©2011 jbjd

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Benjamin Franklin

“A citizenry that cannot compel its current elected officials to carry out those laws already in effect, cannot change this outcome by electing new officials or enacting new laws.”



If Barack Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President then, those members of the D party broke the law in 2008 who swore to state election officials he was, to get them to print his name on the ballot in those states that only print the names of candidates qualified for the job.  Many people who believe he is ineligible advocate we should shore up state election laws to forestall another round of fraud in 2012.  Meanwhile, others urge we should not let off the hook those members of the D party who fraudulently pulled off his election in 2008.

The problem of establishing candidate eligibility for office can be rectified on two fronts.

Those of you in states without existing ballot eligibility laws can focus on drafting smart candidate ballot eligibility laws for 2012.  The rest of you can work to persuade your A’sG to enforce existing laws.  In this way, that is, by concentrating on eliminating election fraud viz a viz the ballot using both prevention AND remediation, we can get at the problem of candidate eligibility coming AND going.

For residents of HI, here are updated citizen complaints of election fraud for the State of Hawaii.  Please, whether you have already filed a complaint, file this current updated one now. Note that Brian Schatz, formerly Chair of the Democratic Party of HI, is now the Lt. Gov.  And the new AG, David Louie, only assumed office a couple of weeks ago.  (Mr. Louie graduated from Occidental College, said to be one of Mr. Obama’s alma maters.)

All filers, old and new, make sure to read and understand the complaint before signing with real names and addresses, and sending.

View this document on Scribd

9 Responses to ALOHA OBAMA and SHALOM

  1. Pete says:

    Your quotes above are inspiring, and so true. Many appreciate your efforts and ability. The ‘new’ elections and ‘new’ laws are a ‘feel good’ but maybe useless activity. We need accountability for those laws already broken, to this we agree. I must ask you, and you have avoided it in the past, what do you call a government that doesn’t abide or enforce the existing laws?

    Pete: Thank you for your kind words of support.

    I tried several times to answer your question about government but my reply kept rambling. So, for now, I will be brief.

    We are the government. You might have missed this admission in my prior writings but, since the summer of 2008 I have been confessing, I really hold no one else but me and my complacent compatriots accountable for the apparent discrepancy now exposed between the promise and the execution of our government.

    It was our communal ignorance about how our government works that is to blame for its shortcomings. Only that.

    I have been donating my time and work to this blog ever since, trying to make up for lost time. I agree; the work here is stellar. It is also exhausting. But not financially self-sustaining. Yes, I have identified how to fix the eligibility problem in our electoral system. Meanwhile, any one of a dozen sites that spew garbage on the subject get far more hits than “jbjd”; and however bizarre the rationale of the latest scheme purportedly designed to ‘out’ Obama’s ineligibility; or impossible its chance of success, people still finance whichever messiah promises ‘it might work.’

    This tells me, we still haven’t invested the time or effort to learn how our government works. And without that knowledge, we can only be assured it will not work for us, again. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. azgo says:


    Wow! Nice job of revising the HI complaint. You have a lot of links now to your work here at your blog.

    What do you think about adding; “Political advertisements don’t necessarily have to tell the truth as decided by Supreme Court rulings” at the place in the complaint where the ‘Note’ is describing the FTS web page is a paid political advertisement?

    I’m thinking that this statement would be out ‘front page’ so to speak, for the AG to read.

    azgo: A’sG already know the FTS image means nothing. Only lay people believed it was for real.

    Anyway, these complaints were never intended to make a case for fraud. They were actually intended to deprive those A’sG who refused to investigate on the basis there was no evidence to indicate fraud had occurred, plausible deniability.

    Even my 9th graders knew fraud had occurred as soon as I told them, the people who swore to Obama’s eligibility refused to show why. OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES

    Make sense? ADMINISTRATOR

  3. cali says:

    Has this official complaint of election fraud gotten anywhere yet? If so, where does it stands?

    If not, why not?

    cali: Great question. As far as I know, no AG has pursued any of these complaints. I would imagine, the potential cost to political future is not currently outweighed by the benefit of doing the right thing.

    As to why, well, the benefit of doing the right things speaks to shoring up a political future. And, without the numbers, that is, without an obvious show of support for such investigation, for example, 10,000 people on the steps of the state house (in applicable states), people just will not stick their necks out.

    Why don’t you ask the owners of all of those other much more heavily trafficked sites dealing with eligibility why they have never focused their support on my endeavors here? Rather, they hold rallies and fundraisers for one lost cause after another, in the name of their personal brand of ‘patriotism’ but certainly not in the name of the law. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    Your accurate assessment, and subsequent quote relative to the present state of affairs is a bitter pill to swallow. Who would have imagined on the shores of the nation founded upon the principles of decency and honesty, would hidden forces push us so far astray from those values?

    I echo the encouraging remarks of everyone else above, and hope you will continue to wage the good fight…Hat tip. We need a major turning-point in this battle as 2012 looms just ahead… Hopefully we can reset our collective focus upon enforcing the “law”. Calling upon all who genuinely love our Republic and all that it stands for to pitch in.

    Al: Thank you very much for those kind words. (What was that “subsequent quote relative to the present state of affairs”?) Funny enough, I have been saying basically the same things, since the summer of 2008. Many people who excoriated me then, admire me now. But I don’t hold our Founders on a pedestal of virtue, either. Sure, some were guided by creating that proverbial ‘shining city on a hill’; but these were overwhelmingly white men who, whatever their internal bent, codified a country that sanctioned the sale and ownership of human beings. As long as they were not white. And subjugated 50% of the population, because they were not men.

    My favorite reading subject is historical biographies. I am in the middle of a great tome on Alexander Hamilton. Knowing more about these Founders than the average person does not minimize my admiration for what they managed to do. But it also humanizes them, to know what they were capable of, but did not accomplish. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Rlqretired says:

    jbjd – Your excellent work is the basis of my knowledge on this subject. Your work is unquestionably the best, however, in laymen’s land where most of we laymen actually live, along with many of our politicians, a photographic comparison of the real vs the fake is a tremendous asset to my side of the discussion.

    Before I move further in my efforts here in Florida I must get an accurate understanding of 338-18 (g), as it seems to this Florida Cracker that in some way it does.

    Using the premise that a crime was committed when Pelosi signed Obama’s certificate of nomination according to the DNC rules, she committed an alleged crime because the best evidence available at the time was the COLB Obama himself placed on the Internet for public display and which his lawyer in the Hollister case has since swore to the Judge this was the best evidence publicly available to prove Obama is natural born citizen.

    We have since learned this image, as a political advertisement, can say anything Obama wants to convey to the public and still be perfectly legal. In addition, a closer observation of the Hawaiian State Seal thereon has revealed this seal to be a fake.

    This is the premise upon which any state legislative body, such as Florida, where we have no the statute requiring independent constitutional eligibility other than the party certification, in order for the Florida SOS to place these names on the list to the several counties to be printed upon the ballot.

    A legislative committee assigned to investigate this matter to determine if the COLB supplied by Obama is an authentic document or a total fake as some web sites have very convincingly documented to be nothing more than a political advertisement with a fake state seal seems to me to be eligible for a verification. Lets take 338-18 (g) 2 for an example,
    A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
    I’m not sure what is the correct name for the Florida DOS is but under these circumstances this Crackers view the DOS and or a legislative committee should certainly qualify under the US Constitution if nothing less. Likewise, (g) 3, 4 and 5 have the same appearance.

    Granted, this may not get us a certified copy but the HDOH seems to be required to give us verification such as;
    (1) Is this an accurate image of the COLB as it was issued to Obama?
    (2) Did the HDOH issue a COLB to Obama on the date indicated thereon?
    (3) Etc,etc……as many questions as necessary.
    Jb- If I get nothing else, please provide me the directions in order for me to study the de-bunking of the application of (g) to this situation as you referenced on 2/7. I will submit this to the blog as requested.
    Assuming the legislative committee does qualify under (g) and the HDOH were to refuse this states request, this would give the state standing to bring forth a lawsuit against Hawaii and that would surely make the news and very embarrassing to all of those involved in this collusion. It would also be a further indication to the legislature that something is seriously wrong and corrective legislation is needed.

    rlqretired: Okay, I will try to address your concerns, in no particular order.

    First, thank you for appreciating the work. You and I go way back on this blog, and it is clear to me that you have learned a lot about how things work, since those first contacts. Also, I want to commend you for converting your ire over problems with the 2008 election cycle, into real advocacy with your state officials. That said, I find incongruous the fact, on the one hand, you laud my scholarship and incorporate this as the basis for your tireless work with state officials; but, on the other hand, you reject my guidance when it comes to the FTS COLB, the electronic image which has been the bane of my campaign to persuade voters that no documentation available in the public record evidences Obama is a NBC. Specifically, I have pointed out ever since June 2008 when Obama posted that photocopied image of the COLB on the web site bearing his name, and funded by him (and then his campaign and then the DNC): PAY NO ATTENTION! Since that time, I have formally de-constructed the web site as nothing more than paid political speech. Know why I object so strenuously that people are still scrutinizing the physical aspects of this image only viewable through a computer screen? Because this lends more credibility to the image than it merits. Besides, the countless hours focused on micro-analyzing this garbage detract from learning how our government works and where it does not, how to fix it. Worse, wasting time on inconsequential pursuits such as the direction of shadows on an internet image; empowers those people who manipulated the electoral process in 2008 to repeat their subterfuge in 2012. After all, who is going to stop them? Not those citizens fixed on scrutinizing on-line advertising for evidence of a crime.

    The only crime I have identified related to Nancy Pelosi and her Certification of Obama’s Nomination; is election fraud viz a viz getting election officials to print his name on the ballot in those states requiring candidate eligibility for office as a prerequisite to getting on the ballot. And I explained, swearing Obama is the Nominee is tantamount to swearing he is Constitutionally eligible for the job, given that DNC rules require such Constitutional eligibility. (Of course, breaking DNC rules is no crime!) In FL, no law requires the candidate to be qualified for office in order to appear on the ballot. This means, swearing Obama is eligible in FL does not constitute criminal election fraud as described above. However, this does not mean, Pelosi did not lie to state officials, or that such conduct is not a crime.

    You reference what I assume is a FL law regarding obtaining verification of a person’s legal status. (If you want me to examine a law, next time, send the law or a link!) But any such law is inapposite to Obama’s situation. He – the candidate – wants the state of FL to allow his name to be printed on the ballot; to monitor his spending in that state; and to tabulate any votes he receives. Then, he must qualify to get on that ballot. That is, he must provide FL election officials with all requisite documentation.

    And right now, verification that he is eligible for the office is not a part of this required documentation. That’s why FL needs a law requiring all candidates whose names appear on the ballot must be qualified for the job. (For example, in the case of a candidate for President under a major political party, establishing qualification for office (to appear on the ballot) means, evidence s/he is Constitutionally eligible for the job; and evidence s/he is the party nominee.)

    When a state has a law tieing qualification for office with ballot eligibility; the SoS or state official charged with overseeing elections, can promulgate whatever regulations are necessary to carry out this law.

    Finally, let me emphasize, I never said, Pelosi based her Certification of Obama’s Nomination on that on-line image of the COLB. I only theorized that, if pressed by a state AG, she would claim that image was the basis for her Certification, given that 1) several elected officials have used that image as the basis for their assurance to constituents, Obama is eligible for the job; and 2) her attorney, Robert Bauer, was willing to use that same electronic image to trick a federal court into taking judicial notice of that image by proxy, viz a viz APFC. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Thank you for re-sending this message to the blog!

  6. Rlqretired says:

    jbjd – I think the reason you and I don’t see the value of the visual photographic truth that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon the online birth certificate candidate Obama placed on the Internet is fake is because our goals are different. Your efforts deal with a bunch of lawyers and your goal, as I understand it, has been to get the AG’s in those states that already have statutes requiring independent eligibility certification to investigate the person that signed their state level certification without having adequate proof available to them to make such certification. If they did so, as I understand it, it would be an alleged crime based upon your hard work.

    Florida has no statute requiring independent verification by the political parties and depends strictly upon nominee certification by the political parties to be correct. My, goal for a year now, has been to convenience the Florida Legislature to pass a statute requiring an independent state level certification and the submission of the documents used to make that certification. At the general public level, as well as many in the Florida Legislature, I am dealing with average citizens who do not understand legalese nor will they take the time to study the issue for themselves. Willful ignorance abounds and this is where the photographic evidence that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon Obama’s birth certificate is an irrefutable fake, is absolutely essential. These photo’s my not convince them to snap completely out of their willful ignorant bliss but it does blow away their argument that the online image of the Obama’s COLB could be a real copy of a real birth certificate and just transferred over into the advertisement in which it is located. Basically, that is what most people in our state and national governments still believe even today.

    I can easily accept and understand your point of view and I really wish you could see mine. For your information, the photographic evidence has, at my level and with some legislators, has been very effective and taken them to your web site for additional study.

    If I did not make it clear to you in my previous comment above, that the statute I was referring to was Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g), I certainly apologize as I mistakenly assumed you had received and read my off blog email of 2/8 in which I stated; “My question deals with the authority the Criminal Justice Subcommittee the Florida House has under the Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g). It appears to this country boy Florida Cracker that it does (apply), possibly on several counts……Your legal opinion of 338-18 (g) in this regard will be greatly appreciated.

    A link to that statute is

    You have previously made clear that you have debunked the claim made by another blog that (g) of this statute can be used to the advantage of a lawyer in a criminal case to obtain verification relative to their lawsuits. However, it appears to this layman that under the circumstances I laid out in my previous comment, an authorized legislative committee assigned to investigate the authenticity of the only proof Obama has ever provided that he is even a citizen or either the Department of State whose director is the Chief Election Officer of the State and responsible for reporting possible fraudulent election activities would very likely qualify to receive verification of certain information displayed on the online image or the hard copy FTS made available to FC for examination and taking photographs of the Hawaiian State Seal.

    If either of these folks are eligible to obtain verification I can think of a dozen or so questions that I believe will produce answers that will not only be helpful to me in my goals but would help you in your goals as well.

    I look forward to your opinion of (g) and I surely hope you can tolerate me and my differing view on that one item.


  7. Rlqretired says:

    This comment is submitted while my previous comment is still in moderation along with your insult.

    Jb – I really wish the bad feelings you currently have for some other bloggers that apparently prevents you from understanding the value of at least some of their work, specifically this irrefutable evidence the Hawaiian State Seal on Obama’s birth certificate is a fake could be moderated. We live in layman land and easily understand such things.

    I gather from your insult that you are unwilling to accept my proposal that we simply agree to disagree on the value of the photographic evidence the Hawaiian State Seal on Obama’s one and only birth certificate is a fake.

    It is a considerable disappointment that you completely ignore the primary point of my comment which was my request for you to explain if Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g) can be used by either a legislative committee investigating the authenticity of the one and only birth certificate ever produced by Obama in pursuit of the need for corrective legislation or possibly the Director of the Department of State (SOS) here in Florida who serves as the Chief Election Officer for the same reason.

    In your response to an off blog email from me that mentioned another bloggers post on the use of 338-18 (g) about how lawyers in legal proceedings could use this part of the statute to obtain verification of specific questions about the birth certificate you wrote “ And, as usual, I completely disagree with her ‘legal’ analysis. I have previously de-bunked this specific ploy, and will gladly repeat my objections, on the blog.”

    If you will not look at 338-18 (g) and give me your opinion, which I desperately need, if (g) can be used as I have suggested, please fulfill your offer to debunk the idea as you said you would be glad to do.

    The last thing in the world I wish to do is to get into a senseless argument with you. I am only seeking a legal opinion for what I, as a lawman, see as a possible beneficial thing to do to get at the legally recognized truth about Obama’s and the DNC collusion.

    You might also remember that your efforts nor any other legal expert’s efforts have been successful as yet and if (g) can be used as I have suggested, it could possibly be a help to all of our efforts.

    Rlqretired: Please see Reply at STILL ATTACKING the MESSENGER ADMINISTRATOR

  8. […] As you will see from the following exchange, not everyone would agree with me. FL is not an applicable state for a citizen complaint of election fraud based on the fact pattern, officials of the D party Certified to state election officials candidate Obama was qualified for office notwithstanding no documentary evidence available in the public record evidences he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Because FL has no law requiring candidates must be qualified for the job to get the state to print their names on the ballot.  Consequently, in the absence of such ballot eligibility laws, loyal “jbjd” reader Rlqretired, from FL, has lobbied legislators in that state to adopt such laws.  In the past, he has used various arguments to sway these elected officials, which are spelled out on this blog and others.  However, each time he asked me to review his correspondence, I rejected as frivolous his attempts in these petitions to link whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for office; to the ‘illegitimacy’ of the on-line COLB based on an examination of its physical attributes (notwithstanding he maintains such analysis is a useful tool in his lobbying efforts).  Recently, he composed this lengthy Comment, apparently intending, once and for all, to put to rest my objections to continued focus on the physical characteristics of that FTS COLB in any campaign the stated goal of which is to pinpoint documentary evidence establishing whether Obama is Constitutionally eligibile for office. Rlqretired says: 2011/02/11 at 17:45 […]

  9. […] P.S.  Question to Mr. Isikoff:  Given that your article points to the lack of identifying information available in the public domain that would allow people to physically inspect any of the documents mentioned therein; how do you suppose all of those prominent members of the D party who Certified in 2008 that Obama was eligible for office, to state election officials in applicable states, that is, states requiring candidates to be eligible for the office sought in order to get their names printed on the ballot; were able to ascertain in advance, he is a NBC?  (We have asked all of them but they refuse to tell us. See, for example, MEMORANDUM of COMPLAINT of ELECTION FRAUD against LT. GOV. BRIAN E. SCHATZ, ACTING in a NON-GOVERNMENTAL ROLE as CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC PARTY of HAWAII and REQUEST for INVESTIGATION by the ATTORNEY GENERAL of HAWAII, in ALOHA OBAMA and SHALOM.) […]

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: