San Diego Reader | “Who Runs Our Elections and How Safe Actually are They?” by I’ve Got Issues

This is the first time I have clicked on the ‘share’ button at the bottom of an article and cross-posted the complete article on my blog. THE FIRST TIME. I think this story by “historymatters” detailing suspicious machinations involving electronic voting machines, paper ballot electronic scanners, mail-in ballots, and dubious voting ‘officials’ is that important. This line in the well-documented article jumped out at me:  “I made several phone calls about my concerns today and I was shocked to hear that many people that you would report these concerns to, have no idea how the process works…” Chills.

San Diego Reader | “Who Runs Our Elections and How Safe Actually are They?” by I’ve Got Issues.

34 Responses to San Diego Reader | “Who Runs Our Elections and How Safe Actually are They?” by I’ve Got Issues

  1. AustinGuy says:

    Also see the WND article:

    Election Day fraud found all over U.S.
    Complaints of illegal votes, bribes, ballot irregularities commonplace

    And thanks to jbjd for the great blog.

    AustinGuy: I cannot post charges of voting fraud that do not implicate the ‘systemic’ method of voting, for example, Diebold machines (voting or scanning). And I do not intend this one article I posted to supplant the volumes of information about that exist on sites like Black Box Voting (link in sidebar). Finally, I cannot post links to any stories posted on WND because I am unable to vouch for the authenticity and reliability of information originating from that site.

    You are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, have you seen this memo? Talking points for answering constituents letters of concern.

    bob strauss: Our elected representatives are not experts in all things and so, I am pleased to see they are seeking out information from our LoC. However, there is a glaring error in this memo. The ‘researcher’ purports to conclude Obama is a natural born citizen as those terms are expressed in the Naturalization Act of 1790 as long as he was born here. But that 1790 Act was replaced in 1795 so as to remove the words “natural born,” inasmuch as those are terms of art which are a Constitutional restriction on Presidential eligibility and not on a legislative structure for citizenship. (Thanks for sending this to the blog; the comments were disengaged on Scribd.) (bob (and Readers), please forward this corrected information to the named LoC researcher.) ADMINISTRATOR
    P.S. bob, I want to further clarify my answer. See, the researcher in the LoC wrongly referenced in his memo to Congress, the definition of the phrase “natural born” as it appeared in the Naturalization Act of 1790. However, that law was repealed five years later and replaced with the Naturalization Act of 1795, taking out the words “natural born.” By so doing, the legislature was tacitly admitting, it had overstepped its lawful authority to define this restriction on Presidential eligibility. I proposed that people send this correct citation to the 1795 law, to that LoC researcher, letting him know, (we know) he made a mistake. Further, whoever sends such a note to this researcher could ask him to amend the incorrect answer he previously provided to members of Congress, who had asked for the research.

  3. Al says:

    Hi jbjd,

    Two thumbs up to the concept/noble ideal of fair elections everywhere. It’s frightening to even think about what happens to a democratic society when fair elections become obsolete. The more we read here, and elsewhere, it seems decent American people have to remain vigilant to ensure a Republic our Founding Fathers envisioned. Thanks for doing your part. Back next week to lurk and learn some more. Have a great week.

    Al: How does someone implicated in voter irregularities in one state obtain employment related to voting, in another? Why must citizens micromanage Executive tasks such as voting in order to ensure a fair vote? How do they accomplish this, anyway? The degree of suspect activity contained in just this one article boggles the mind. I need to work on so many fronts that need attention… ADMINISTRATOR

  4. bob strauss says:

    Story from WND, Corsi. Another memo re. Questions about Obama’s eligibility.

    bob strauss: I am writing an article about the CRS. I find their work problematic, for several reasons, including that 1) they make legal mistakes; and 2) they in large part merely regurgitate work of others to make their point. But this makes their policy prescriptions no less reliable than Corsi, or WND, or Apuzzo… I will explain in the article. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. bob strauss says:

    More info. Things seem to be heating up.

    Strunk v Paterson/Obama et al: Treason, Sedition, Scheme to defraud… (Updated Filing)

    bob strauss: Thanks again for sending this to me. (Free Republic stopped posting me after my article comparing West supporters to Obama supporters.) Whoa; this guy is incredible, meaning, not credible. The court is likely to assess a penalty against him for frivolous filings… Just for starters, NY state law does not require the candidate for President from the major political party to be eligible for the job in order to appear on the ballot.

    You know, for more than two years, people like Mr. Strunk have been stamping their feet at an election outcome they reject for a variety of reasons. They are willing to appear like irrational zealots; but they just refuse to put their minds to work first, identifying exactly what went wrong during the 2008 election cycle; and then, figuring out the bona fide mechanism for fixing what was broken so as to prevent this from happening again. I already did that work for them; now, they just have to calm down long enough to read it and understand it. Then, they can focus on getting their elected officials to enforce the law. Of course, in states like NY, they have to enact new laws that would prevent this from happening again.

    At some point, hopefully, people like Mr. Strunk will calm down long enough to realize, getting his fellow citizens to understand the holes in the process is the only way to get them to join him in doing the tedious work necessary to shore up this broken electoral system. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Al says:

    “Just for starters, NY state law does not require the candidate for President from the major political party to be eligible for the job in order to appear on the ballot.”

    Hi jbjd,

    Sounds like New York has some explaining to do! As if the ongoing ethics proceedings against Congressman Charlie Rangel wasn’t enough?! Or gubernatorial candidates wielding baseball bats instead of offering more appropriate solutions? What the halifax is becoming of NY?

    Back next week to lurk and learn some more. Have a great week.

    Al: But even in TX, which does have a law requiring all candidates on the ballot to be eligible for the job, AG Abbott refuses to enforce that law! And now, legislators there are fixing to enact yet another law requiring ballot eligibility! What a waste of time and energy. Instead of drafting new legislation, people who genuinely seek to establish a system that would guarantee eligibility for office would do better to enforce existing legislation. Of course, NY’ers need to enact ballot eligibility legislation; only, learning from the limitations of other states, they could also include the criminal penalties for anyone found submitting names for placement on the ballot of candidates who are ineligible for the job. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. bob strauss says:

    jbjd this is from an ongoing argument I am having with what appears to be an Obama paid blogger at TRSOL, I never expect them to admit defeat but I feel compelled to set the record straight.

    bob strauss…If you read it correctly it says “both” which means two. Those two are,”born abroad” and “born within a nations territory”. In both instances it says, “to parents who were Citizens’.

    “bob”…You, again, display a reading problem. “Includes” means “contains,” not “requires” (and “both” modifies “includes”). As demarked by the comma, the limiting clause (“to parents …”) modifies only clause preceding it (“born abroad”), and not the entire sentence.

    From jbjd’s blog, commenting on Maskell’s declaration, Obama is NBC.

    jbj…who? Yet another anonymous nonexpert?

    You and jbjd seem to suffer from the same reading problem: As already noted, Maskell, in determining the meaning of natural born citizenship, relied upon case law, and not acts of Congress. The differences in these two naturalization acts are discussed in footnote 46 on page 9 of Maskell’s memo.

    bob strauss: I have read the CRS memo put out by Mr. Maskell and intended to post an article on his work. In the meantime, I can respond to your comment briefly and succinctly.

    1. I never said Obama is a NBC. Given that no documentation in the public record establishes his pedigree, who the hell knows.

    2. One of the chief flaws (among many) in Haskell’s ‘legal’ treatise on the subject of what is the meaning of NBC, is the fact he cites to the Naturalization Act of 1790, but fails to report this law was revoked and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795, specifically so as to remove the phrase Natural Born Citizenship.

    3. Arguing about one definition of terms versus another, is a waste of time. Indeed, notwithstanding he goes on to spend several pages conjuring up just such a definition, even Mr. Maskell admits, no definition matters but one that emanates from the federal court, in a case directly on point!

    4. The focus on Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS needs to remain on this: on what basis did people who swore to state election officials he was elgible for POTUS, to get them to print his name on the ballot, ascertain beforehand he was eligible for the job? Because documentary evidence shows that in states with those ballot eligibility laws, we have asked everyone who Certified he is a NBC, how s/he knew. And so far, no one will say. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. bob strauss says:

    Al says:
    November 16, 2010 at 14:57

    “Just for starters, NY state law does not require the candidate for President from the major political party to be eligible for the job in order to appear on the ballot.”
    Doesn’t the US Constitution say it is the responsibility of Congress to vet the president elect, and the vice president elect, to guarantee the office of president does not devolve upon anyone who is not NBC?

    bob strauss: No. Absolutely not. (This absence of eligibility requirement is the basis for most of the work on this blog. Only the elements of Presidential eligibility are mentioned in the Constitution; but no law requires the election of only an eligible person. If we want to elect only a Constitutionally eligible President then, we can ether amend the Constitution or, enact state laws requiring Electors to elect only an eligible candidate.)ADMINISTRATOR

  9. bob strauss says:

    The twelfth amendment of the Constitution says the candidate must be Constitutionally eligible to be president or vice president. Sounds to me that it is the responsibility of the senate to make the determination of eligibility. Read the last sentence and see what you think. But it does say eligibility must be determined.

    Amendment 12 – Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. Note History The Electoral College

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

    The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

    The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

    The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

    bob strauss: The 3 (three) prerequisites to eligibility for President are spelled out in the Constitution. But no corresponding law requires Electors to only choose a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Amendment XII only requires, whatever eligibility applies to President applies to Vice President. Still, no corresponding law requires the Vice President whom the Electors elect, must be eligible for the job. Amendment XX, which in part supersedes Amendment XII, uses the word “qualified.” It mentions,

    If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    Many people have misconstrued the words “qualified” and “eligible” as these words appear in both the main text of the Constitution and in the Amendments. Let me try to explain where you and they went wrong.

    First, both the 12th Amendment and the 20th Amendment are procedural in nature. That is, neither Amendment seeks to limit or expand upon the scope of the eligibility clause in Article II, section 1. Rather, they only seek to clarify the process used to elect the President and Vice President.

    Before the 12th Amendment, the person receiving the 2nd highest votes for President automatically became the Vice President. The 12th Amendment for the first time allowed for direct voting for the VP. Thus, it was necessary to extend all Constitutional eligibility for President, to the position of VP, too. Here is an Annotation to that Amendment, which should clarify the meaning for you.

    This Amendment, 1 which supersedes clause 3 of Sec. 1 of Article II, was adopted so as to make impossible the situation occurring after the election of 1800 in which Jefferson and Burr received tie votes in the electoral college, thus throwing the selection of a President into the House of Representatives, despite the fact that the electors had intended Jefferson to be President and Burr to be Vice- President. 2 The difference between the procedure which it defines and that which was laid down originally is in the provision it makes for a separate designation by the electors of their choices for President and Vice-President, respectively. As a consequence of the disputed election of 1870, Congress has enacted a statute providing that if the vote of a State is not certified by the governor under seal, it shall not be counted unless both Houses of Congress concur.


    [Footnote 1] A number of provisions of the Amendment have been superseded by the Twentieth Amendment.

    Obviously, whatever is the definition of NBC, this definition applies to one’s status at birth. In other words, one cannot be ineligible for POTUS at one point during the election process and then become eligible further on. Eligibility for President is determined in the first instance, at birth. So, interpreting the language in a way that would allow for such subsequent qualification is wrong on its face.

    As for the word “qualified,” well, this does not refer to eligibility but rather to achieving the requisite Elector votes or, failing that, the requisite votes in Congress. Since at the time of the 20th Amendment, Electors elected the President and Vice President separately, several rounds of voting could fail to qualify a President and yet qualify a Vice President. In either case, the word “qualify” has absolutely no bearing on Article II, section 1 eligibility for office.

    So, hopefully, taking the 12th Amendment and the 20th Amendment together, what is being discussed is the process for electing the President separately from the Vice President, who now also must be Constitutionally eligible for office; and achieving sufficient votes either through the Electors or the Congress to reach the required number of votes to qualify for office.

    Many legal practitioners, including Mr. Apuzzo, have misread the meaning and intent of the word “qualified” in the 20th Amendment. Understandably, lay people tend to assume these legally trained writers know what they are talking about. But, as you see, this is not always the case. ADMINISTRATOR

    • bob strauss says:

      Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

      I hope something good happens, for the sake of the Constitution, on the 23rd of November, when SCOTUS conferences Apuzzo’s attempt at dethroning Obama.

      My biggest concern is that a new precedent will be established for presidential eligibility if nothing is done to remove Obama. We will be electing non citizens to the highest office in the land, and we will lose the security that a natural born US Citizen brings to the office.

      bob strauss: 1. Having a natural born President only brings perhaps a greater likelihood of security to the office. No matter; the requirement is in the Constitution and must be considered. This means, having failed to ascertain Obama’s NBC status, Electors elected someone who arguably is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. However, no law required them to do otherwise and so, no ‘precedent’ can have been set. (I am uncertain what this word means in this context, anyway.) 2. As long as states enact laws requiring Electors to vote for the nominee of the party – 26 have such laws – but no laws requiring Electors to vote only for a candidate Constitutionally eligible for the job, then I expect we will continue to elect Constitutionally ineligible Presidents. ADMINISTRATOR

      • bob strauss says:

        but no laws requiring Electors to vote only for a candidate Constitutionally eligible for the job, then I expect we will continue to elect Constitutionally ineligible Presidents.
        Isn’t this supposed to be impossible, according to our Constitution?

        bob strauss: I am so glad you continue this dialogue regarding Presidential eligibility. I haven’t posted a new article in some time and, in this way, am still able to educate.

        I came up with this example to demonstrate my point. Think of the Presidential Electors in each state as a hiring committee selected by the major political parties, whose job is to elect the President of the United States. Presumably, in order to determine whom to hire, Electors would turn to the eligibility requirements spelled out in the Constitution, the legal document ratified by the people (through their state legislatures) to instruct the functioning of the federal government. The people insisted in the Constitution, to be eligible, the President must be a NBC. So, presumably, the Electors or, hiring panel, guided by this legal document, at the outset would eliminate from consideration all candidates who failed to meet this threshold eligibility. However, citizens failed to enact any laws in their individual states requiring their state Electors to only hire a President Constitutionally eligible for the job, or to eliminate from consideration any job applicant who failed to meet Constitutional eligibility. Plus, in several states, citizens actually demanded the hiring panel of Electors must elect the candidate chosen in advance by the political party, in other words, without regard to Constitutional eligibility!

        In 2008, the hiring panel of party Electors chosen by the D political party elected job applicant Obama to be President, without first determining whether the candidate was even eligible under the Constitution for the job. Perfectly legal.

        And, as you know, if they could have, the R party would have foisted on us another job applicant legally ineligible for the job. Because neither the R’s nor the D’s put COUNTRY before CLUB; and because we voters have not passed laws demanding otherwise. ADMINISTRATOR

        • bob strauss says:

          The system was based on honor, and patriotism, two terms that are absent in today’s politics.

          bob strauss: I have no opinion as to what constitutes honor, or patriotism, in this regard. For example, do we lack “patriotism” for failing to enact laws for Electors that would ensure an eligible President? Or, where we only enacted ballot eligibility laws, for failing to insist these laws are enforced? Do those of us who even now cannot comprehend that we elected party Electors in November but enacted laws mandating them to vote in December for the nominee of the party, lack “honor”?

          On what basis do you purport to have determined the “system” was based on these principles once upon a time, in the past? When? ADMINISTRATOR

          • bob strauss says:

            Maybe I believed honor and patriotism had something to do with it because I saw it in the movies when I was young.

            Maybe if I was more pragmatic, I would see it is all BS, and the real system is dirty and corrupt, and designed to be exploited, and taken advantage of for the purpose of instilling an ineligible criminal from who knows where, into the office of president of the US.

            bob strauss: I think you underestimate your new found knowledge of the ‘system,’ and perhaps also fail to appreciate the steep learning curve you have overcome! For more than 2 (two) years now, I have tried to persuade people to understand that all elections are local (state); and that, therefore, citizens in each state are responsible for ensuring a ‘legitimate’ election. Thus, if you want only the names of eligible candidates to be printed on the ballot, citizens must 1) enact laws requiring ballot eligibility; and 2) provide a mechanism for enforcing those laws. If you want to ensure that your state Electors vote only for an eligible President 1) enact a law requiring that result and 2) provide a mechanism for enforcing that law.

            The hardest work ahead of you – assuming you desire these results – is to teach a sufficient number of your fellow citizens how the ‘system’ works and then, persuading them to help you to change it.

            Hopefully, you will begin to appreciate the hard work you have invested so far and become more optimistic. (Listen to me, advising you to see the glass as ‘half full’!) ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I was just poking around trying to check the numbers and I found this-looks like it got published recently,in case you get lots of questions. I double checked it was your article.
    A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH – venturacountyteapartyNov 24, 2010 … Many words have been written about the sleazy tactics used to get Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro into the White House.…/a-coup-through-and-through – Cached

    Michelle: Thank you. Only got a couple of hits from that site, so far. But these people are from CA; and I still cannot believe, no group in CA has pressed AG Brown to investigate charges the D’s, INCLUDING CALIFORNIAN NANCY PELOSI, CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTION, violated the vote binding laws in that state, a crime so well documented in my COUP series! ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Michelle says:

    jbjd-you have got to be the master of understatement
    “a crime so well documented in my COUP series!” if you missed anything it may have been a comma. This is a Tea Party group and now that I am Tea Party (former Dem due to the criminal election frauds of 08) well Tea Party people tend to pass information around-I always hope that your information will get to a person(s) who respect the laws of our land. Nancy Pelosi and the law(s) speaks for itself with all of various and sundry violations of the law committed by Ms. Pelosi.

    Michelle: …and AG Baker of GA knew ‘coercion’ when he saw it, BEFORE the Convention! ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Rlqretired says:

    jbjd – As we all now know, this Obama abomination was born deep in the bowls of the Democratic Party Leadership by the liars and crooks that they are. Now that Kretchner has been rejected by Supreme Court and your excellent work, combined with those that support you has been totally ignored by the state AG’s, it appears to me that the most logical, perhaps only, place to correct this abomination is within the Democratic Party itself in the primary nominating process for 2012.

    If there were just one reputable Democratic candidate that had the testicular fortitude to challenge the secrecy shield Obama has sealed around the vital statistics of his life history (long form birth certificate, passport record, educational records, adoption records from Indonesia etc., now protected by his very first executive order) combined with a clear understanding of your excellent work, Obama could not survive the publicity.

    The question is, does such a support group or candidate exist within the Democratic Party?

    RLqretired: So nice to hear from you! As you know, I eschew reliance on any records to establish Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job. I would never hire someone who refused to identify s/he possessed the posted eligibility for the job. However, I maintain anyone who swore to his eligibility needs to be made to reveal on what documentary basis s/he was able to ascertain such eligibility. This means, both R’s and D’s alike must step up to enforce existing ballot laws.

    But all of the major ‘questioners’ of Obama’s eligibility have ignored my work. Instead, for reasons only they could explain to you, their focus remains on frivolous lawsuits, or re-writing the Constitution, or electing only R’s to Congress. I continue to hold out hope that, at some point, a critical mass of citizens – I am hoping Texans come through – will assemble on the steps of the state capital in any of those states which require candidate eligibility to appear on the ballot; and demand the AG – R or D – initiates an investigation to determine on what basis any of those D’s swore in 2008 Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the job.

    As for amending the “party nominating process,” well, given that the rules of the party only implicate internal operations of a private club; that these rules were broken in 2008; and that even when state laws were broken (think “vote binding states”) no one was held liable, I ignore the machinations of either the D or R private club to solve the problems with our electoral process that exposed themselves in the 2008 election cycle.

    And no Executive Order seals the records you list. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. As I have spelled out in several articles, the R’s in TX at any time have standing to compel Boyd Richie to declare Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to appear on the TX ballot.

  13. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Classic you, love it. Short, concise, to the point and ever so effective and it would be done, finished, accomplished and it puts the ball squarely where it belongs.
    “P.S. As I have spelled out in several articles, the R’s in TX at any time have standing to compel Boyd Richie to declare Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to appear on the TX ballot”
    Please Republicans in Texas do remember the Alamo.

    Michelle: Yes, I could not even muster the wherewithal to look up and then link to the specific articles. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Michelle says:

    “Yes, I could not even muster the wherewithal to look up and then link to the specific articles”
    You just take it easy-I know it is here I remember reading it. If this were a book I wonder if it would be as long as a Michener novel (I love Michener).

    Michelle: You make me laugh. I meant, when I first posted the post script to my response to RLqretired, I referenced my work but did not cite to it. I know I need not reference my work, in correspondence with you. You know it by ‘heart.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Al says:

    Hi jbjd

    If the present Executive Branch of government won’t investigate himself; the present Judicial Branch won’t even allow any court proceedings set against him to have standing; and, the present Legislative Branch of government, “D’s & “R’s” alike, seem to have turned a blind eye to any infractions that may have tainted an otherwise fair and clean election in 2008, it would seem only an individual like “Honest Abe” Lincoln himself would dare build a national grassroots campaign to address the evil shenanigans of 2008. However, with all due respect to Mr. Lincoln(RIP), reality dictates that a few modern day Lincolns have to stand up, step forward and be counted. Sadly, Boyd Richie(TX)couldn’t step into Lincoln’s shoes even if he wore multiple pairs of heavy duty thick socks. At least you, and a great many other modern day patriots care to do the right thing. So, press onward with your hardwork and dedication, and let’s hope 2012 isn’t a sequel to 2008. I say let the People decide, and the halifax with the backroom deals of the party bosses, “D’s” & “R’s” alike.

    Al: In TX, citizens who otherwise claim to care whether Obama is a NBC have dropped the ball. I spelled out that even the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas refuses to assist citizens in the Lone Star State to obtain records from Boyd Richie. Well, the FOIFT Board of Directors consists of many high profile media people. Why not pressure them? Under TX law, in his position as Chair of the TX D party responsible for submitting the name of the qualified candidate to be printed on the ballot, Boyd Richie can now arguably be considered a public official and be compelled to produce documentary records that were the basis for his Certification, Obama’s name can be printed on the ballot. Individuals unwilling to pressure their AG, Greg Abbott; or pressure the organization, FOIFT; can initiate this court action on their own! ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Rlqretired says:

    Jbjd – A big oops on the executive order which merely added additional protection for his future records as president. It was the approximate 2 million dollars he and his supporters have spent on legal fees and court costs to protect the vital statistics of his life history.

    I’m not trying to make this a partisan issue, nor disagree with your excellent work, but I will guarantee you that any Republican candidate for president will be more that willing to provide such vital statistics and freely answer any questions about them, as did McCain. Obama can’t and this is his Achilles Heal because if he does he will be shown to be the Fraud that he is.

    All it would take to burst this secrecy shield is just one reputable Democratic Presidential Candidate that is fed up with this corruption, break with political correctness, study up on your excellent work and demand answers to the questions for public exposure. Such exposure would go far in achieving the changes we all want in future elections.

    I also have hopes for the state actions such as in Texas and Arizona.

    RLqretired: No need to apologize to me! I feel bad for so many people bombarded with false claims throughout the internet who then have to ferret out what is real from what is speculation or, worse, merely hype. For a while, I tried posting rebuttals to the more egregious lies, that is, the lies that were repeated often and, taken, for the most part, as true, thus enraging believers. For example, as soon as he took office, Obama did not issue an Executive Order blocking all of his pre-Presidential papers from public scrutiny. Nevertheless, ‘the usual suspects’ printed he did. (Next time, you could do a search on my blog for “Executive Order,” and find discussions dispelling that myth.)

    As for guaranteeing the conduct of any R candidate, well, McCain had standing to keep Obama off the ballot in TX in 2008. Of course, he was not a NBC, either. (He was only made a citizen proactively, by Act of Congress, when he was one year old.) (Cites are all over the blog on this one.) ADMINISTRATOR

  17. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, I remembered, what you said about the Maskell memo, where Maskell qualified Obama as NBC based on the 1790 act, later to be repealed in 1795.

    Obama’s paid bloggers cite the above Tribe/Olson memo as saying Tribe and Olson say Obama is NBC.

    Read the memo, if you can keep from laughing too hard. I cannot believe Tribe, and Olson would put their names on a memo like this.

    This memo is an outright deception piece, and fits right into this entire fraud. I wonder who wrote this memo, factcheck?

    bob strauss: Hey, I am confused. The Tribe and Olson ‘opinion’ which was submitted to the record as part of the non-binding resolution S 511, which declares with no legal clout, John McCain is a NBC. That obfuscation by Messrs. Tribe and Olson has been thoroughly de-bunked in several posts/comments on this site. I was unaware they opined Obama is a NBC, too. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. bob strauss says:

    Tribe and Olson didn’t opine on Obama, obot defenders at TRSOL said this memo shows Tribe and Olson think Obama is NBC. I told the obots to read the last paragraph on the signature page.

    Also, the “Obama legal team” at TRSOL admit Obama was born British, and argue it doesn’t make any difference, at this moment in his life he chooses to be an American.

    Also, did I misread the memo or did they qualify presidential candidates according to the naturalization act of 1790 again?

    If you ever have the time, check out some of the comments on the various threads at The Right Side of Life, and see what the “Obama legal team” says about eligibility, and the availability of Hawaii DOH documents. I think you will be amazed at the ongoing deception and obfuscation about Obama’s eligibility. I hate being lied to.

    bob strauss: I realized some time ago that focusing on correcting the misstatements on other blogs was, for several reasons, a waste of my valuable time. Better I should respond to questions about those issues on this blog, where everyone who wants to see what “jbjd” thinks, can ask and find out. And where I don’t have to repeat myself, ad infinitum, which for some commenters appears to be for as long as the payments continue.

    Better yet, by not focusing my energies on responding to the baseless tripe pervasive on several well-read sites, I can continue to focus on unearthing the frauds perpetrated by both the D’s and the R’s to undermine our electoral process; document these frauds; and propose the tools that can clean things up. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. bob strauss says:

    Do you think if SCOTUS gets the “right” case they will hear it, or do you think these legal actions against Obama are a waste of time, given the attitude of congress, and the supremes?

    People like me want to know what jbjd thinks because your opinion is highly valued, and people know you are on the side of the Constitution, and the law.

    Did you hear about Nancy Pelosi’s supposed rant, where she was going to threaten Obama with disclosing Obama’s certification file? If this is true, it means Pelosi knows she committed fraud on the American people when she signed the letters of nomination. What are these people thinking?

    bob strauss: You know, I have been saying for some time, given that the Constitution says, Electors elect the President; and that no states bothered to enact laws that would require their Electors to elect only a NBC; these law cases aimed at establishing Obama’s NBC status are useless. The courts have been quite patient with this mammoth waste of already too limited judicial resources. And I have opined the way to get a definition of NBC.

    Each state that enacts a ballot eligibility law, that is, a law that requires any candidates desiring the state to spend its resources to print their names on the ballot, must be qualified for the job; can define those qualifications in any way they want. Because they are not defining the qualifications for the job, per se, but only the qualifications for getting on the ballot. For example, the candidate in either the Presidential preference primary or general election must be born on US soil, of parents both of whom are U.S. citizens at the time of birth. See what I mean? And the chief election official, usually the SoS, can promulgate rules and regulations to carry out that law. For example, candidates must submit certain documents to a vetting panel, etc. And if the state determines the candidate failed to meet ballot eligibility, this does not mean that person cannot still be the party nominee for President. It just means, the state will not print that person’s name next to the D or
    R on the ballot. Of course, if candidates (D or R) want to contest the state’s definition of NBC, they can take the state to court.

    And that’s how we could end up with a legal (read, federal appellate court) definition of NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. bob strauss says:

    Have you seen this!! Seal on Obama’s “factcheck certified” COLB is a forgery!

    misstickly | December 4, 2010 at 2:55 pm | Reply

    I hope you guys don’t mind if I leave a link to a post here from my blog. It’s my first one in a very long time and I only published it today, so please let me know if you notice any glitches.

    The Hawaii Department of Health finally disclosed an image of their ‘departmental embossed seal’ to me through a UIPA request and not only did they do everything to try to keep from giving it to me–but *ahem* it is probably not what Obama voters imagined.=) Anyway, everything is in the post….thanks!

    (link omitted by jbjd)

    bob strauss: You still don’t get it.

    There is no COLB; there is only an image incorporating the words “Certification of Live Birth” that was introduced in June 2008 by candidate Barack Obama in his quest for the D Presidential nomination, on a political electronic advertising campaign venue named “Fight the Smears.” See, for example, PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS. No public official has authenticated the mock-up which was the model for that electronic image; and, more importantly, no member of the D party who swore to state election officials Obama was Constitutionally qualified for POTUS in order to get them to print his name on the ballot, has claimed this ‘COLB’ – either the ‘art department’ mock-up or the on-line image – was the basis for such candidate authentication. But the only significance of any such authenticating document is whether it became the basis for validating the qualifications of the candidate in a legal forum such as state ballots, since no law requires Electors to only elect a President who is Constitutionally qualified for the job. So, why on earth are people still preoccupied with de-bunking the authenticity of an electronic image appearing on the internet (which can only be viewed through the medium of a computer screen, anyway)?

    This continued inquiry into whether the COLB on the FTS web site owned by BO, then ObamaFA, then the OrganizingFA arm of the DNC, is real, boggles the mind. I not only will not waste my time viewing another site laying claim to any relevant revelation about the authenticity of an Obama COLB; but also will not refer anyone else to such drivel, lest this referral lends an air of credibility to such frivolity. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, here is somemore info.

    (note from jbjd: please read the remainder of bob strauss’ comment only insofar as this illustrates the frivolity of continued examination of an on-line electronic image owned in whole by the DNC Services Corporation.)

    misstickly | December 5, 2010 at 2:10 pm |

    “I have reason to believe that MissTickly’s comparison is moot.”

    Desperate to get this message out much, Jonah the Obot. Has it occurred to you Obots yet that if the law authorizes disclosure of the image provided to me by the HDOH, then any other embossed impressions of other seals and their corresponding black & white drawings along with the rules that define them and govern their use are also authorized to be disclosed.

    Trust me when I say that it occurred to me, if you know what I mean. I take my responsibility to help oversee our government through Open Records Law seriously.

    You get what I am saying, bot?

    ALSO, I responded to your scam already, but here it is again:

    misstickly | December 5, 2010 at 1:30 am |

    You are an anonymous person online. I am going with what the Department of Health provided me.

    You and the others pushing these fake seals are simply not credible in the face of the facts below from the update I just added to my blog. You can find the links to my citations there, too. Yes, I know who you are.

    You expose yourself in your attempt to discredit me and indisputable facts. If the seal on a vital record presented to an official failed to match when verified against what the HDOH provided them, it would be deemed worthless if not fraudulent.

    “[*Handy information about the Hawaii Department of Health’s uniform practices:]

    Dr. Fukino has authority over only one image, and it is the one they provided me and is described & attached to the agency administrative rules as ‘Exhibit A.’

    • Typeface is a significant identifying feature of the seal. Obama’s is wide and bold, the HDOH seal lettering is condensed and a much lighter weight.

    • Present is a type treatment anomaly seen in the word ‘OF.’

    • Two stars are missing but described in those administration rules.

    Due to these indisputable facts, the seal on Obama’s COLB is not the HDOH seal and Dr. Fukino does not have authority over the seal appearing on Obama’s COLB according to the description in the Title 11 rules AND the version disclosed in my records request. The seal seen on Obama’s COLB HAS NO LEGAL WEIGHT either online or as a physical copy.

    Furthermore, agency rules are rightly called ‘regulations’ in that they make the operations and administrative practices UNIFORM. See the Chapter on Rulemaking from the Hawaii Revised Statutes, this one in particular:

    Ҥ91-2 Public information. (a) In addition to other rulemaking requirements imposed by law, each agency shall:

    (2) Adopt rules of practice, setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available, and including a description of all forms and instructions used by the agency.”

    Obama’s seal is not uniform to the seal described in the Title 11 Administrative Rules but the one supplied to me directly by the HDOH is.

    Also worth noting is that only the Director of the Department of Health may issue a certified copy of a vital record. Therefore, all seals on all certified copies since 1988 should be uniform.

    There is no room for debate.”

    misstickly | December 5, 2010 at 2:35 am |

    And one more thing Jonah: What part of the words ‘official seal’ do you think we don’t understand? There is only ONE official seal and isn’t on Obama’s COLB.

    It’s over. We know what the real seal looks like now. The gig is up.

    “HDOH Title 11-1 administrative rules: “§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health.

    a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches in diameter. At the curve on the top portion there shall be the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and at the curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words “STATE OF HAWAII .” At the curve on each side portion shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents, which has long been recognized as a universal symbol of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an indentation, which shall separate it from the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE OF HAWAII .” For illustrative purposes, a black and white drawing of the official seal is attached at the end of this section as Exhibit “A,” titled “Seal of the Department of Health,” and dated November 1, 1988, and made a part of this section.””

    bob strauss: What a waste of time, examining the minutia of the focus of an electronic advertising campaign aimed to persuade the public to ‘buy’ into the meme, Obama is not only a citizen of the U.S. but he is also a “native.” (Recall, this advertising campaign never sells the fact he is a NBC.) ADMINISTRATOR

  22. misstickly says:

    For you jbjd. You get credit at my blog.

    [Ed Note: I want to be sure everyone understands what has happened:

    Dr. Fukino has resigned or been fired. I received an autoreply telling me SEVEN minutes after I sent her a UIPA request this evening. An autoreply doesn’t take seven minutes and I believe she quit on the spot. An email I sent her earlier went through with no problem.

    The UIPA request that, IMO, prompted her to leave was/is the proof that Obama certified his own COLB with a phony seal that is SO different from the official HDOH seal, it is probably not criminal that he had the seal produced and spread it around online.


    Obama’s seal is so devilishly clever, yet radically different than a legal seal conforming to NATIONAL standards that NO official to which it would be PHYSICALLY presented would accept it because it clearly does not conform to NATIONAL standards for the seals that are authorized to be used to certify legal records.

    It is not a raised seal per the National Guidelines. Per the guidelines for issuance of a U.S. Passport.

    It is recessed.

    So no one online noticed or clued in, but any official PHYSICALLY receiving it would find easily that it’s not seriously trying to pass itself off for a legal seal.

    End game.

    (And BTW, blogger jbjd first noted that Obama has never-ever offered his COLB in court–he directs the court to view it online. Now you know why, jbjd.)]

    —-END SNIP—-

    Let me know what you think.

    misstickly: I never stated Obama directed the court to view his COLB on line. Indeed, he never told the court his COLB was on line. In fact, he never told the court, he had a COLB. No; he only said he “publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.”

    As critics of my work over at Politijab pointed out, technically, there is a difference between a Motion to Dismiss (before evidence is submitted into the record) and a Motion for Summary Judgment (after evidence is submitted into the record). As I have exhaustively rebutted, here’s what happened.

    Fingers crossed, Attorney Bauer tried to bamboozle the court into granting what he was calling a “Motion to Dismiss” but which a sharper opposing counsel would have pointed out the court should convert into a Motion for Summary Judgment, given that he was surreptitiously trying to slip ‘evidence’ into the record by way of asking the court to take “judicial notice” of (the fact his client had produced) this document.

    This further analysis of an on-line image of a mock-up created for a political advertising campaign is ridiculous. There is no COLB except for the electronic image that appears on “Fight the Smears,” the electronic advertising campaign that is now owned and controlled, according to the U.S. Code, by the DNC Services Corporation. ADMINISTRATOR

    • misstickly says:

      OH, then I have misunderstood you. I will update my post to link to this post with your clarification.

      misstickly: Thank you. As you now understand, I merely reminded readers that, the only ‘document’ to which Mr. Bauer could have been referring by writing in that infamous footnote in Hollister that a “birth certificate” had been “publicly released”; was the on-line image of a COLB his client posted on the campaign advertising web site, “Fight the Smears.” I wanted to make sure readers noted the distinction between fact and Mr. Bauer’s representations to the Honorable Justice Robertson in federal court. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. Michelle says:

    jbjd-let me know if I have this correct.
    COLB=Paid Political Announcement owned and operated by DNC Services Corp.
    An Obama proof of American birth=in essence nothing submitted.
    re: Mr. Bauer “surreptitiously trying to slip ‘evidence’ into the record by way of asking the court to take “judicial notice” would this get a lawyer in trouble (ethics, “officer of the court”) whether opposing counsel catches it or not?
    The reason I’m asking this question is when we were little kids our neighbors went through a horrible divorce in IL. 25 years duration, 3 children (teen-agers) the wife was also the husbands partner, secretary etc. The husband in court stated that a piece of property was sold for 30 thousand dollars, the wife told her lawyer it was not 30 thousand, but 300 thousand dollars. The judge had a fit, when the wife’s lawyer advised him-the judge told the husband I want an honest listing of assets or I’m holding you in Contempt of Court, does this apply to Mr. Bauer or any other lawyer?

    Michelle: Of course, you ‘get it’; no surprise there. You have ‘religiously’ read this blog and so, can accurately paraphrase what I have said about these issues. Yes, Mr. Bauer can rightly be accused of ‘lack of candor to the tribunal.’ Indeed, I have suggested in several places that such a complaint could be filed with the federal bar. For example,

    Luckier for Mr. Bauer, neither Judge James Robertson nor Mr. Berg inquired as to where is this “genuine” document of HI birth he claims his client “publicly produced”; or the “contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper”; or the “original birth certificate” HI officials claim to have on file. (How do you suppose Mr. Bauer would have responded to such request from the bench or opposing counsel, for production of that “original birth certificate” those HI officials said is “on record”?) Because Mr. Bauer is a member of the D.C. Bar and according to the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, these examples of lack of “Candor to Tribunal”; or lack of “Truthfulness in Statement to Others”; or failure to display “Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel” could cost Mr. Bauer his license to practice law.



  24. Kelly C. says:

    jbjd… I’ve missed your articles. Reading this short entry and all of the comments is like a breath of fresh air. I just love soaking up the knowledge! But this particular discussion reminds me of my phone conversation with US Representative Ron Paul, on December 26th, 2008, which (in part) explored the aspect of fraud. He said if it can be proven that FRAUD was used to get Obama elected, then the whole “NBC”/eligibility issue becomes moot. Fraud can be a whole “horse of a different color”. I think what Misstickly is trying to (finally) bring to light is that FRAUD was indeed practiced (on a wide scale)… but more to the point, fraud was used on his imaginary “COLB”, and she can finally prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That “image” aided (in large part) to getting him elected, albeit indirectly. We all know that Obama got in to office via fraud using a wide variety of ways and means, but no one has been able to conclusively PROVE any of it. Misstickly (I believe) just has.

    Kelly C.: There is no COLB. There is only an advertising mock-up of a facsimile. How do we know? Because it appears on an electronic advertising site and is only visible with the aid of a computer screen.

    misstickly has proven absolutely nothing. She merely offered up some ‘evidence’ that 1) the official seal of HI can be described in the way she put forth; 2) this seal she describes was the sole mechanism used at the time indicated the FTS COLB was created; and 3) the image shown on the FTS COLB differs from this official HI seal she described.

    For goodness sake, assuming the claims on FTS are untrue, false advertising during a Presidential campaign is not fraud. But swearing to state election officials the Presidential nominee is a qualified candidate for the purpose of inducing them to print his name on the ballot, in a state like Texas that requires such eligibility for office as a prerequisite to appearing on the ballot; without first ascertaining whether he is eligible for the job, is criminal election fraud. Send Congressman Paul some more citizen complaints of election fraud against Boyd Richie. Remind him, Chairman Boyd refuses to disclose to the citizens of Texas, on what documentary basis he was able to determine Obama was a NBC. Let him explain why this isn’t fraud after all! (I think in some circumstances, false advertising might be illegal in some states but, then again, that raises the problem of proving Obama lied, rather than compelling those who swore to his eligibility to establish, they told the truth.)

    Yes, I miss my articles, too. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Perhaps the automated email response from HI was triggered by misstickly’s correspondence. But this might indicate nothing more than the fact, someone else at that office was sick of responding to these emails!

    • Kelly C. says:

      As a reply, I have a couple of things… #1: I never claimed the COLB was “real”… In fact, when referencing it, my exact words were “imaginary “COLB””. But I think we were on the same page there. #2: You said, “For goodness sake, assuming the claims on FTS are untrue, false advertising during a Presidential campaign is not fraud.” I beg to offer the rhetorical counter-argument – “What if the claims on FTS were MEANT TO BE TRUE (as all of the Obama supporters claimed ad nauseum)? Then “false advertisement” would be very very real, and very very illegal… would it not? Wouldn’t INTENT to pass off a product (obama in this case) as the real thing, and deliberately diverting attention from a known falsehood (his eligibility) be an illegal act? Isn’t that the real basis of fraud? Fraud is by all accounts an intentional and deliberate act, is it not? And finally, #3: Misstickly offered up evidence. Period. Evidence of fraud. The timing on the resignation or the autoreply time is all “clutter” to the otherwise crystal clear picture… FRAUD was committed. A different stamp was used. There is only one stamp that the Hawaii Dept of Health uses. What is on the “imaginary COLB” is not the same stamp. Not even close. I’m almost afraid to ask this, but… What am I missing here?

      Kelly C.: You ask, “What am I missing here?” A lot.

      1. Civil fraud and criminal fraud are 2 (two) separate animals. Both frauds are jurisdiction dependent, that is, the elements that go to prove the charge are determined by the law in the particular jurisdiction. Civil fraud, at a minimum, requires actual injury. But who is the Claimant here? In other words, who is the victim of a false claim printed on a campaign web site? Did the Electors who elected Obama POTUS base that vote on the fact, FTS said, he is a “native” American? Because remember, he never said in that ad, he is a NBC. I ‘knew’ back in June 2008 no evidence existed in the public record that could establish, he is a NBC. Here’s what clinched it for me. Presidential nominee wannabe Obama admitted people had doubts whether he is a NBC and, in order to assuage these doubts, he said he was posting this electronic image on his campaign web site. (Not surprisingly, he couched his conduct in words that made it seem he was publicly producing his birth certificate. Hey, wait a minute… that’s exactly what he did! (Please, no parsing words about a Certificate versus a Certification. The HDoH changed their language so that these terms are now interchangeable.)) Only, it was merely a facsimile of a real document, which document was the mock-up for the campaign advertisement!

      To prove fraud, one must also prove not only that s/he relied on that fraud to detriment (injury); but also that any reasonable person would have done so, too.

      So, I continue to wonder why so many other people are claiming victimization here. Better they should admit, they have no idea what they are talking about.

      Criminal fraud is easier to pursue. In most jurisdictions violations of election laws are criminal acts. This means, the accused committed wrong against the state. And the state is the Plaintiff. I insist, telling state election officials candidate Obama was qualified for the office of President without first ascertaining whether he is a NBC, violates state election laws that only allow on the ballot the names of candidates qualified for the job. Practically speaking, this means, once charged, Defendants could attempt to defend themselves by claiming, they relied on an on-line electronic image to determine eligibility. (GUILTY!)

      2. You are entitled to your belief that, merely alleging an official seal should look a certain way and, that the image of the seal on the on-line document called “Certification of Live Birth” looks another way; and alleging, therefore, the original hard copy from which this on-line image was recovered is a forgery; is tantamount to proving the thing. But, in a court of law, such allegations mean absolutely nothing.


  25. Al says:

    jbjd wrote: “In TX, citizens who otherwise claim to care whether Obama is a NBC have dropped the ball. I spelled out that even the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas refuses to assist citizens in the Lone Star State to obtain records from Boyd Richie. Well, the FOIFT Board of Directors consists of many high profile media people. Why not pressure them? Under TX law, in his position as Chair of the TX D party responsible for submitting the name of the qualified candidate to be printed on the ballot, Boyd Richie can now arguably be considered a public official and be compelled to produce documentary records that were the basis for his Certification, Obama’s name can be printed on the ballot. Individuals unwilling to pressure their AG, Greg Abbott; or pressure the organization, FOIFT; can initiate this court action on their own!”

    Hi jbjd!,

    Appreciate your informative, telling reponse. It’s disheartening that not a single individual in as large a state as Texas cares to engage Mr. Richie, and demand that he produce the document(s)he used to qualify Obama’s candidacy. Two years later, Mr. Richie’s reluctance to do so is beyond appalling…the people of Texas deserve a more responsive “public” servant. Here in New York, we, too, have some issues, specifically allowing names on the presidential ballot whether they are eligible or not(wtunclebuck in lowercase to spar your ears, but a wtunclebuck nevertheless). Keep up your great work here, jbjd, and hopefully election reform and fair elections will become more of the norm than the exception. Back next week to lurk and learn some more.
    Have a great week, jbjd.

    Al: Thank you so much for the ongoing psychic support. ADMINISTRATOR

    • jbjd, I must “take issue” with what you and Al state in the post immediately above. I am from Texas, and so are my friends. I already forwarded your observation to one of the more active and influential ones of them, and we will take action. I promise! Let it not be said that Texans are dropping the ball on this crucial issue. Thanks for all you guys do! jbjd, You have a new, devoted reader.

      Alex Wallenwein: Welcome to the blog. And I assure you, I would like nothing more than to have these disparaging comments that when it comes to ‘outing’ Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office, Texans have dropped the ball, proven wrong. I cannot wait to learn that AG Abbott has asked Boyd Richie to produce documentary evidence that was the basis for his claim to state election officials that the candidate was qualified for office, to get them to print his name on the ballot. Or to learn that, with no production forthcoming, Mr. Abbott has filed formal charges of election fraud against him. I will keep my fingers crossed… ADMINISTRATOR

  26. Michelle says:

    When I lived in IL, our bosses came from Texas, I know when a Texan gives his/her word s/he keeps it, taught us a lot about Barbara Jordan too they also admired her Constitutional work .
    “I must “take issue” with what you and Al state in the post immediately above. I am from Texas, and so are my friends. I already forwarded your observation to one of the more active and influential ones of them, and we will take action. I promise.”
    “A government is invigorated when each of us is willing to participate in shaping the future of this nation.”
    Barbara Jordan
    Read more:

    Michelle: Some time ago, I submitted this slogan as a suggestion for mugs someone was producing on line: “She, the people.” At that time, I was thinking of Hillary Clinton. But this applies as well to women like Barbara Jordan… ADMINISTRATOR

  27. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    First, please let me start by apologizing to Alex Wallenwein, and the state of Texas for implying that Texans don’t care to engage Mr. Richie to demand that he represent their concerns regarding Obama’s name being placed on the ballot during Election 2008. In 20/20 hindsight, I should have said, in spite of the genuine concerns of his fellow Texans, Mr. Richie doesn’t seem to care enough to mount a serious inquiry into determining what document(s) compelled election officials in Texas to place Mr. Obama’s name on the ballot.

    With that said, jbjd, it’s encouraging that Alex and some other honest and fairminded people in Texas actually care to address this matter. Cheers to them. Should Texas demonstrate a breakthrough, maybe other states will find the inspiration/courage to follow their lead. Here’s hoping someday in the near future that you hear of AG Abbott actually demanding Mr. Richie to either produce documentary evidence of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy, or face formal charges of election fraud. That will take some courage, and time will tell if Mr. Abbott cares to address this matter on behalf of the people of Texas or not. Far too often people think this matter of legitimacy is broken down into two camps: pro-Obama or anti-Obama; however, it’s incumbent of our public-servants, who seem to have forgotten how to simply represent the concerns of the people, to simply address the concerns of the tax-payers they represent and let the chips fall where they may(this isn’t just about Obama, but about fair-elections of a free people). Have a great week!

    Al: Great comment.

    When I first learned only Boyd Richie had submitted the Certification of Obama’s nomination in Texas, I was perversely thrilled. That is, I realized (or I assumed…) going after the Chair of the state political party for election fraud would be much more possible for residents of that state (and, undoubtedly more palatable) than would be going after Nancy Pelosi (in her capacity as civilian Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention). I really thought scores of people would line up at AG Abbott’s door to complain Boyd Richie refused to tell them the basis for that Obama eligibility Certification. I still think they will. I guess I mistakenly thought, since after several years of complacency I figured out exactly how the electoral process works, and then spelled this out for the world; now, the world will immediately run with this information. I failed to appreciate, people will grasp and internalize information at their own pace. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply to Michelle Cancel reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: