“GROUNDHOG DAY” in TEXAS

August 8, 2010

Know that movie “Groundhog Day,” with Bill Murray, where he plays a t.v. weatherman doomed to repeat the same inane moments of his life, over and over and over again, until he ‘gets it right’?  Here, let me show you.

Well, it’s ‘groundhog day’ in Texas.  Boyd Richie was just re-elected Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”).

Mr. Richie’s record in electing D’s to fill state and county offices in Texas is 0-29.  That’s not a typo.  Not counting him, no D’s have been elected into these offices under Richie’s leadership of the TDP.  None.  Nada.  Zilch.

Contrast this record, against the message he delivered in his first speech as Chairman after his 2006 election:  “Our job is not win arguments, but to win elections.”  I would ask, ‘Oh, yeah, Mr. Richie?  How’s that going for you?’  But I can anticipate his reply.  ‘Swell, thank you.’  Know why?  Because just like the title of this post implies, with him, it’s not about winning and losing; it’s about repetition.

Here’s another example of  ‘more of the same.’  Right out of the gate of his re-election, Chairman Richie again filed suit to keep a Republican out of office.

Democrats question Texas Sen. Brian Birdwell’s eligibility

AUSTIN – Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, who won a special election this spring to replace the retiring Kip Averitt, will have to defend his freshly minted victory against charges he is ineligible to hold the seat.

Birdwell had been living in Virginia and working for the Pentagon and moved to Texas in May 2007. State law says that you must be a resident of Texas for five years before you can run for the Senate.

Democrat John Cullar, appointed by the party to run for the seat, and the Texas Democratic Party have filed a petition in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals asking the court to resolve the question. If they prevail, Birdwell’s name would be removed from the November ballot, probably giving Cullar an easy path to victory.

“I’m going to run a comprehensive campaign, and part of that is analyzing if my opponent is eligible to represent the people of Senate District 22,” Cullar said. “I look forward to seeing that question resolved by the court. In the meantime, I’ll be out talking with the voters of the district I’ve been proud to call home for 26 years.”

Birdwell maintains that he is legally entitled to the seat. But questions about his residency and whether he was eligible were raised during the special election, which he won in a runoff with 58 percent of the vote.

Birdwell, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who was critically burned in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, voted in Virginia until 2006.

But the law is still in question because active-duty members of the military can live one place and still vote in Texas and consider the state home. Birdwell bought land in Texas in 2005, where he eventually built his house.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-statesen_07tex.ART.State.Edition1.360fc4a.html

Remember, he filed suit against the Chair of the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) in 2006, the same year he was first elected Chair of the TDP, which forced the R’s to keep the name of Tom DeLay on the Congressional ballot in November, notwithstanding at the time of the lawsuit, Mr. DeLay had moved to VA and was a legal resident of that state.  (CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2) and (2 of 2); and IDIOMS!)

So, let me ask you something.  Assume in 2012 Mr. Obama is the Presidential nominee of the DNC.  Given Mr. Richie’s historical penchant for consistency; what do you suppose are the chances he will refuse to Certify Mr. Obama’s Nomination to state election officials, on the grounds, no documentary evidence in the public record establishes he is a NBC?

P.S. Speaking of disrespecting people serving in the military (and parents of young children, and shift workers, and the elderly, and the physically challenged…)… In addition to overwhelmingly re-electing Richie, guess what arcane practice the D’s voted overwhelmingly to keep for the 2012 election?  Yep; the infamous Texas two-step, that combination of primary election and caucus free-for-all that managed to award Obama more pledged delegates than Clinton with less votes per delegate required.  And I can find no reports that anyone, R or D, with any evidence of widespread caucus fraud produced any public protests to try to change their minds, let alone  anyone in possession of a documentary film that preserved eye-witness narratives of this conduct from the citizens of Texas who had attended and participated in (or at least tried to participate in) these fraud riddled events.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Freedom costs.


PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS

August 1, 2010

(UPDATE 09.27.10:  I have been meaning to tell you, just a couple of days after I posted my unusually high “alexa” numbers for Washington, D.C., “alexa” stopped posting all of my domestic numbers.)

(UPDATE  08.15.10:  New “alexa” numbers posted on the bottom!)

I told you from the very beginning, I was right.

Almost 2 (two) years ago, having just begun to figure out what at that time I mostly only still ‘felt’ was wrong with the political process surrounding the 2008 election, I set up this technologically challenged blog so as to have a centralized location to publicly distribute my findings.  No doubt, those of you familiar with “jbjd” have deduced, I am not very computer savvy.  But even without the ‘bells and whistles’ of other blogs which are much more popular, when it comes to understanding that massive election fraud enabled the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation to steal the 2008 Presidential election for Barack Obama; work produced on the technically challenged “jbjd” has made this the ‘go to’ site.  And now, thanks to “alexa,” I can prove it.

I recently became acquainted with “alexa,” a sort of “Nielson” of the internet, which tracks and compares the viewership of web sites, posting such criteria as clicks, length of time on site, and demographics of viewing audience.  What a riot.   Not surprisingly given my low profile – for example, I am not linked to any search engines (?) or social networking – according to alexa, my ranking in the U.S. hovers at around 990,000.  Indeed, I have the lowest ranking of all of the sites I visit.  But guess where is the one place “alexa” points out I maintain “relatively good traffic rank”?  Washington, D.C.!

Yep; even blogs with much better overall numbers than mine, are not nearly as popular in our nation’s capital.  Take, for example, one of my favorite blogs, Afrocity.  (Find her link in my blogroll.)  Like me, she generally posts a substantial article every few days.  Her alexa rank is 448,000.  That is, her blog is twice as popular as mine.  alexa reports she has “relatively good traffic rank” in NYC:  208,000.  My “relatively good traffic rank” in Washington:  42,000.  In other words, the ratio between Afrocity’s overall U.S. rank and her rank in NYC, where she has “relatively good traffic” is 2:1.  The ratio between my national rank and my rank in D.C. is approximately 23:1!

Here’s another way to look at the popularity of “jbjd” in D.C.  According to alexa, my readers are mostly women, over the age of 40, with post-graduate degrees, and incomes over $100,000.  The demographics of Washington generally mirror those of the rest of the country.  (There are 2 (two) exceptions.  Whites comprise 33% of the District population versus 66% nationally; and Blacks are 55% versus 13% for the country.  http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/11000.html But alexa did not stratify my statistics according to race.)  In other words, there isn’t a surplus of women over 40 with post-graduate degrees earning $100,000 which would account for the popularity of “jbjd” in that one market.

So, who in D.C. do you suppose is reading “jbjd”? (This is a rhetorical question.)

Look at this partial list of the work I have undertaken and published on this blog in relation to Mr. Obama’s fraudulent election.

•I learned that laws in some states require the candidate to be qualified for office to appear on the ballot.  Members of the D party swore to state election officials in these ‘applicable’ states Barack Obama was qualified for office to get those officials to print his name on the ballot.  But hundreds of thousands of citizens unsuccessfully seeking out Mr. Obama’s vital records confirmed to me, based on documents available in the public record, none of these D’s could have ascertained beforehand the candidate was Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Swearing he was Constitutionally qualified for office without first ascertaining, for example, he is a natural born citizen, just to get his name printed on the ballot is criminal election fraud.

I figured out we could go after the law breakers by filing citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG in these applicable states.

First, with the help of “jbjd” readers, we researched state laws so as to identify those applicable states.  Then, we obtained from state officials in these states any documents that were submitted by D officials to Certify Mr. Obama’s nomination and, depending on who had submitted those Certifications, contacted those D officials to request the documents that were the basis for their Certification.  When they failed to produce the requested documentation – and they always failed to produce the requested documentation – I drafted state-specific citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG, and posted these for downloading.  So far, hundreds of citizens in 6 (six) states already identified have downloaded and sent these complaints.

•I observed that representatives of Mr. Obama were pressuring delegates pledged to Hillary Clinton to commit to switching their allegiance to him, in advance of the August 2008 nominating convention.  Through research, I found that laws in some states require delegates pledged to one candidate versus another through state primary or caucus contests, to follow the candidate voters elected them to represent, through at least the first roll call at the party’s nominating convention.  (I dubbed these “vote binding states.”) (In researching these laws I found the ballot eligibility laws that became the basis for the citizen complaints of election fraud.) I reasoned in these vote binding states, pressuring these delegates to change their votes was soliciting them to break the law!

I researched all 50 states and found 13 (thirteen) such vote binding states, including California.  Then, I drafted state specific letters to the A’sG of those states, in advance of the Convention, complaining of the criminal conduct carried out by Mr. Obama’s representatives, trying to ‘turn’ Ms. Clinton’s pledged delegates in advance of the Convention.  In at least one state (GA), the AG wrote to remind pledged delegates to obey the state’s vote binding law.

•(The only major fraud I have yet to present is the story of how the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, acting in the civilian role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention artfully suppressed votes from Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the Convention, as the final act in the conspiracy to deprive her of the Presidential nomination.)

•(In addition, throughout these 2 years, I exposed several deceptive practices.  For example, I showed the online COLB was merely a paid political advertisement under the U.S. Code; that the ‘contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement’ was only a ghost image pilfered from an anonymous internet poster; and that Dreams from my Father was likely authored by Bill Ayers.)

The fact that postings like these appear on “jbjd” must explain why people in Washington are watching.  Because here’s a sample of the stories I left out.

I have promoted no action with respect to grand juries; or Mandamus; or the quo’s, warranto or tam.  I have published no statements from ‘witnesses’ to a Kenyan birth or a Kenyan birth document, or neighbors in HI.  I have posted no interviews with ex-workers from the HI  Department of Health; or with ex-students from Columbia; or anyone’s ex-lover.  I haven’t blamed the results of the 2008 election on the rigged caucuses; or the acquiescing MSM; or Muslims or the Jews.  All topics that have made other blogs more popular than mine in places ‘outside the Beltway.’

So, you see, they are reading me in D.C. because whether identifying the problem with the 2008 election cycle; or formulating redress; or proposing preventive strategies, I have been writing about them.  The same people who stole the 2008 election.  And they are curious as to what aspect of the massive fraud they perpetrated I am going to detect and expose next.  (For example, I just posted a comprehensive article on the frantic push to forestall new state legislation that could require Electors to only vote for a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job, by passing the National Popular Vote in advance of the 2012 general election.  And while the NPVI will not eliminate Electors, it will certainly circumvent their Constitutional role.)  But even though they are reading; they are not too worried. See, unfortunately for those of us working to preserve the essential nature and legal construct of our Constitutional Republic; these D.C. readers know they are safe from the threat of exposure laid out on my blog just as long as the ‘cure’ I prescribe remains dependent on the work of citizens acting as individuals; and on their individual donations to support my work.  Because for whatever reason, a handful of would be ‘saviors’ have managed to sidetrack millions of citizens into believing, only the agendas they propose can cure the problems they claim ail our Republic.  For the price of a court filing; or a candidate ballot registration fee; or a bus ticket to Washington (instead of, for example, to the state capital building which houses the office of the AG refusing to investigate the charges of election fraud lodged in those citizen complaints).

Judging by my viewing audience, the people in Washington, D.C. know better what will work to fix what’s wrong with the electoral process.

Meanwhile, as I reported in a special fundraising appeal posted in the sidebar on July 27, my computer caught a virus.  As a result, some of my work is now quarantined ‘over there,’ while I was able to sneak in ‘over here’ as my “Guest.”  This means, before I can continue the work of de-constructing our electoral system for our mutual benefit; and answering your questions, and drafting your documents, I need funds to pay for an overhaul of my trusty old computer. But in the 5 (five) days since I posted that appeal, only 2 (two) readers even ‘clicked’ on the PayPal button.  And neither of them actually contributed funds to the blog.

So, why is it that the people in Washington who arguably have a vested interest in my not unraveling the mess they created, flock to this blog?  But the people for whom I created this blog, those citizens frustrated because they did not know how to quantify what went wrong with the electoral process or, how to fix it once they did; refuse to support this blog notwithstanding it provides the product that satisfies those consumer needs?

I understand why readers in D.C. might only come here to look at the goods.  Or why my efforts are largely ignored by the ‘movement gurus’ whose latest greatest gambit they assure you for a price paid to them will return to you the Republic that was ‘stolen’ in the last general election.  But the rest of you, those who, armed with the knowledge you gain from the materials posted here, not only confidently convey what you have learned to your family and friends but also authoritatively petition our government officials to start living up to their oaths of office; need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

(UPDATE  08.15.10:  New “alexa” numbers!)

I posted the article, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3), the series detailing the coup pulled off at the 2008 DNC nominating convention, and saw a huge increase in hits on the blog.  In addition, I was cross-posted on NoQuarter, whose blog boasts a significantly higher alexa score, both international and domestic, than mine.  I checked my “alexa” score this morning.  You can imagine how surprised I was to see the following image:

Yep; not only are my international numbers going down, but also  my domestic viewership has disappeared, completely, including D.C.  I interpret this to mean, I must be doing something right.


WERE YOU LYING THEN or ARE YOU LYING NOW?

July 17, 2010

© 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.

WERE THEY LYING THEN OR ARE THEY LYING NOW?

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.

A ROADMAP to ELECTION FRAUD in TEXAS in the 2008 PRESIDENTIAL (ELECTORS) ELECTION

February 25, 2010

If you have been unable up until now, to wrap your brain around the election fraud that occurred in the 2008 Presidential (Electors) Election in applicable* states like Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, among others; well, this picture showing how that fraud was carried out in Texas is worth a thousand words.

As you follow this roadmap to fraud, keep in mind:  if Barack Obama failed to satisfy the eligibility requirements to get officials to print his name on the ballot in the state of Texas then…

*Applicable states for the purpose of charging election fraud in the 2008 election are those states whose laws only allow the names of qualified candidates to appear on the ballot.

Concept:  http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Layout & Design:  https://jbjd.wordpress.com and http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Text:  https://jbjd.wordpress.com

(c)  All Rights Reserved

View this document on Scribd

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Freedom costs.

 

*Applicable states for the purpose of charging election fraud in the 2008 election are those states whose laws only allow the names of qualified candidates to appear on the ballot.


CLUBS RULE

February 19, 2010

UPDATE 04.14.12: As of today, neither the Texas Democratic Party nor the Republican Party of Texas is registered with the Secretary of State as a corporation; limited partnership; or limited liability company. In other words, they remain private clubs.


NOTE: Reading this article in conjunction with TEXAS TWO-STEP enhances its significance.

*************************************************************************************************

In the summer of 2008, before I knew half as much about the political process as I have learned since that time, I submitted a comment to the PUMA PAC blog, containing this epiphany:  the Democratic Party is only a club.

See, I had just ‘learned’ there exists a category of states I dubbed ‘vote binding states,’ which are those states that have enacted laws essentially saying, ‘In our state, being a “pledged delegate” means, you must vote for the person voters elected you to represent, on the roll call vote on the floor of the party Convention.’  (Did you know, DNC rules only require pledged delegates to use their “good conscience”?)  (“All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”)  (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/fb3fa279c88bf1094b_qom6bei0o.pdf, p. 23.)

I saw that BO’s people were harassing HRC pledged delegates to change their votes to him, in advance of the Convention.  In other words, in these vote binding states, BO’s people were enticing HRC’s people to break the law.  So, I drafted letters to state Attorneys General in the 13 (thirteen) vote binding states I identified, complaining about this illegal conduct from BO’s camp.  Next, I needed to recruit voters from those vote binding states to send these letters.  But first, I had to explain to these recruits, in lay terms, what I was talking about.  For this, I developed a primer.  And in the primer, here is how I summarized the hierarchy of commandments applying to pledged delegates: state laws trump the rules made up by the political party, every time.  https://jbjd.wordpress.com/to-stop-harassment-of-clinton-pledged-delegates-in-vote-binding-states/

That’s when it hit me: the Democrats (and Republicans) are nothing more than private clubs.

#309 jbjd on 08.18.08 at 3:59 am

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT I HAVE EVER WRITTEN OR WILL EVER WRITE ON THIS BLOG… PLEASE REFER OTHERS TO THIS COMMENT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, IN SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS… I AM BUSY WRITING YOUR STATE-SPECIFIC LETTERS TO THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, TO BE COPIED TO OUR DEAR STATE DELEGATES PLEDGED TO HRC, TO LET THEM KNOW, WE HAVE THEIR BACKS…

***************************************************************************
DECONSTRUCTING DEMOCRACY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

My Dear Fellow PUMAs,

If you are going crazy trying to figure out what’s happening with the Democratic Party, join the club. I’m not kidding. Join the club. Because it just hit me, the way to understand this Democratic nominating process is to think of The Democratic Party as what it is – a club. And the only thing that makes this club so special is that it was able to get permission from each of the 50 states to collect campaign contributions and put the names of the candidates it wants to hold office onto the state’s election ballot. That’s it. That’s all there is. Let me explain.

According to Party – or rather, club rules, presidential candidates are chosen at the club’s nominating convention. Afterward, the club submits the name of its candidate for POTUS to the appropriate state official in each state – usually the Secretary of State – as part of an application to get onto the state’s general election ballot, in compliance with that state’s laws. In fact, states only allow the candidate for POTUS chosen by a “major political party” to submit ballot papers so late in the game because club rules and by-laws require their candidates to be chosen at a “nominating convention.”

The club determines who will be its candidate for POTUS on the general election ballot through a vote at the convention by people it calls “delegates,” which delegates obtained that status through an allocation process set by the club. That is, the club places the names of its proposed candidates on state ballots in the primary and caucus elections and then, in exchange for receiving a specific number of votes in that process, the candidates are assigned a delegate to vote for them at the convention. Most state delegates are given a special status, called “pledged.” According to club rules, when these pledged delegates cast their votes at the convention, they should use their best judgment to represent the wishes of the voters based on whose votes they were elected. Historically, by counting these delegates pledged to each candidate, the club has usually been able to predict which of its candidates will end up with the nomination at the end of the primary and caucus process, since one candidate usually garners enough pledged delegates to surpass the number the club set as the requirement at the convention. But not this year. Neither club candidate – BO or HRC – was assigned enough delegates through the primary and caucus process to secure the nomination at the convention. Luckily, the club had in place rules whereby this deficit in delegates could be made up by special delegates commonly referred to as super delegates who get to cast their votes for either candidate at the convention.

The Democratic Party set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern all these operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules. So, if like me, you have read club rules and believe, as I do, that members of the club have not played fair throughout this presidential nominating process, am I saying there is nothing you can do about it? Hardly.

Remember what I said in the beginning: the state only lets the club get onto official state ballots as long as they follow state rules. And unlike club rules, when states make rules, they’re called laws. (TO BE CONTINUED…)
©jbjd

(In the interest of full disclosure, let me say, I was banned from that blog just days after this comment was posted.)

In the 1 1/2 years since I experienced this 3:00 AM epiphany that ‘club’ is just another word for ‘political party,’ I have learned (and written) volumes about the DNC.  Now, I know it by its official name:  the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation.  That’s right; it’s a corporation.  That’s why I now regularly refer to this business entity as the D Corporation (in case you hadn’t noticed).

Before I initiated the present campaign to submit document requests to the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) under the Texas open records law, I had to determine whether the TDP was a covered entity under that law.  First, I tried to ascertain its legal construct. I hit a brick wall.  Luckily, through other means, I was able to conclude, the TDP is subject to provisions of the open records law, regardless of its organizational construct.  Then, after the campaign to obtain records was underway, a loyal Texan and I continued to research the nature of the TDP until we got answers.

So, what is the legal construct of the TDP?  Let me give you a hint what it’s not.

Here are the documents returned by the TX Secretary of State web site after a paid on-line search of documents held by that office, for an entity called Texas Democratic Party (“Find Entity Name Search”).  (Recall that the Certification of BO’s Nomination signed by TDP Chair, Attorney Boyd Richie, and submitted to state election officials to get them to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on the general election ballot; was printed on letterhead showing the name, “Texas Democratic Party.”) (See this document and Mr. Richie’s accompanying letter, also on TDP letterhead, on p. 3 of the citizen complaint of election fraud to AG, in REMEMBER the ALAMO )

Did you notice what name is missing?  Yep; the Texas Democratic  Party.  In the words of Randall Dillard, Director of Communications, Office of the TX SoS:  “There is no requirement in state law that political parties organize as a business entity and since the parties are not found in a search of our records, they are not organized as corporations, limited partnerships or limited liability companies.”

Whoa!  If the TDP is none of these then, what is it?

Well, I tried a Google search for “clubs in Texas.”  And look at what showed up at the bottom of page 6  (not to be confused with Page Six, the NY Post scandal column, http://www.nypost.com/pagesix): Clubs and Organizations:  Texas Democratic Party

So, I clicked on that link, which led me to all of the Clubs and Organizations organized under the big top of the TDP.

I clicked on the link in the lower right-hand corner, txdemocrats.org.  Look who was staring me in the face.

Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party.

In sum, here is the answer to the question, what is the TDP.  It is the club mystically possessed with the power to get TX election officials to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on the state’s 2008 general election ballot based only on the word of its Chair that he is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS, notwithstanding no one in the club is willing to disclose, why.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Freedom costs.


REMEMBER the ALAMO?

January 26, 2010

CRITICAL UPDATE on FEBRUARY 14, 2010: After you have read REMEMBER the ALAMO, please read the follow-up post at TEXAS TWO-STEP, which contains reports of communications between Requestors (of public records) and the TDP (Texas Democratic Party); and jbjd and the (misnamed) FOIFT (Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas).

**************************************************************************************************

Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party is a lone wolf in the Lone Star State.

In every other state and the District of Columbia, Certifications of Nomination signed by The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention, were forwarded to election officials to get them to print the name of Barack Obama next to the “D” on the 2008 general election ballot.*  But not in TX.  Nope; in TX, only Mr.  Richie signed those Certifications.  And for all of the citizens in those states where only the names of qualified candidates may be printed on the ballot, who filed charges of election fraud with their state A’sG charging members of the D party swore to state election officials BO was Constitutionally eligible for the job to get them to print his name on the ballot but failed to ascertain beforehand whether he is a NBC; the fact that NP did not sign the TX Certification but BR did, makes all the difference in the world.

*In order to get BO’s name printed on SC’s Presidential Preference Primary ballot, the SC D state party Treasurer, Kathy Hensley, hand wrote the certification on the memo typed by Carol Fowler, party Chair, assuring the Board of Elections that he was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS. “IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…

Take a look at my model citizen complaint of election fraud to the TX AG, which is also posted in the sidebar on the front of this blog.  (The description of the Certifications Mr. Richie submitted to TX election officials, with links to the documents, appears on pages 2 & 3.)

View this document on Scribd

Now, read “Purpose of Contact” on pages 1 & 2.  See, before citizens of TX and the 5 (five) other states readers have identified so far, filed these complaints, they attempted to find out what documentation was the basis of those certifications of eligibility submitted by members of the D party to state election officials to get them to print BO’s name on the ballot.  But NP, Alice Germond, and Joseph Sandler, all representing the D Services Corporation, would not answer.  JS specifically explained to those citizens who had framed their request  for documents as covered by the ‘freedom of information’ laws, the D Corporation is not a public agency and so, is not subject to public records disclosure laws.  Of course, he was right.  The D Services Corporation is a private club.  Thus, state and federal public records laws were powerless to compel NP,  AG, and others acting on behalf of the Corporation, to produce the requested documentation.   (Of course, as my 9th graders astutely pointed out, since JS went to the trouble to write the letter explaining that his client, the D Corporation, was exempt from public disclosure laws, it made no sense he just didn’t answer the question.  Unless he had something to hide.  “OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES“)

Citizens of TX also asked BR to identify these documents that were the basis of his eligibility determination.  And he also refused to say.  But turns out, in TX, when it comes to defining the meaning of public documents; and avoiding having to disclose such documents, this same ‘get out of jail free’ card that applied to the DNC Corporation, does not apply to Chairman Richie and the state D party.  On the contrary, under TX law, in certain circumstances, documents in the custody of political parties can be ‘discoverable’ as public records.  (Not only that but, the court can compel officers of these parties to hand over these records under a cause of action called ‘mandamus,’ a process which is usually reserved to get government officials to do their jobs.)

Know what this means?

Regardless of the unwillingness of TX AG Greg Abbott to investigate the hundreds of these complaints of election fraud his office has received since September; the citizens of TX can proceed on their own under TX state law to compel Chairman Richie to provide the documents that lead one step closer to establishing once and for all, for the record, despite all of these Certifications of Nomination, U.S. President Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. “THE END GAME

Look, we already know, no documents exist in the public record that would establish BO is a NBC.  White House Counsel Bob Bauer said so.  “COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE for FEDERAL COURT”  And for this reason, and the fact Boyd Richie refused to name any records when asked in the past, we know he committed election fraud in TX.  AG Abbott knows there is a strong circumstantial case for fraud; we laid it all out in those citizen complaints.  And Mr. Richie knows we are on to him, because he was copied on every complaint filed with Mr. Abbott.  (We also sent copies to our U.S. Representatives and Senators.)

It’s long past time our elected officials perform the work that is a function of their public office.  But as long as AG Abbott (and the House of Representatives) refuses to act, we still have to prove our own case.

So, that’s what we’ll do.  And we’ll do it by applying these TX laws.  Thus, instead of just asking Mr. Richie to provide the requested documentation, we will couch such requests in terms of TX election law, and act more entitled.  And if Mr. Richie wants to avoid honoring requests for these public records this time then, according to TX law, he will have to notify AG Abbott of these requests within the 10-day time period allowed for such delay in production, as well as his stated reasons for refusing to produce the requested records.  Then, AG Abbott will have to determine whether citizens of TX are entitled to these records under the law.  AND ALL OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD!

Here are some of the applicable provisions of the TX Election Code.

ELECTION CODE

TITLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

Chapter 1.  General Provisions

Sec. 1.012. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF ELECTION RECORDS. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), an election record that is public information shall be made available to the public during the regular business hours of the record’s custodian.

(b) For the purpose of safeguarding the election records or economizing the custodian’s time, the custodian may adopt reasonable rules limiting public access.

(c) Except as otherwise provided by this code or Chapter 552, Government Code, all election records are public information.

(d) In this code, “election record” includes:

(1) anything distributed or received by government under this code;

(2) anything required by law to be kept by others for information of government under this code; or

(3) a certificate, application, notice, report, or other document or paper issued or received by government under this code.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 5.95(88), eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 393, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

TITLE 9. CANDIDATES

Chapter 141. Candidacy for public office generally

Subchapter B.  Application for place on ballot

Sec. 141.035. APPLICATION AS PUBLIC INFORMATION. An application for a place on the ballot, including an accompanying petition, is public information immediately on its filing.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Sec. 141.036. PRESERVATION OF APPLICATION. The authority with whom an application for a place on the ballot is required to be filed shall preserve each application filed with the authority for two years after the date of the election for which the application is made.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

TITLE 10.  POLITICAL PARTIES

Chapter 161.  General Provisions

§ 161.004. PARTY DOCUMENT AS PUBLIC INFORMATION.  If a document, record, or other paper is expressly required by this title to be filed, prepared, or preserved, it is public information unless this title provides otherwise.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

§ 161.009. PARTY OFFICER SUBJECT TO MANDAMUS. The performance of a duty placed by this code on an officer of a political party is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the party officer were a public officer.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Another great source of information for the mechanism for requesting public records in TX is the web site for the TX Office of AG.  http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/requestors.shtml Please review this before you send the letter below.  Make sure that whatever mechanism you use to transmit this letter, you retain proof of delivery or receipt so as to mark the tolling of the “reasonable” “prompt[]” time allowed under law for Mr. Richie’s response.  (For example, if you send via fax, keep the transmission confirmation.)  As always, feel free to send copies of your letters to anyone else you want.  Just make sure the letters to Mr. Richie and AG Abbott contain your real names and addresses, in TX.

Yes, my ‘two-stepping’ Texans, thanks to your enactment of special laws which subject Chairman Richie and the TX D state party to the same disclosure standards of public documents that apply to government agencies; you are in a position to pursue, catch, and de-claw this wolf, exercising the same dedication of purpose your forefathers and foremothers, Tejano and American alike, met Santa Anna’s onslaught against the Alamo, more than 150 years ago.**  Only this time, you have the opportunity to re-write the narrative on the 2008 general election. No doubt, you brave patriots, too, will be remembered for generations after the end of this conflagration.

Remember the Alamo!

**Santa Anna advanced into Texas with 4,000 men, headed for the Alamo, where almost 200 American and Tejano volunteers huddled, awaiting an attack. The now-infamous battle that occurred on March 6, 1836, resulted in a Mexican victory and the death of every last Alamo defender. Not left unscathed, the Mexicans lost 600 men.

Six weeks later, after a surprise attack on the Mexican forces near the San Jacinto River, Texan army commander Sam Houston rallied his troops with the cry, “Remember the Alamo!” Although the battle was won within minutes, the vengeful Texan army — including Tejanos — continued fighting for hours, killing any Mexican soldier they found. Santa Anna was captured the following day, effectively ending the war.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/qea2.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/alamo/filmmore/fd.html

View this document on Scribd

OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES

January 6, 2010

© 2012 jbjd

I have been saying for years now; in those states which allow on the ballot only the names of candidates who are qualified for the job; party officials certified to state election officials that Barack Obama’s name should be placed on the ballot notwithstanding no documentary evidence  in the public record had established those qualifications.

I wrote “Out of the Mouths of Babes”  in January 2010; it has remained one of the most popular posts on the “jbjd” blog.  It describes my exchange with 9th graders in a U.S. History I class, during a lecture in which I detailed the interplay between the Constitutional requirements for President found in Article II, section 1; and real life, as played out with respect to the 2008 general election. I found their insights, untainted either by political correctness or experience; were ‘right on time’; and not just because their conclusions matched mine.

 

UPDATED 04.17.10: In the cite linked to President Washington’s papers (below), the date of his swearing in is correctly given as April 1789.  I incorrectly wrote he was sworn in, in March. (Here is another historical reference to that event.  http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html )

UPDATED 01.06.10: In a parenthetical comment below, I mistakenly said the first selection of Presidential Electors occurred in November 1788. However, the states first Appointed Electors in January 1789; and these Electors voted for George Washington for President in February. I correctly stated, Mr. Washington was inaugurated in March. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/presidential/electoral.html
**************************************************************************************************

Students attending this inner city high school not only are racially and ethnically diverse but also hail from several other native countries. For the most part, the students supported the Presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. Some of them even met the future Commander in Chief when he came to town during the primary campaign, their encounters captured forever in photographs proudly displayed in the lobby of the building. Pictures of Michelle appear there, too, under a banner proclaiming her, “Our Queen.”

At the last minute, I was asked to teach American History to 3 (three) classes of 9th graders deep in this heart of Obama territory.

Freshmen are a separate breed. Cocky and in your face, they virtually dare you to successfully re-direct their terrific energy to academic pursuit. But nothing equals the thrill of watching them learn, once you get their attention.

Here is how I got their attention.

I wrote my name on the board, billing myself as a “Guest Lecturer.” This was the provocative title for my presentation: “You Will Never Vote for President of the United States.”

The reaction from my students was boisterous and anticipated. ‘Oh yeah? I’m gonna vote for President as soon as I turn 18.’ And, ‘I thought you were allowed to vote for President as long as you were a citizen!’ I calmed the crowd by repeating the history lesson I was sure they had already been taught but forgot: the President of the United States is not elected directly by the people but by the Electors. In the general election on the next Tuesday after the first Monday in November, voters only select these Electors; but Appointed Electors don’t vote for President until the 15th of December, the dates set for these events in the Constitution.

For approximately the next 45 minutes, I walked my students through the election process spelled out by the Drafters of our Constitution and re-printed in their history books, barely recognizable as it was carried out in the 2008 general election.

‘What are the 3 Constitutional qualifications to be POTUS?’ The students proudly listed all three without prompting. 1) You have to be 35 years old. 2) You have to live in the United States for 14 years. 3) You have to be a Natural Born Citizen. I wrote these on the board. (I went into a side discussion about that 14-year requirement – I have discussed this issue previously on this blog, as well as other blogs – reasoning, the Drafters wanted to ensure that as much as possible, the President, also fulfilling the role of Commander in Chief, was completely intertwined with being American, attached to both her ideals and to the country. They envisioned such loyalty could only derive from being immersed for a fixed time in the American experience. So, why 14 years? Well, the first Continental Congress convened in 1774, establishing the first time (representatives from) the original 13 (thirteen) colonies came together to ponder mutual concerns viz a viz the British, thus evidencing their psychological mindset as a unified ‘nation.’ (One year later, the “shot heard round the world” was fired between British troops and American rebels at Lexington Green, MA, in 1775; and the Declaration of Independence was written in Philadelphia, PA in 1776.) The drafting of the Constitution occurred in 1787 and, allowing for ratification by the requisite 9 (nine) states, the Drafters anticipated Electors would, for the first time, vote for President in November 1788. (The swearing-in would take place in March of 1789.) Thus, 14 (fourteen) years had passed between the time the mindset of ‘being American’ first coalesced, and election of the first President (1788 minus 1774).)

I charted the modern process of electing the President through the intervention of political parties, stressing the fact political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. I described the mission of the party is to get the name of the person they want fronting for the party or, club, printed onto state general election ballots, an indispensible step to getting the public to forget, they are not voting for the candidate but for the Electors in the general election. Because only the name of the nominee of the political party appears on the ballot next to the party designation. This means, casting a vote for the ‘person’ whose name appears on the ballot next to the D or the R is more correctly characterized as voting for the Electors for that person.

So, who are these Electors we vote for who go on to elect our President? Well, generally speaking, they are chosen by the political party based on their demonstrated loyalty to the party, as evidenced in terms of hours spent supporting party activities such as hosting fundraisers for party backed candidates; or providing financial support to the party. The names of these Elector candidates are then submitted to state election officials by each political party. The number of Electors each party gets to submit is based on the number of Congressional districts in that state, plus 2 more for the number of US Senators. And in states like CA, in the 2008 election, this meant, 55 names. Obviously, printing the names on the ballot all of the candidates for Presidential Elector put forward by the parties is prohibitive. So, in each state, only the name of the party nominee is printed on the ballot, and not the names of the party Electors. (I pointed out; each state enacts the election laws prescribing what names may be printed on its ballots.)

How is the party’s Presidential nominee chosen? Usually, s/he is selected according to the results of party contests called primaries and caucuses held in each state to elect delegates who will vote at the party convention; and, finally, the party convention. Summing up the results for the D candidates for POTUS in the 2008 Presidential preference primaries and caucuses, I reported, on June 3, 2008 when all of the primaries and caucuses were over, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama had failed to reach the requisite number of pledged delegates set by the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation – DNC for short – to guarantee the nomination for their club – of course I inform them, she won more popular votes AND pledged delegates as the result of primary and caucus votes cast directly for her – so the rules called for the difference to be made up at the floor roll call at the Convention held in Denver, CO, in August 2008, by votes cast by party ‘elders’ called Superdelegates, who could vote for anyone they wanted. But for some reason, the Corporation backed Barack Obama well in advance of the Convention, even foregoing the traditional floor vote at the Convention in order to make his nomination a fait accompli. I repeated several times, the DNC Services Corporation is not a government agency but more like a private club, which means, they can make or break their own rules with impunity.

Once the DNC selected Barack Obama as their candidate for President, they had to get state election officials to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot. The DNC (and, in some states, the Chair of the state D party) submitted these Certifications of Nomination to election officials in each state swearing Barack Obama was the duly nominated DNC candidate for President and was Constitutionally qualified for the job.

I pointed out that, the Constitution says Electors will be appointed by the Governors of the states. I reconciled how electing Electors through a popular vote in the general election ends up in an Appointment. That is, the final vote tallies in the general election (for Electors for the candidate whose name appears on the ballot) are Certified by the Governors, who send Certificates of Ascertainment listing the names of the Electors (previously submitted to state election officials by the political parties) and the number of votes cast for them, as well as for the losing candidates for Elector, to the National Archivist, effectively making that Certification of popular votes cast for Electors in the general election, the Constitutional act of Appointment.

More D than R Electors were elected and, therefore, Appointed in the November 2008 general election. And all of the D Electors who voted in December 2008 cast their votes for Barack Obama, the nominee for President of the D party. But this was hardly surprising. Because the only way they got to be Electors for the party in the first place was by promising the party, if Appointed, they would cast their votes for the party nominee. However, I emphasized that nothing in the Constitution requires Electors to vote for the nominee of the political party, which only made sense since, as I said, the Drafters never mentioned political parties in the Constitution.

Congress ratified the vote of the Electors in January and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore in Barack Obama as President of the United States days after that. All prescribed precisely by the Constitution.

At this point, the students think the lecture is done. But I am just getting to the best part.

‘Wait a minute,’ I challenged, looking back at the board. ‘At the beginning of this lecture, we listed these 3 qualifications for President spelled out in the Constitution, right? You have to be 35 years of age; you have to live in the U.S. for 14 years; and you have to be a NBC.’ Yes. ‘Well, throughout this whole election process we just described, when did we mention that anyone vetted the candidates for President to ensure they satisfied this Constitutional eligibility for the job?’ Silence.

Now, I taught the class, no provision found in any law, state or federal; or in the Constitution requires any state official to determine whether the candidate for President is Constitutionally eligible for the job. None. The Constitution says, the Electors have to elect the President but remains silent as to vetting for Constitutional qualifications. The Constitution requires Congress to ratify the Electors’ vote for President but says nothing about verifying beforehand that the the person they elect is Constitutionally qualified for the job. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swears the President into office, under no Constitutional obligation to determine beforehand whether s/he was qualified for office.

And that led me to the states that require in order to get the candidate’s name printed on the ballot; s/he must be eligible for the job.

I described that some states enacted election laws that only allow the names of eligible candidates to be printed on state election ballots. And some of these states, like HI and SC, enacted laws saying the party must swear, in writing, their nominee for President meets all Constitutional qualifications for the job. (I point out; requiring this statement from the party is kind of superfluous because, according to the operating rules of the DNC Services Corporation, the Presidential nominee of the party must be Constitutionally qualified for the job. Then again, given their exhibited propensity to break their own rules…) I also reiterated, while the law says the candidate has to be eligible for the job to appear on the ballot, no corresponding law requires any government official to check.

The students were aware that Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California) was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; several knew the position of Speaker is 3rd in line of Presidential succession. They were unaware that in 2008, the DNC Services Corporation gave Ms. Pelosi the civilian job of Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention. Acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, her chief responsibility was to sign those official DNC Certifications of Nomination swearing Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the job of President of the United States, and send these sworn Certifications to state election officials to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on their general election ballots.

I reported that questions had arisen during the primary campaign as to whether Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. Students were aware of the controversy. I informed them that several people had even concluded, the documentation available in the public record failed to establish that he is a U.S Citizen, let alone that he was Natural Born. Yet, Ms. Pelosi signed those Certifications of Nomination and sent these to state election officials to get them to print his name on the general election ballot.

‘Some of us wondered; given this controversy about the circumstances of Mr. Obama’s birth, on what documentary basis did Ms. Pelosi ascertain he was a Natural Born Citizen before swearing he was Constitutionally eligible for the job? So, we wrote to Ms. Pelosi and asked her. I even arranged to have one of these letters hand-delivered to her office in Washington. Know what she said?’ Every pair of eyes was now on me. ‘Actually, she didn’t say anything. She ignored us.’ A knowing sound of ‘ooooo’ filled the room. ‘What do you think that means?’ The students smiled. ‘That means, she’s busted; she didn’t check whether he is a Natural Born Citizen before she swore he was.’

I shrugged my shoulders. ’Could be. But people wanted to know for sure. So, now they wrote to Alice Germond, the Secretary to the DNC Services Corporation, who had co-signed those Certifications. Again, they asked on what documentary basis she had determined Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen before sending those Certifications of Nomination swearing he was, to state election officials to get his name printed on the ballot. But this time they asserted the right to view whatever documentation the party used, under what’s called the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), the federal law that gives the public the right to see the documents our government has on file.’

‘Did she answer the question?’ ‘No; but she didn’t ignore the voters, either. Ms. Germond forwarded the letters addressed to her, to the General Counsel or, lawyer for the DNC Services Corporation, Joseph Sandler. And he did write back.’ The kids were at the edge of their seats. ‘What did he say!’ ‘Well, he explained that the DNC is not a government agency but rather a private club and, as such, is not subject to state or federal document disclosure laws. He advised people to direct their questions about the qualifications of candidates whose names appear on the ballot, to their state election officials. And he still didn’t answer the question.’ Now, a loud gasp rose up around the room. ‘What do you think that means?’ Without missing a beat, they blurted out, ‘That means they did check whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen; and he’s not!’

This illustrates another reason I love teaching 9th graders: they are not yet sophisticated enough to abandon their common sense.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT

November 23, 2009

*

Bob Bauer, currently White House Counsel, was formerly the Counsel to DNC Services Corporation and Obama for America, Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign. (BOB BAUER BIOGRAPHY) In January 2009, he defended Mr. Obama in Hollister v. Soetoro, a lawsuit aimed at exposing his client was Constitutionally unqualified for POTUS. HOLLISTER v. SOETORO (Mr. Hollister was represented by Attorney Phil Berg.) Mr. Bauer submitted his usual Motion to Dismiss – this was not the first lawsuit aimed at reaching his client’s eligibility – but this time, seeking to take advantage of the opportunity provided by this lawsuit to end the barrage of eligibility based challenges both inside and outside of the courtroom, he added something new: a footnote asking the judge to take judicial notice of certain facts, which notice he would recycle to construct the fiction, his client was Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

“Judicial notice” is a term found in the Federal Rules of Evidence. It applies to getting facts into the court record and, once those facts have been added to the record, assigns what weight this evidence will receive. (For a full explanation of judicial notice, see the Federal Rules of Evidence at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm.)

Simply put, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Mr. Bauer wanted the federal court to take judicial notice of these facts.

1. His client, Barack Obama “publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.”

This fact is true. But it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

The only such self-authenticating ‘document’ his client “publicly produced” was that heavily redacted Certification of Live Birth – recall, Mr. Obama re-named this, his “Official Birth Certificate” – posted on “Fight the Smears,” the web site clearly advertising in the footer, this was “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.” But even if the document was authentic AND the information contained therein was true, at best this could only establish his client is a “native” citizen, but not Natural Born. Mr. Obama admitted right on that site, this COLB only established he is a “native citizen” and not Natural Born. (See, MODEL COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN APPLICABLE STATES, on this page.)

Question: Since Bob Bauer was motivated to stave off attacks against his client by trying to construct Mr. Obama’s Constitutional qualifications for POTUS, why did he try to get the court to take judicial notice that his client publicly produced a certified document showing he was born in HI, when even assuming the fact he produced such a document also meant, he was actually born in HI; that fact could only establish he was a “native” citizen but not Natural Born as required by the Constitution?
Answer: Because if the court had taken judicial notice of these facts which implied his client was born in HI; Mr. Bauer could have perverted such notice into the meme, the federal court has now ruled, his client was born in HI; and, further, Mr. Bauer would have claimed, being born in HI makes him a NBC, propaganda which he and his clients, DNC Services Corporation, would have plastered throughout the print and electronic media. This campaign of propaganda emanating from the man who wrote the book – literally – on federal election law likely would have neutralized the mounting challenges to his client’s Constitutional qualification for POTUS.

Anyway, while referring to this ‘public production’ of a document showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit the ‘original’ COLB to the court.

Question: Given that Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice his client produced that COLB, for what reason did he fail to produce for the court, the actual document?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.

2. Mr. Bauer wrote, “See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper).”

These facts are true, too. But they also fail to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

Mr. Bauer omits the name “Annenberg” from the proper title of the organization; and fails to reveal to the court, this group is sponsored by his client’s former employer, Chicago Annenberg Challenge, information the court is unlikely to know, absent his revelation; and which financial relationship a reasonable person would expect him to reveal as material to the court’s consideration. He also fails to name the “Honolulu newspaper” he claims printed that “contemporaneous birth announcement.” (The court could not know, APFC failed to name this publication which they “not[ed],” too, unless Mr. Bauer revealed this material information.) Recall, this ‘announcement’ is actually an unattributed image posted anonymously on the td blog, which APFC admits it copied from that site to post on theirs. RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

Not surprisingly, while seeking judicial notice APFC noted this contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit an ‘original’ of that document to the court, either.

Plus, notwithstanding Mr. Bauer has now asked the court to take judicial notice [Annenberg Political] Fact Check said the document Mr. Obama publicly produced is “genuine,” again, he failed to produce that “genuine” document for the court.

Question: Why did Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice APFC said, the COLB his client publicly produced was “genuine”; but fail to introduce into evidence, the actual COLB?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.

3. Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice, “Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” ”

This fact is true. Again, it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

Hawaiian officials allegedly made this statement in late October 2008. Notice, the statement attributed to these officials does not include the words, ‘This “original birth certificate” we have on file indicates, Mr. Obama was born in HI.’ Indeed, Mr. Bauer does not allege these officials said, ‘He was born in HI.’ http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/certified/

Lucky for us, the federal court took no such notice. Getting lay people to understand the fact that nothing in the public record establishes BO is a NBC, has been challenging enough, without having to explain the difference between these judicially noted “facts” and the lies Mr. Bauer and the members of the Corporation he represents would insist these facts actually mean.

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. See, DC RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

Which leads us to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession who, acting in a non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, swore in August 2008 Mr. Bauer’s client was Constitutionally qualified for POTUS in the official DNC Services Corporation Certifications of Nomination that were submitted to election officials in dozens of states to get his name printed on the general election ballot.

Question: Instead of asking for judicial notice of representations made by APFC, notice which at best could only establish his client was a “native” of HI but not “Natural Born”; why didn’t Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice of Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, let alone submit even 1 (one) of those Certifications into the court record?
Answer: Because he knew Nancy Pelosi’s sworn Certifications of Nomination submitted to state election officials are bogus, too.

Question: But given that Bob Bauer was willing to risk his license to practice law by tricking the court into taking judicial notice of misleading facts that, at best, could only establish Barack Obama was a “native” born citizen, anyway, and which notice he would have to message in order to dupe Americans into believing this meant, his client was also Constitutionally qualified for POTUS; why was he unwilling to risk his license on Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, which explicitly stated, his client was Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, judicial notice of which fact the court likely would have granted, and which notice more likely could have persuaded the public of the fact, his client was Natural Born?
Answer: Because at that time, Nancy Pelosi was his client, too, and under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, he could not exonerate one client facing a civil lawsuit by incriminating another in criminal election fraud.

For your information, here are CONTACTS AT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR.


IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO

August 13, 2009

(CORRECTION:  10.09.10: In this article, I wrote that HI was the only state that required explicit language in the documentation submitted to election officials that the candidate for President from the major political party was Constitutionally eligible for the job, to be entitled to have that person’s name printed on the ballot.  But as I explored the election laws of more states, I learned HI was not alone.  For example, on 10.02.09, 3 (three) weeks after I posted this article, I posted UP to HERE in ELECTION FRAUD in SC, FROM the CHAIR of the 2008 DNC CONVENTION to the CHAIR of the DNC, pointing to the fact that under SC law, the party also must Certify to election officials the candidate is qualified for the office to get them to print the candidate’s name on the ballot.  And I posted the image of the Certification the SC Democratic Party submitted to get Obama’s name on the ballot; only, it was that state’s Presidential preference primary ballot.  Because in SC, candidates participating in the primary must register through the political party.  In this case, the Certification was hand-written by then state party Treasurer, Kathy Hensley.

Ms. Pelosi also did not sign the Certification in TX.  Rather, this was signed by Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party.  His documents can be seen in REMEMBER THE ALAMO, posted in January 2010.)

© 2009 jbjd

FACT: NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TOLD USA TODAY THAT DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN.”

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, told  USA Today that drowning out opposing facts is “un-American.”  Certainly, if drowning out opposing facts is “un-American” then ignoring facts must be un-American, too.

FACT: UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE II SECTION 1 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

FACT: SERVING AS CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION, NANCY PELOSI SIGNED THE DNC’S OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION SWEARING 1) BARACK OBAMA IS THE “DULY NOMINATED” CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY; AND 2) HE IS LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATED CONSTITUTION.

Last summer, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives assumed the civilian role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention.  As Chair, her principle duty was to sign the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination, which document was then forwarded to state elections officials via the state D party chairs,  in order that these election officials could print the name of Barack Obama, the party nominee, next to the D on state general election ballots.  (Depending on state law,  some states print the names of Electors for that nominee on the ballot, either with or without the name of the nominee.)

Under the laws in every state, once elections officials receive the Official Certification of Nomination, the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party is automatically entitled to appear on the state’s general election ballot.  That is, in every other state in the union except HI.  In HI, just identifying the name of the nominee does not guarantee his name will be placed on the ballot.  No;  in order to get BO’s name on the ballot in just that state, NP also had to swear he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. (In some states, like TX and GA, the law requires that the party candidate must be Constitutionally eligible for the job.  But even in these states, no provision of law requires anyone in government to check.  DNC rules dictate that the candidate for the Democratic nomination for President “shall meet those requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.”  http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2).  Thus, identifying under oath that BO was the D party nominee was tantamount to swearing, he is a NBC, anyway.)

(CORRECTION 05.18.12: In TX, the Constitutional requirement only goes to the candidates’ entitlement to appear on the ballot. The SoS may still exercise her discretion to print the name of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates even without evidence of such federal qualification.)

Here are the Certifications of Nomination submitted to HI state officials by the RNC and DNC to get the names of their respective candidates for POTUS printed on HI’s general election ballots.  The cover letter from HI elections officials cites HI’s unique presidential verification law.  (Special thanks to Justin Riggs.)

View this document on Scribd

(Note:  Usually I refrain from getting involved in discussions as to the authenticity of photocopied or scanned documents posted on the internet.  But I want to point out what looks to me to be an anomaly in the HI DNC Certification in NP’s signature.  For comparison, here is an image of the Certification of Nomination received by SC.) (While you are here, can you see the line as to eligibility missing in SC that is present in HI?)

Once state elections officials receive the Certification of Nomination, they automatically print the name of the party nominee onto the general election ballot.  (Remember, even in states that have passed laws requiring the party candidate for POTUS to satisfy the qualifications for office, no provision of law requires any state official to check.  Indeed, when asked, state elections officials confirm, all vetting is left up to the party.)  So, on what basis did NP (and the state D party Chairs) Certify to state elections officials in all 50 (fifty) states, BO is a NBC?

Given the narrow window of time between the Convention nomination and the deadline for submitting the party’s Certification of Nomination to state elections officials – these deadlines vary state to state – any determination as to BO’s Constitutional eligibility presumably was made some time before his August  nomination.  So, what could have been the basis for such verification?

FACT: IN JUNE 2008 THEN DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE HOPEFUL BARACK OBAMA PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED ON HIS NEWLY FORMED WEB SITE, FIGHT THE SMEARS, HE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT ON THIS BASIS:  HE IS A “NATIVE CITIZEN.”

Explaining he was ‘reacting to questions swirling around as to his Constitutional qualifications,’  BO created the web site “Fight the Smears” in June 2008, less than 3 (three) months before Ms. Pelosi would sign his Certification of Nomination.  NOTE:   THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF THE WEB SITE NAMED “FIGHT THE SMEARS.”  SOME OF THESE ARE .ORG’S; SOME ARE .COM’S.  BURIED IN THE FOOTER, SOME OF THESE FTS SITES REVEAL THEY ARE “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA”; SOME ARE PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA; SOME SAY THE DNC. But whatever the iteration of FTS, prominently displayed on the site is  a photocopy of the document everyone has seen by now, entitled, “Certification of Live Birth” (“COLB”).  (Until the fall of 2008, HI officials noted the distinction between a “Certificate” and a “Certification.”  See, for example, Atlas Shrugs, linked above.) BO claims the “truth” is, this COLB proves he  is a “native citizen”; and in the following note, he asks his supporters to spread this “fact” around.

Hi everyone!

People who are determined to keep us divided start these rumors about Barack’s birth certificate to manipulate us into thinking he is not an American citizen.

The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Learn the facts and see the birth certificate for yourself:

http://my.barackobama.com/birthcertificate

(Accessing that link now leads you to http://www.barackobama.com/fightthesmears/articles.)

(Note:  In December 2007, BO did swear he was a “natural born citizen of the United States,” in nomination papers he submitted to the SoS of AZ to participate in that state’s Presidential Preference Election (primary).) http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/

In the following version of FTS, BO actually cites the 14th Amendment to support his nativity.

BUT NONE OF THESE ITERATIONS OF “FIGHT THE SMEARS ” ARGUES CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

Also prominently displayed on all of these FTS sites is the logo for the organization called Annenberg Political FactCheck.org (“APFC”).   FTS directs readers to an active link to the APFC site, claiming APFC “clarifies Mr. Obama’s citizenship.”  Here is how APFC summarizes this situation.

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen.

They go on to report that APFC staff personally examined Obama’s COLB before rendering this exact opinion.

Our conclusion:  Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

FACT: CONTACTED BY CONCERNED CONSTITUENTS PRIOR TO RATIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE IN FAVOR OF BARACK OBAMA,  MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INSISTED, ANNENBERG POLITICAL FACT CHECK PROVED HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Some time after the general election on November 4, 2008 but before the Electoral College vote on December 15, constituents contacted their U.S. Senators and Representatives with concerns as to whether Barack Obama is eligible for POTUS under Article II, Section 1  of the U.S. Constitution.   Specifically, is he a natural born citizen?  Here is just a sample of the responses they received from these federal elected officials. (Special thanks to Citizen Wells.)

U.S. Senator Harry Reid, Democrat Majority Leader from Nevada:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.

According to Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, any person
serving in the United States House of Representatives must have reached
the age of twenty-five and must have been a citizen of the United States
for at least seven years, and any person serving in the United States
Senate must have reached the age of thirty and must have been a citizen
of the United States for at least nine years. In addition, Article II,
Section 1 mandates that a person must have reached the age of thirty-five
and be a natural born citizen in order to serve as President of the
United States.

As you mentioned, some reports have surfaced that my former colleague,
President-Elect Barack Obama, is not a natural-born American citizen.
These reports are false. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in
Honolulu, Hawai’i. His birth certificate is a matter of public record
of the State of Hawai’i and is available online through various news
sources, as well as on the Web site for the nonpartisan, nonprofit
Annenberg Political Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org. I hope you
find this information useful.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
For more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United
States Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on
the issues that interest you, please visit my Web site at
http://reid.senate.gov. I look forward to hearing from you in the near
future.

U.S. Representative Jay Inslee, Democrat from Washington:

Thank you for contacting me about claims about President-Elect Obama’s
status as a natural-born citizen, as required for admittance to U.S.
Presidential office by the Constitution. As always, I appreciate hearing
from you.

As you know, President-Elect Obama has indeed provided his actual paper
Certification of Live Birth to several media organizations, as well as
the Annenberg Foundation’s non-partisan “Factcheck.org” website and the
conservative news website World Net Daily, which reported that a “WND
investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts
also found the document to be authentic.” In fact, all of these groups
have recognized that the President Elect’s actual birth certificate
document is real and genuine.

U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat from Wisconsin:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from
you and welcome this opportunity to respond.

As you may know, Hawaii became a state on August 21st,
1959. President-elect Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961,
making him a United States citizen at birth under the first section
of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. President-elect
Obama’s birth certificate has been made public, and is widely
available online. This document has been authenticated by a
variety of sources, including…the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat from Wisconsin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President-elect Obama’s
citizenship. It is always good to hear from you. As you know, some have suggested that President-elect Barack Obama  may have been born outside the U.S. and is not a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency. During the presidential campaign,
President-elect Obama voluntarily posted his birth certificate on his
campaign website indicating he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961.

U.S. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan:

From: senator_levin@levin.senate.gov senator_levin@levin.senate.gov
Subject: Re: Your Concerns
To: xxxxxxxxx.com
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 12:53 PM

Dear xxxxxxxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the false rumors surrounding
President-elect Obama’s citizenship status. I appreciate you
sharing your thoughts with me.

As you may know, Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution
states that, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen
of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii as documented by his
official birth certificate. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen
of the United States. Thank you again for writing.

U.S. Representative John Tanner, Democrat from Tennessee:

Thank you for contacting our office regarding the allegations that
President-Elect Barack Obama was not born in the United States. I
appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this
issue.

There are claims that President-Elect Obama was born in Africa and not
in the United States which would make him ineligible to become
president. The Obama campaign released a scanned copy of his birth
certificate in June 2008, but many people believe it was a forgery.
The non-partisan organization Political Fact Check (this group monitors
the factual accuracy of political information) has examined Mr. Obama’s
birth certificate and they report that it is valid and he is a U.S.
citizen. I have included a link to a Newsweek article that was written
on this subject and includes links to pictures of the birth certificate
(http://www.newsweek.com/id/154599).

(Note from jbjd:  Newsweek credits that article to a member of FactCheck.org staff. )

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me and I hope you will feel
free to contact our office with any issues of concern to you in the
future.

U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat from Maryland:

Thank you for getting in touch with me. It’s nice to hear from you.

I appreciate knowing of your concern over a rumor that President-elect Obama is ineligible to serve as President because he is not a U.S. citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Since President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii two years after it was admitted as the 50th state, he is a natural-born citizen. He has released a copy of his birth certificate and it has been authenticated by experts.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/us-constitution-hall-of-shame/

(Interestingly, none of the legislators cited as a reason to guarantee BO’s Constitutional qualification, the fact that NP signed that   Official Certification of Nomination swearing he was eligible for the job.)

In sum, between June 2008, when BO admitted questions had been raised as to his Constitutional eligibility for President; and August, when NP signed his Official DNC Certification of Nomination; the only ‘evidence’ he proffered to establish his  qualifications was that COLB he posted on FTS, on which basis Congress ratified the voting by the Electoral College, citing as their reason, ‘FactCheck said, he’s for real.’

FACT: ANNENBERG POLITICAL FACT CHECK DOES NOT CHECK FACTS.

See “RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS.'”


%d bloggers like this: