BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (2 of 2)

June 15, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

(continued from BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (1 of 2))

When we left off, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett had received from HI the anonymous mailing he describes as his requested “verification in lieu of certified copy.” Now, he declared he was officially out of the business of 2012 Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s authentication – “They have complied with the request and I consider the matter closed.” – because the document proved Mr. Obama was born in HI, notwithstanding as many of us know, in fact, it did no such thing. Pulling defeat out of the mouth of victory, this declaration by a Republican Secretary of State arguably constitutes game, set, and match for the eligibility obstructionists.

Because now, despite the fact that we birthers know better; our detractors can rightly claim, the evidence is in: President Obama is a NBC. And they can justifiably dismiss as baseless any more challenges to his Constitutional eligibility by pointing to the fact, for the first time, a Secretary of State has proclaimed, based on word from HI; he is definitely a NBC. And, as a bonus, the SoS is a member in good standing of the Republican Party.

In general, any birther can be credited with this ignoble defeat who has focused on proving President Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job instead of either 1) challenging how anyone who swore he was eligible (in a state with ballot eligibility laws) knew he was a NBC; or 2) spreading the word, his campaign’s release of the COLB in June 2008 and the long form birth certificate in April 2011 were both part of a political ad campaign.

I have been warning you this could happen, ever since Orly Taitz corralled NH State Representative Rappaport into misapplying my ballot fraud principle; in this non-ballot eligibility state.

To: GregNH

Of course he dropped this. Because no NH law requires the candidate whose name appears on the ballot to be qualified for the job. When my work was stolen, the thieves joined together to apply my concept of election fraud to NH. Only, this was not an applicable state for the complaints of election fraud to the AG, filed in applicable states like HI, GA, MD, TX, SC, and VA. Plus, they took it to the SoS, a state constitutional officer with no jurisdiction into criminal matters but whose authority only extends to ruling on the validity of the ballot in NH according to NH law. Their charge? BO committed fraud when he signed the application to get his name printed on the Presidential primary ballot. Big mistake. Because charging him with fraud meant proving he lied. What I mean is, he knows whether he is a NBC. So, in order to go after him, you would have to prove, he lied. That’s why I went after anyone else who Certified he was a NBC, like Nancy Pelosi, or Boyd Richie. How did THEY know he was a NBC before Certifying he was, and sending that Certification to state election officials? By forging ahead with the concept they stole from me, these thieves almost blew our legitimate causes of action. What do you suppose would have happened if the NH SoS had ruled, there was no ballot fraud? (And there wasn’t, in NH.) The AG in TX, where there WAS fraud, could have said, ‘Well, the SoS in NH has determined there was no ballot fraud and so, as far as I am concerned, the case is closed.’ Thank goodness, all the NH SoS did was refer the complaint ostensibly lodged by the NH state Rep. – did you know he was a named Plaintiff in one of Orly’s cases? – to the AG, who would not touch it.

Stealing my work is not only wrong on its face; it is also subverting the mission of that work. My readers are (or are becoming) educated voters. They have read the articles on my blog and asked questions. They sent in their complaints understanding what they were signing their names to. There is no shortcut here. You have to put in the time to become an informed voter. At least, you have to know as much about the system as those who would use their superior knowledge to have power over your lives.

41 posted on November 24, 2009 13:01:39 by jbjd

Laurence Rappaportsays:

I am a State Representative in New Hampshire. On, I believe, November 20th, Representative Carol Vita, her husband and I spoke with Mr. Michael Delaney, the Attorney General of New Hampshire indicating our concerns regarding the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States. I had previously spoken with Mr. William Gardner, the Secretary of State of New Hampshire asking that he investigate. The contention with Mr. Delaney was that the Democratic National Party might have committed fraud upon the voters of New Hampshire. Both Mr. Delaney and Mr. Gardner declined. Mr. Delaney said he thought the matter was federal and that the complaint was a federal one. I would like to pursue this further, but while I certainly have the inclination, I have neither the financial resources nor the knowledge of how to do so. Consequently I would greatly appreciate advice of how to proceed. Thank you.

Laurence Rappaport: Welcome. I have advised anyone reading this blog, until you understand at least as much about this election process as those with superior knowledge who would subvert the process to gain power over you; you cannot make a difference.

I advise people who question BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS to shift their focus away from him. He knows whether he is a NBC; but how does anyone else without access to the requisite documentation but who nonetheless swore he is Constitutionally eligible, know he is a NBC?

NH is an inapplicable state for the purpose of filing a complaint of election fraud with the state AG, against various members of the D party, for swearing to state election officials BO is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS to get them to print his name on the ballot, before ascertaining whether he is a NBC. Only in states with laws requiring the candidates whose names are printed on the ballot, must be eligible for the job, can such conduct be construed as election fraud.

Please, read one of these complaints posted on the front of this blog. The applicable election law in each state is cited within the complaint. Note on the front of each complaint, the complainant makes clear, this complaint takes no stand on whether BO is a NBC. It only alleges members of the D party swore he was before ascertaining this was true as the prerequisite to getting his name printed on the state ballot. That’s election fraud. (In SC, this fraud also occurred in the primary. Because under SC law, unlike in NH, the party had to swear the candidates entering the Presidential preference primary were eligible for the job, too.)

Then read “THE END GAME” on this blog. See, those of us who are questioning the election of BO want a full vetting of his eligibility status, assuming that, if the facts establish he is not eligible then, Congress will move to impeach him. I had hoped these complaints would result in a ruling from a state AG that would be the impetus for Congress to act. Obviously, ‘educating’ even one member of Congress as to these issues could also work to spark such debate. But first, you have to know what you are talking about.

Come back with any questions about the materials. Good luck. ADMINISTRATOR

jbjd | November 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm |

… A long time ago now, with azgo’s help, I proved FTS and anything posted on that site legally constitute political advertising; and no identification document delivered by Obama (including by his lawyers) can be said to be “official.”; (See, for example, DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2).)

  1. Continuing to focus on such minutia with the hope that, even catching Obama in a contradiction will alter the outcome of the 2012 election, appears to me to signal an intentional campaign to avoid altering the results. The only way to make Obama’s birth credentials count, is to enforce ballot eligibility laws, where they exist; and to draft new laws, where there are none. Also, laws must be passed requiring state Electors to elect only eligible candidates. (Nothing I am saying here is new.) In other words, challenge those people who swear he is eligible to get on the ballot, to tell you how they know. (Read and repeat…)

    Stop blaming everyone else for allowing Obama into office. …If you want to change things, stop bullying people into agreeing with your opinion and start working within the law. In NH, Obama complied with state election law. Even if he was lying when he took the oath. …Because as I pointed out on another thread, in NH, the law as written requires the election commission “shall” assume that any candidate fulfilling the requirements spelled out in law, such as taking the oath written in the law, has satisfied the legal filing requirements.

  2. Under NH law, all voting rights complaints must be filed with the state AG. So, the particular NH election officials (ballot commission) who refused to allow Orly’s complaint, were only doing exactly what they were required to do, by law, all unbridled protestations from the onlookers notwithstanding.
    http://www.doj.nh.gov/election-law/complaints.htm
    In some cases, that is, where the matter is deemed not to be criminal, the AG can certify the complaint to be passed on to the ballot commission. But the first stop is the AG.

I had to bring my ongoing ballot eligibility work ‘underground,’ willing to limit its availability to the general public so as to protect its integrity. Because unscrupulous thieves misappropriated the work, in hopes of self-aggrandizement and, in so doing, invited defeats which reflected poorly on the quality of my work. But despite the necessity; restricting the publication of my current efforts necessarily reduced the efficacy of that work. Even so, as ‘evidenced’ by what happened in Arizona; unscrupulous charlatans have found another way to derail any sound ‘birther’ argumentation.

You cannot continue to support these swindlers who front for the eligibility industry but who (not surprisingly) don’t demand you understand how our government works; and, at the same time, insist, anyone who purports to be  working on these eligibility issues, deserves credit for supporting the “cause.”

P.S.  After months of intensive background work; we are about to launch another round of citizen complaints of election fraud, in one state. We might be too late to keep Mr. Obama’s name off the ballot; but we have plenty of time to get out the word, no documentary evidence available in the public record establishes he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.

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

Please support the work going on here at “jbjd.”


BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (1 of 2)

June 9, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

As if providing the facts that would drive the discourse of the 2012 election cycle away from fatuous fiction with respect to President Obama’s origins wasn’t sufficiently challenging; now, when he is turning the corner to what could have been a virtually guaranteed rejection of his bid for re-election, Constitutional huckster Sheriff Joe Arpaio -‘I never met a due process right I couldn’t deny’ – beguiled a duplicitous AZ SoS Ken Bennett into helping steer Mr. Obama over the finish line, aided and abetted in his siren song by his WND handlers, including Dr. Jerome Corsi; and a supporting cast of crazies.

The stated story line sounds simple enough. In lieu of a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority and conveyed directly to the AZ SoS;  Ken Bennett asked HI officials to verify vital information related to Barack Obama’s birth ( “verification in lieu of a certified copy” ) pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute section 338-18(g), which allows such confirmation under conditions specified in the law. (The official HI DoH web site carries a downloadable request form; however, I have been unable to locate an image of Bennett’s original request to HI, either in ‘form’ form or, as a written narrative.)

As Bennett rationalized to Mike Broomhead on KFYI radio; he requested a verification in lieu of a certified copy because, while he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii – “at least I hope he was” – his “responsibility as Secretary of State is to make sure that the ballots in Arizona are correct and that those people whose names are on the ballots have met the qualifications for the office that they’re seeking.” He explained that after the press conference held by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his posse, in which Arpaio stated, the long-form birth certificate posted on the WhiteHouse.gov web site “might” be fraudulent; people began contacting his office.  He had received about 1,200 emails from Arizona voters who are concerned about President Obama’s birth records, and felt it was his duty to follow up.

Or, maybe he asked HI to confirm Obama’s credentials, for the reason printed in the Arizona Republic. “I was just trying to put this thing to bed and agree to a constituent’s request, which I’m allowed to do” …”This is a constituent from Arizona, whom I work for.” Perhaps not surprisingly, he never named the constituent.

But neither explanation passes the ‘smell test.’ The only time that candidates for President are required to self-affirm their Constitutional qualifications is on the application to the SoS to appear on the Presidential preference primary ballot. (Most of us first saw this ballot application in 2008.) And the 2012 AZ Presidential preference primary went off without a hitch on February 28. As for the upcoming general election ballot, well, under AZ law; the Presidential nominee of the major political party is entitled to appear on the general election ballot. http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00804.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

MOST IMPORTANTLY; NO LAW IN AZ REQUIRES THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB IN ORDER TO HAVE THEIR NAMES PRINTED ON EITHER THE PRIMARY OR GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT, ANYWAY! And no law in that state requires Electors to vote only for Presidential candidates who are Constitutionally eligible for the job. In other words, Bennett had no duty to determine Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility!

Besides, people have been asking S’soS in all 50 states, including AZ, to verify Obama is a NBC, since 2008.  Why confront HI now? Rather, what makes sense is that Bennett is pandering to the fringe, believing this will help his presumed gubernatorial bid in 2014. In his present position as Secretary of State; he would have better served the citizens of AZ had he understood the difference between a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority (DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2)) and a paid political announcement; and explained this difference so as to inform the voters (to say nothing of the disservice to the state’s campaign for presumptive R Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, for whom he is co-chair).

Now, back to the dance of deception between state officials of both states…

Officials from the Offices of the HI AG and the Department of Health began corresponding with Mr. Bennett so as to establish whether he had a legal right under HI law to the verification requested. If so; then, they would provide the requested verification. TPM (Talking Points Memo) obtained this correspondence from HI through a public records request (based in HI law). Reading the exchange; it appears that HI asked SoS Bennett to prove it satisfied one of the exceptions listed in their law for breaching the confidentiality of vital records; and Bennett, try as he might, could not reach the level of exception. Indeed, the last letter from HI makes clear, he had not established to their satisfaction, his right to obtain such verification. Nevertheless, immediately thereafter, they transmitted that “verification in lieu of a certified copy,” a mere 8 (eight) weeks after he first asked HI – using whatever form – to provide this verification.

Even if you knew nothing else about the laws impacting the exchange – ballot eligibility; campaign expenditure (political advertising); what constitutes a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority – this providing such verification despite expressing these reservations, with no intervening ‘change of heart’ evidenced in their communication; should have signaled, ‘something fraudulent this way comes.’

But then there was this…

Obviously, requests to HI for information about Barack Obama have burdened their state agencies. HI Deputy AG Nagamine sent Bennett a “link is to the Department of Health’s website that was created in response to the high volume of inquiries about the President’s birth certificate. It includes the press releases issued by Dr. Fukino, the former Republican-appointed Director of Health. ttp://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.htmlId. Bennett acknowledges her claims of disruption. “I understand your client’s initial trepidation in responding to this request given the significant amount of email, fax and phone call traffic that this issue has spawned. My office too has received numerous constituent requests and I agree with Director Fuddy’s assertion in her letter of April 25, 2011 that the sheer volume of inquires has “been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources.”” Id. (Of course, readers of “jbjd” know better than to credit anything credited to Ms. Fukino concerning the so-called ‘facts’ of Obama’s life. They would likely notice, these links to Fukino’s statements contain the disclaimer, ‘no other documentary evidence supports these statements were  made.’

Also see, for example,  TRUMPED by TRUMP (Updated 04.10.11) and RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT)

So, given the notoriety of a request from a state SoS to verify President’s Obama’s bona fides; and, given the burden imposed on HI offices as the result of similar requests for such verification; and, given this opportunity to (perhaps) once and for all end all such Obama-related requests to HI for authentication; one could rationally expect to see the signature of an official employed by the HI DoH on the bottom of the issued documentation. If so then, one would be wrong. Because for reasons which can only be speculated; whoever actually signed that letter is anonymous, leaving behind only what appears to be his or her initials. (Maybe someone can submit another request to HI using the public records laws, to learn the signer’s real name.)

Nevertheless, notwithstanding these obvious fatal faults with the legitimacy of this ‘verification in lieu of a certified copy’ process; several media outlets have touted the production by the anonymous HI signatory as ‘proof’ of President Obama’s  Constitutional eligibility for office. That is, this confirms his HI birth. Oh, sure, it does no such thing. But that has not stopped such claims; and it serves Bennett and the bumbling Birthers who incited his quest, right.

(continued in BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (2 of 2)

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

Please support the work going on here at “jbjd.”


%d bloggers like this: