that site, BO, then just the D Corporation wannabe nominee for President, admitted, he was creating the site so as to combat “smears” throughout the blogosphere that, he was not Constitutionally qualified for the job. Wait a minute; so, you concede people are concerned about your eligibility and, to allay those concerns, you post an electronic image of a redacted COLB (Certification of Live Birth) and re-label this, “Certificate of Live Birth,” as if these are the same; and, with nothing more, now insist, you have proven your eligibility as a “native” citizen (notwithstanding you swore, in writing, to the SoS of AZ, you were “natural born” to get her to print your name on that state’s Presidential preference primary ballot in November 2007, 7 (seven) months earlier)? In other words, it didn’t matter to me whether this image of a document related in any way to an actual document. All I could think of was, how disingenuous of anyone to claim an image visible only with the aid of a computer screen and only authenticated by the candidate; was proof of anything!

    And I realized in that instant, this is the best evidence he is Constitutionally qualified for the job. After all, why withhold anything at this point, when you don’t even have the nomination? (Even NP would not have dared to steal the nomination for BO had the public not been overwhelmingly taken in by this deceptive campaign advertising platform known as “Fight the Smears.”) Once the accreditation in the footers began changing to suit BO’s legal status viz a viz the political campaign – nominee wannabe, then nominee, then President-elect – this led to the formal designation as advertising expenditure under the provisions of the U.S. Code.

    Unfortunately, most people who tried to discredit this COLB went another route. That is, they tried to de-construct the actual document or, rather, the actual image of a document, to prove this was not real. But I have no doubt, there is a mock-up of a document, just as in any good advertising campaign, which was signed off on by the ‘clients.’

    Dirty tricks are present in all campaigns. I think installing a President Constitutionally unqualified for the job is so depraved, people still have a hard time believing this is for real. Once they can sink that low, ‘getting’ the simple fraud is easy. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. Michelle says:

    jbjd-“dirty tricks are present in all campaigns” I would say within some kind of bounds like maybe the law. I also think resumes etc., are embellished, some things hyped, the usual and most voters discount within both parties,somewhat balancing things out. Depraved that was a good word for this: depraved indifference to the American voters, we were just collateral damage or a means to an end with them. Sinking to an all time low, well this is beyond low just cold blooded rip off of all the voters Hillary supporters, McCain, Sarah and even the Obama (sincere group) all ripped off. “Hard time believing this is for real”, I remember the first time I read about this Phil Berg Aug 08, jbjd-I remember I was ill for the entire month like shell shocked or something, so I know people who are just finding out about this probably feel as sick and as shocked as I did. Well this is for real, like a horrible nightmare that never goes away. Our Constitutional Republic is worth every second you and so many others have devoted to figuring out this debacle, a very big bright spot is now we know where most of the weaknesses are in the system and at long last we can fix them and make them right again. Yes that COLB on FTS was a pre-emptive strike, a cross between shrewd and smooth, but so was the book “The Audacity of Hope” which he didn’t even write-that thing is as phony as he is and another pre-emptive strike. He said he did drugs, well I think he did so much, so often he brain damaged his little self, that is why he is so out of it and has to rely on a teleprompter-left on his own he can barely string 2 sentences together and they are always the same sentences. I can’t wait until we get our country back on the right track, until this happened I don’t think we really appreciated how important our Constitution is, and how wonderfully it is structured. I think our Founding Fathers really had a good understanding of the human psyche-therefore balance of power wherever they could employ it-that is where we are totally out of balance today, the media over exaggeration of a fawned over potus and Obama is the worst example they could have picked, the media was very nauseating over him in the election cycle, and some still are. I think they have very poor taste in candidates, I would have picked a brainy hunk if I was going to go that route, I think fawning falls in the sick range myself, it’s just weird, make makes the object of the “adoration” even weirder and more delusional.

    Michelle: Let me explain the reason I focused on the electronic image of the COLB posted on the campaign web site, “Fight the Smears/” in this present article urging Representatives to introduce a Resolution for Impeachment. More than a year has passed since the time before the election, when people urged Representatives not to ratify the vote of the Electors; and the time right after the swearing in, when, having missed the window to prevent BO from taking office, constituents now urged Impeachment to get him out. In that time, we have fleshed out the meme that is the COLB. See, if the general public consensus regarding the COLB was that, it signified BO’s NBC status then, urging Impeachment because he had not established such status made petitioners seem ridiculous. But if we can alter that public meme regarding the COLB; and, even better, if we can do so by pointing to such conduct as the dog-and-pony show performed by Messrs. Gibbs and Press in the WH Briefing Room on the subject of that same on-line COLB, then, petitioning Representatives now to file a Resolution of Impeachment seems less bizarre. Given the newly acquired knowledge that the COLB was only a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, no one could honestly have believed that COLB signified anything about BO’s birth before relying on this to swear to state election officials he was qualified for the job, to get them to print his name on the ballot. (Of course, we have no idea what documentation was used as the basis for those Certifications submitted to the states but, you get the picture.) Plus, as people learn more and more, they will ask, why does Robert Gibbs keep asking us to believe BO is for real through his reference to that on-line COLB but, when given the chance to submit that actual COLB (?) to a federal judge for the purpose of obtaining “judicial notice” this was for real, then Counsel to Obama for America, Bob Bauer, blinked!

    The fraud here is not the run of the mill resume enhancement. Nope; it is criminal election fraud viz a viz lying to election officials so as to circumvent eligibility laws in order to get BO’s name printed on the ballot. And participating in that criminal conspiracy is grounds for Impeachment. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. Michelle says:

    jbjd-yes criminal conspiracy is grounds for Obama’s Impeachment and he worked so hard for this, but we also have co-conspirators Pelosi, Reid, Bauer for sure but I don’t know how many others. In Chicago when they were prosecuting the Mob, they always knew someone would rat out the others when pressed. I can’t wait until our latest “long national nightmare is over”. Nixon’s went on too long also.
    Hillary is 44 had a good article about why DC is disconnected from the rest of the country, I thought they were living in la-la land, but they are far worse off than I could conceive, now I can understand why DC could not make good decisions even if they wanted to, they have become that far removed from the ordinary citizen, which they have forgotten in the end they are ordinary citizens too.

    Michelle: Hey, let others go after these wrongdoers for their crimes. My work ends at getting BO out of the WH! (He is the only one of all of those people, who can be Impeached. But I do wish that people had used the information contained in the articles about Attorney Bob Bauer, to report his shenanigans to the D.C. bar. What he did in trying to bamboozle federal Judge Robertson in the Hollister case, clearly evidenced “lack of candor to a tribunal” as proscribed in the Canons of Ethics. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. azgo says:

    jbjd and Michelle,

    Great conversation, keep going, I am personally going to enter you guys into the Guinness World Book of Records as a new category, The Longest Blog Conversation – Criminal Election Fraud.

    Do you know why? This would finally get the attention of the American people and most particularly our Representatives in Congress so they may further investigate and verify the criminal fraud involving the election laws of several states and introduce the Articles of Impeachment, as they can, especially given the evidence brought forth here from the research, fact-finding, analysis and conclusions.

    Speaking of conclusions, here is one.


    My sense of the history of the federal impeachment process, as reflected in the debates in the constitutional and state ratifying conventions and Congress’ subsequent exercises of its impeachment authority, is that “other high crimes or misdemeanors” are technical terms of art that refer to so-called political crimes. Political crimes are abuses of power or the kinds of misconduct that can only be committed by some public officials by virtue of the public offices or special trust that they hold. These political crimes are not necessarily indictable offenses. Not all political crimes are indictable offenses, and not all indictable offenses are political crimes.

    Whether or not some misconduct by a public official is a political crime or rises to the level of an impeachable offense turns on a number of different factors. These factors are apparent from studying Congress’ impeachment decisions and practices; these factors include but are not limited to the seriousness of the misconduct, its timing, the link between the misconduct and the official’s official responsibilities or special trust held by virtue of the positions held by the officials, alternative means of redress, and the degree of injury caused to the republic by the misconduct in question.

    Studying Congress’ impeachment decisions also reveals some noteworthy patterns. Most if not all impeachments made by the House and convictions made by the Senate have followed or approximated the paradigm of an impeachment — the abuse of official power or privilege. The one or at most two impeachments that do not fit neatly into this first category — those of Harry Claiborne and Walter Nixon — might be explained either on the grounds of the special obligations of federal judges by virtue of their unique status and function or as signaling the possible existence of a second category of offenses consisting of the kinds of misconduct that are so outrageous that the officials who have committed them have been rendered completely ineffective and Congress has no choice but to impeach and remove those officials.”

    Testimony of Michael J. Gerhardt
    College of William & Mary School of Law

    House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution
    Hearing on the Background and History of Impeachment
    November 9, 1998

    Not that this President is completely ineffective or not is a chapter for someone else, but I want to shorten this last line to emphasize some of the points of your conversation.

    “or as signaling the possible existence of a second category of offenses consisting of the kinds of misconduct that are so outrageous …Congress has no choice but to impeach and remove those officials.”

    Thank you for your wonderful thought provoking and educating conversation, see you in the Guinness World Book of Records!

    azgo: Ha ha. I was thinking earlier about our long conversations. And I thought, I hope people who are not overly familiar with some of the long technically oriented passages in some of the articles posted here over this past year, can at least wade through a ‘personal conversation’ of the sort in which Michelle and I have been engaging. People often automatically think of caucus fraud when I say, election fraud. I hope to impress upon them, these terms present a distinction with a difference. Hindering people belonging to a political party from expressing their preference for the candidate of that party, to run for office, has no equivalent right in the law. But lying to state election officials that a candidate is qualified for the office sought in a state that only lets eligible candidates onto the ballot; just to get them to print his name on the ballot, is criminal fraud. I hoped our exchanges would make clear the distinction between despicable conduct; and criminal conduct.

    As for Impeachment, well, there has never been a doubt in my mind that the massive election fraud viz a viz getting BO’s name on the ballot; constitutes an Impeachable offense. (We just need to make sure this time, calls for Impeachment do not rest on fiat but on solid evidentiary ground.) ADMINISTRATOR

  20. Michelle says:

    Not only “massive election fraud viz a viz getting BO’s name on the ballot” but I think misrepresenting this person as a viable “eligible” candidate because in my mind they stole material things too-such as donations to both parties,all candidates-and also labor people volunteered to support their candidate in many different ways. All these people honestly thought the person they supported was the best candidate not knowing that one of the candidates was cheating big time. All of my friends/family supported either Hillary or Obama, some McCain/Sarah every voter was going to the polls in good faith, but actually were more like lambs going to a slaughter. Personally I don’t think any voter likes to be made a fool that part may not be legal/illegal but most American’s have enough pride not to appreciate being made to look the fool, it makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up for example.

    Michelle: Yes, of course, several other state and federal criminal violations arise from the fact, the candidate lacked the qualifications for office. Remember, these violations of law will be counted in all 50 states and D.C. And the civil lawsuits… well, that’s a whole other can of worms! ADMINISTRATOR

  21. Al says:

    Saddened to hear about your personal stake within this post, jbjd, but admire your sense of courage to address the matter with such bravery…you demonstrated more courage than any of us can say the present membership of the United States Congress as a collective body has shown thus far. Stay safe. Back next week to lurk and learn.

    Al: A woman has to do what a woman has to do. As I mentioned before (with the disclaimer, I am no psychologist), surrounded by others failing to act might be the reason everyone is waiting for everyone else to ‘blink’ first. When you return, give jbjd’s CIVICS for CIVILIANS QUIZ (4) a go. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. Kelly Canon says:

    jbjd, Excellent article – yet again!! Amazing stuff! I have two separate issues to explore…

    #1: You said: “Each member of the House of Representatives will constructively forfeit the privilege of reelection by failing to introduce a Resolution of Impeachment before the November 2010 election. That is the only mechanism through which we can examine Mr. Obama’s role in the criminal conspiracy of fraud that got state election officials to print on the ballot the name of the candidate who overwhelming circumstantial evidence establishes is Constitutionally unqualified for the job.”

    I very respectfully disagree with the 2nd sentence of that quote. And my next question is more rhetorical, so please bear with me: How can an “illegitimate” usurper be impeached? If he’s usurping the office of POTUS, he’s not “REAL”. One must be an “official” president before one can be impeached, yes? I agree that he needs to be brought up on charges of treason, and fraud, and all those other bad things he’s done (along with his co-conspirators)… but impeachment? Nope. That would only act to acknowledge his “legitimacy” as POTUS. It’s an unusual conundrum we find ourselves in, don’t you agree? Kind of a catch-22. **BUT** Let’s just say for the sake of discussion that impeachment articles are presented in THIS congress (111th) by some brave soul with the spine to stand up to the corruption… What good would it do? It would get voted down so quick (by the dem majority), it’d make your head spin! Why not wait till the new congress takes their seat next year, before presenting impeachment articles? With a healthier supply of conservatives in the mix, no less!

    #2: You said: “Evidence is posted throughout the internet of the millions of correspondence and telephone calls sent to Congressional offices beginning before the November 2008 general election and continuing long after the President was sworn into office, pleading for help getting to the heart of the eligibility matter. ”

    Wow! Ding! Ding! Ding!! And de-ja-vu!! I remember that like it was yesterday, as I was part of the “millions”!! I was begging to have “just ten minutes” of Joe Barton’s time on the phone, to discuss what I knew was FACT then, and FACT now: That Obama is NOT a NBC. I was in panic mode, to be sure. They were inching towards the electoral vote certification… I never did get to talk to Barton, but was able to talk to SEVERAL staffers – obviously to no avail – and they still remember me. But I didn’t stop there. I also contacted each and every senator and representative of the incoming congress! (I spent a small fortune on postage!) I received a response letter from Barton and a few others… it basically said what they all said: “Obama is a US citizen, because he was born in Hawaii, and is therefor eligible to be President.” EVERY response letter said that. There was a clear pattern. It was as if they were written by the same person. Cornyn… Hutchison… McCain, even! I didn’t let any of that stop me, though. I did one more thing: Dec 26th, 2008 – I was home visiting my parents for the holidays. I picked up the phone and called Ron Paul. He represents my home town, and my parents and sisters’ family, as well as several childhood friends/classmates. I grew up in Lake Jackson TX, and before he was a congressman, Dr Paul was my OBGYN! (He’s delivered a few thousand babies in my hometown before becoming a congressman) I went to school with his kids; graduated with one of them in ’77. I was able to chat with Dr Paul for a solid 15 minutes that day. During that conversation, I made it VERY clear that I was concerned about Obama’s citizenship. I then point-blank ASKED him if he was going to present an objection to the certification of the electoral votes, based on Obama NOT being a NBC, and a LACK of evidence accordingly. His response: “If I did that, I’d be laughed out of Congress”. What a stunning response. My jaw dropped about 10 inches… That pretty much “did it” for me. It knocked the wind right out of my sails. I haven’t really been the same since. I mean when a so-called “constitutional” man like Dr Paul says something like that, ya just have to ask yourself, “WHAT NOW”??? It was the most surreal 15 minute conversation I’ve ever had with an elected politician. I honestly hope he loses his seat in November, but I doubt he does. They love him down there. (sigh) Anyway, just wanted to share that with ya.

    By the way, please enjoy the donation I just made to your site… I wish it could be more.

    Kelly Canon: First, thank you for appreciating the work. Let me respond to your points in order.

    1. (Second point, first.) You propose waiting until the next Congress is seated to push for introducing Articles of Impeachment assuming more “conservatives” will be seated. So what? Conservatives who are R’s? If being an R or even a conservative R was sufficient motivation to introduce an Impeachment resolution then, why hasn’t any one of the conservative R’s in office raised his or her hand on the issue? No; each Representative represents all of the citizens in her or his district. Not just those of the same party or spectrum of political orthodoxy. I want my election process protected NOW. Plus, I disagree that D’s will necessarily reject Impeachment just because the President is a D. I would imagine that when push comes to shove, the ‘pull’ to honor the Constitution versus the ‘man’ can be overwhelming. I believe patriotism will likely trump party loyalty, given a clearly delineated choice.

    (First point, second.) You are not alone in disagreeing with my analysis that Impeachment is the only Constitutional vehicle to removing BO from office. And I propose this not because I think he is a NBC, because I think he is not; but because he was elected pursuant to the process spelled out in the Constitution.

    2. This is a dynamite anecdote you presented about Representative Paul. And this points to claims I made in this article (and repeated in previous responses to readers’ comments). Not all calls for Impeachment are created equal. (Or to paraphrase Peggy Sue, not all packages come neatly tied with a ribbon.) In the cacophony of voices calling for Impeachment in the early winter of 2009, individual voices of sanity could not be heard. Look, without naming names, dozens of individuals and blogs have been ‘screaming’ for nearly 2 (two) years now that BO is not a NBC, for dozens of reasons that are little more than hypotheses couched as facts. Long time ago now, I attempted to de-bunk these bizarre arguments, cautioning that engaging the ‘throwing garbage at the wall and seeing what sticks’ methodology of trying to ‘out’ BO would backfire, and that all of us, even those of us with theories based in fact and law, would be discounted outright in this sea of swill. Sadly, I was right.

    But look at what evidence we have assembled since early winter 2009 to demonstrate members of the D’s perpetrated election fraud in several states by swearing to BO’s Constitutional eligibility for office before ascertaining whether he was qualified for the job. Even if we only re-visited those legislators who said they knew BO was eligible because of that (image of a) COLB posted on (the on-line advertising campaign platform called) “Fight the Smears.” But we not only have better evidence BO deserves Impeachment; we have something else.

    Back then, I tried to get people to stop arguing their opinions as to whether BO was a NBC. Because that is not the issue. Whenever someone said to me, ‘I know BO is real because…’ I would say, ‘Fine; but I am not asking you on what basis you think he is for real. I want to know on what basis NP knew he was for real when she signed that Certification of Nomination…’ Of course, Robert Gibbs gave me a whole new line: ‘Even Robert Gibbs admits the strongest evidence he can point to, to establish BO is a NBC, is paid political advertising!’ So, we now have better and stronger arguments to bolster our charges.


    Finally, I sent thanks for your most generous donation under separate cover. You cannot know how timely this was. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. Shez ZK says:

    Excellent discussions. I liken the impeachment situation as jbjd is stating to what Attorney Mario Apuzzo has been teaching us about case “ripeness”. The two situations aren’t the same but do have very similar aspects. Everything since Jan 2009 has had to run the course. ‘abcdefgh’ had to go down before we can get to the big ‘I’. We have been forced to let the system, political machinations, and excuses exhaust themselves. They don’t have many back alleys left to hide in or dumpsters to hide behind to evade justice, or the actions and answers we are demanding.

    In many ways we have been psychologically preparing America for the inevitable. It’s the flip side to the fact that back in 2009 the nation was still way too much under the bamboozling subconscious spell of NLP influence (Neuro Linguistic Programming – for a real eye opener search that term on YouTube for actual examples, i.e. at a mall is shocking) to ever entertain a serious thought much less a discussion of impeachment. But that is changing and “ripens” with each passing day as thousands more concerned Americans observe and wake up to the fact they were had and completely lied to. One big PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT indeed. Factor in the virtual 527 of JournOlist-Gate for a fuller understanding of the sickening state of affairs we find things in.

    And no, the Republicans are not and will NOT be white knights that will save any of us. They are just as complicit and corrupt as the Democrats, and they both have been all along. We the People will be the only ones trying to save our country. Being from Michigan you won’t see me bothering to waste my vote in a Democratic Party primary ever again or enabling them in any fashion or form after what they disgustingly pulled in 2008. But being a woman you also will never see me voting for Republicans (or Democrats), thereby voting against my self interests and well being along with that of my daughter, granddaughter, and all females in general. I’m thoroughly fed up with the whole lot. They ALL need to be voted out the door, and I’ll only vote for every 3rd party candidate I can find no matter how obscure if they display some brains, awareness, and PRINCIPLES of what’s really going on and what really needs to be done.

    Shez ZK: Thank you for the comments about my work. But nothing I am doing has anything to do “ripeness,” which is a word used in conjunction with court cases. Nothing I propose here could be further related from the judicial process. This is the problem. I don’t want us to learn more about the court; I want us to know more about the political process. And no action I am proposing now with respect to the political process was not ‘ripe’ to bring several months before now.

    Impeachment is a political act but not a judicial act. Trial in the Senate is a political act but not a judicial act. I want the Legislative branch of government to try the Executive branch of government, using the process spelled out in the Constitution. The Judicial branch at this point has absolutely nothing to do with this. Even providing citizens’ complaints of election fraud to state A’sG has nothing to do with the Judicial branch. A’sG are a part of the state’s Executive branch of government. Sure, eventually, the Executive branch, through state prosecutors, could prosecute the wrongdoers on behalf of the citizens of the state; but this is a consequence outside of my concern. I am only aiming to get our elected officials to do their jobs.

    This brings me to the statement in your comment that evidences why our political system does not work. “We have been forced to let the system, political machinations, and excuses exhaust themselves.” Why? Who said? Why didn’t people file challenges with election officials (usually the SoS) to getting BO’s name on the ballot back in August 2008, if they believed he was unqualified for the job? Why didn’t we already know back then whether candidates whose names appear on the ballot in our state had to be qualified for the job? Instead, they took temper tantrums. And invented ‘laws’ and legal standards out of whole cloth, based on the edicts of on-line legal pundits. They took tantrums to get what they wanted, using passion but no reason; and when they didn’t get what they wanted, blamed politicians! Worse, based on the promise of a legal slight of hand, when that didn’t work, they blamed crooked courts! Why do people in 2010 still sit back and wait for this attorney or that to prevail in court in a cause of action too obtuse for the average citizen to comprehend that has no direct or instant bearing on removing BO from office, anyway?

    BO did not have to be Constitutionally qualified for the Electors to elect him. Because no state passed a law saying they could not elect him unless he was qualified. Yet, states passed laws saying, Electors had to vote for the nominee of the party. So, why didn’t we pass other laws regarding eligibility? We blew it. We, the people.

    Time elapsed not because the ‘system’ required it but because people were finally compelled to take time to learn how the political system works. When taking tantrums didn’t. Time passed because citizens had to look up our state laws, when this legal gambit or that brought by someone else failed to bring satisfaction (to us). (Most citizens have still never visited the district office of their U.S. Representative.) Time passed while people began to appreciate the work required to be good citizens; and to carry out that work.

    I am trying to get people to understand the connection between what laws we have enacted; or what laws we want enacted; or what law we want enforced; or what officials we elect; and what conditions we want met. And this has absolutely nothing to do with ‘ripeness.’ In 2007 and 2008, given existing laws, we could have petitioned election officials to keep BO off the ballot. Now that he is sworn in, the only way to get him out is through Impeachment. I believe, grounds exist for Impeachment. Specifically, I believe BO participated in massive election fraud viz a viz getting his name on the ballot in those states that require candidate qualification for office as a condition for getting on the ballot. Because no documentation available in the public record establishes he is Constitutionally qualified for the job. The only difference in this ‘case,’ between 2007 and now; is that the circumstantial evidence of such fraud keeps mounting. (For example, more D’s who Certified BO’s qualifications, have rejected more citizen requests for documents that were the basis for those Certifications.) And more people are leaving the blind cheer leading behind and assuming the role of educated citizen required to maintain our Constitutional Republic.

    No one bamboozled us. We could have learned everything we needed to know to achieve an informed decision. (For example, I knew I could not support BO in February 2008 when I looked up the backgrounds of his foreign policy advisers, like Samantha Power. Finding out about Rezko, Wright, Blackwell, was superfluous, as was witnessing his sexism and racism.) As Michelle points out, just because I didn’t characterize the COLB as a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT until after the Inauguration, I still called it ‘an electronic image put up by the candidate on the web site he paid for.’ I knew it meant nothing.

    Finally, I agree, all incumbents, at least in the House, need to be removed. By failing to introduce Articles of Impeachment, they have demonstrated they are less intelligent than the people who would subvert our political system; or not courageous enough to take them on. Certainly, on the state level, all A’sG who refuse to act on citizen complaints of election fraud have failed to earn re-election. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. Michelle says:

    jbjd-your last paragraph sums up so many issues and it so true. When I think about how naive and trusting I was, I’m still in shock and trying to get over it, part of this issue for me at least is just because in the history of our nation we have never had a usurper before, we should have been prepared for an attempt at an usurpation, but we weren’t. We trusted too much in the hands of mere mortals, I am still astounded at the many co-conspirators that have been revealed and the many who also did not do their jobs, the citizens having forwarded complaints of election fraud and were ignored. Any and all incumbents, A’s G do not deserve re-election and if they had any honor or integrity (obviously they don’t or they would have done their jobs in the first place) they would resign never to run for public office again. They should be ashamed to face the American citizenry at large.

    Michelle: Well, if you think what has happened so far to challenge the vision of our Founders and Drafters, wait till you see the article I will post tomorrow. (Hint: It would appear that, anticipating someone could figure out how people intended to rig / rigged the 2008 ballots and spelled out the way to prevent such manipulation of the electoral process; forces were hard at work inventing a system that would circumvent those efforts in a way I never saw coming. Brace yourself.) ADMINISTRATOR

  25. Michelle says:

    jbjd-you are so darn cute. I will wait patiently for your next article, I don’t know how you keep topping yourself, I really don’t. This is so Machiavellian.
    Forces of Good–our Constitution v/s Forces of Evil those who would circumvent or attempt to circumvent our Constitution-I just hope what you found was illegal and prosecutable as opposed to say being “slimed” and it looked like so much fun in the movies, but not much fun in general life.

    Michelle: “Machiavellian” does not begin to describe the conduct of those who would circumvent fair and open elections. And so few people really ‘get’ the whole electoral process that even the opponents of the program I will reveal in that article have thus far failed to raise in their objections, some of the pitfalls to fair elections spelled out here on this blog. (And as you know by now, I don’t ‘tease’ without something to back up my words.) ADMINISTRATOR

  26. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I know you don’t “tease”, as all of us have had our lighter moments from time to time(to keep from losing our minds), this is the most serious issue of our time, it is that critical. The United States of America preaches and has wars with other countries re: free and fair elections and can’t manage to have the same in our own country? How insane is that? Our Constitutional Republic, our Constitution are sacred things to me-always have been. In Chicago they were always showing old documentaries and movies on TV-courtesy of Jim Moran the Courtesy Man-later JM Family Sales in FL. One of the documentaries was about the Nuremberg War Trials where the people had to give testimony for those “who no longer able to speak for themselves”. I really believe we have to speak now for us the living and all those who gave their time, treasure, limbs and lives for our country. It is that important.

    Michelle: I couldn’t respond sooner because I pulled an all-nighter to get out the tome about the National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”). Tell me what you think. (Ha; as if you would not voice your opinion without my request…) ADMINISTRATOR

  27. Inge says:

    I’ve been following this issue regarding Obama, and the cover-up of Pelosi and the like, and they just wanted their man in power.
    What is baffling me is the fact, the courts, and all the other institutions refusing to take on the issues.
    So, my question is, and has been what is the ‘real and true’ reason for all of this? Career officials in the military branch are being courtmarshalled, and harrassed. What about the CIA, FBI, and Pentagon-is there nobody in the slightest interested in the truth? Can someone explain that to me?

    Inge: I have seen no cases filed in either state or federal courts that I would have allowed to proceed, given their several legal flaws, any one of which could have provided ample legal grounds for dismissal. As for the military, well, I try to distinguish between National Guard – these people are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”) and so, cannot be penalized for speaking out againdt the ‘CiC’ – and active duty military. The UCMJ and case law are clear; the burden on establishing an order is illegal is always on the violator. This means, if you need additional evidence to establish the CiC’s ineligibility then, by definition, you cannot meet the burden to establish, he was unlawfully giving you the order. (See COURAGE of CONVICTION for a fuller discussion of these issues.) As for ‘other institutions refusing to take on the issues’ well, if we gave ‘them’ sufficient cover (and were able to explain the issues, in person, presenting appropriate evidence to back up our claims), I believe, they would. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: