(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.)
(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:
(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 PMDear 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.
jbjd 
Great bringing together of the facts. Do you mind if I add a link to this post in my next communication to AG McCollum.
jb – I read somewhere, here I think, about how a financial investment link could possibly be an asset to an individual trying to prove fraud. I have checked with my state representative’s office and been assured no state taxpayer funds have been handed over to the state political parties.
However, on the national level the FEC does, as you know, provide public taxpayer funds to the major political parties to conduct their national nominating conventions. Although this link is to an FEC brochure, I expect it is a true reflection of the law.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#Expenditure_Limits
“Each major political party is entitled to $4 million (plus cost-of-living adjustments)8 to finance its national Presidential nominating convention.”
In layman’s thinking, we taxpayers own a piece of the records and work these conventions assembled and produced. Is this an argument we can add to our election fraud complaints to our AG.s ?
rlqretired: Please, add links to any state or federal officials. Clearly, they need our help learning how to perform their jobs. (In fact, spread this link everywhere and let others send this article to their government officials, too.) As for the arguments in support of a charge of election fraud against NP and the DNC and the state D party chairs… Remember, this election fraud I was talking about consists of Certifying the candidate is Constitutionally eligible for the job BEFORE verifying whether he is; in a state that requires the party candidate to be eligible in order to get his name printed on the ballot. I want A’sG in those states to initiate investigations based on those charges. Ancillary matters are outside of the purview of my recommendation. ADMINISTRATOR
Now, now, little blogger. You mustn’t get upset about this birth thing. Nancy told you he was eligible. That’s all you need to know.
Absolutely infuriating.
creeper: “Absolutely infuriating.” Yes; especially given that we pay our Congresspeople $174,000 a year to do their jobs so that we don’t have to. Now, we are teaching them how our government is supposed to work! Send this post to them (and suggest they owe us a rebate). ADMINISTRATOR
Great job, jbjd! Thanks.
Miri: You are welcome. Please, distribute this post where it will do some good. ADMINISTRATOR
Awesome, jbjd! I will certainly spread it. Keep up your great work. I appreciate your effort to deal with the facts rather than innuendo or rumor. How refreshing!
d2i: Thank you. I wish I knew better how to promote this blog; it’s like a primer on how our government should work (but does not). People who have read my articles have said, they send them to their legislators. I wish they would send them this one and the one just before this (RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS.’) ADMINISTRATOR
Hi jbjd!
This is a great post. It lays out the facts very cleanly, and in a way that all of us can understand. My frustration, though, is that there is seemingly nothing we can do to fix this. There seems to be an impenetrable barrier that we “normal citizens” can’t break through. The only solace I take with me is that we are right – there is something out of place here – and that even George Washington won the war by picking his battles while strategically retreating when necessary.
juriggs: Hello, and thank you. I strongly believe we can do a lot to “fix this.” For starters, we need to send this post and the previous post – RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ – to our U.S. Senators and Representatives. (I would love the voters to hand-deliver copies of these to their Congresspeople during this August recess.) Let them know, we know what they did. No more excuses; no more fobbing off their choices on anyone else. They ratified the EC vote for the man Certified Constitutionally eligible by leaders of the Democratic Party notwithstanding the evidence strongly indicates they knew he was not. Voters should hand-deliver these articles to their state A’sG and charge the state Democratic party with election fraud. After all, someone handed over NP’s Certifications to state elections officials. In fact, in some states, state D party Chairs also had to submit a letter swearing the nominee was eligible for the job.
There’s a lot we can do. In the previous column, I showed that after the inauguration, BO’s lawyers tried to bamboozle the court into ‘buying’ their meme, he is real because Annenberg Political Fact Check ‘noted’ a contemporaneous newspaper announcement of his birth (although as it turns out this ‘announcement’ was only an image they had pilfered from another blog, posted by an anonymous blogger claiming to have obtained this image from a reputable source, a source which APFC did not bother to confirm for themselves). If this is the best evidence of his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS – and it must be; why else would he have offered this up to the federal court? – then, he is not eligible. And NP should not have Certified, he is, just to get his name next to the D on the state general election ballots. The A’sG may want to re-focus this as a vetting issue, belonging to the Party; but savvy voters (readers of this blog) can keep them on task by emphasizing, this is an issue of election fraud viz-a-viz an unfounded Certification of Nomination. ADMINISTRATOR
I realize the ‘False Claims’ Act generally has to do with defrauding the government of tax payer money, but could it cover the DNC/NP’s false claims, too?
§ 3729. False Claims
(a) LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN ACTS
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), any person who—
(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;
http://www.taf.org
claim
1) v. to make a demand for money, for property, or for enforcement of a right provided by law.
In other words and in this case: any person who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for approval;
(The false claim in this case being: NP/BO making a demand for enforcement of a right provided by law.)
MissTickly: Great idea; I haven’t a clue as to whether this is applicable but I love your thought process. I will have to look into this. Meanwhile, educate your elected representatives as to the fact, the evidence indicates, BO was never vetted as to Constitutional eligibility and it would appear this happened because he is not Constitutionally eligible for the job. ADMINISTRATOR
Great post, jbjd. It is amazing how much denigrating of birthers is going on in the MSM–and NONE of the MSM dare address those two little words “natural born”. It all comes down to that.
Our Constitution is ignored in many other ways these days. The Federal Reserve and ‘nationalized anything’ are two glaring examples–and these involve looting of the taxpayers and enslaving citizens with debt.
What a mess our country is in.
SNK: Thank you. I proudly wear the title of “Birther.” Who yells the loudest does not determine, what is true. Use the information you glean here as a weapon to clean up this “mess.” Get your elected officials on both a state and federal level to do their jobs. On the state level, this involves looking into election fraud; on the national level, this involves, informing your Congresspeople that no one vetted BO, and providing evidence of this “fact.” ADMINISTRATOR
In other words and in this case: any person who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for approval;
(The false claim in this case being: NP/BO making a demand for enforcement of a right provided by law.)
The ‘right provided by law’ in this case is a Constitutional right. At least, that is what Donofrio called it in one of his recent posts.
MissTickly: Now that I recall, what you are proposing might have been tried already, unsuccessfully. Check Phil Berg’s case, the one that was sealed. No big secret; by law, when someone is charging someone with obtaining monies under false pretense, the practice is to close the case because of the damage that could inure to the Defendant who could be completely blameless. Berg’s initial filing was not sealed; the judge admonished him to seal the case and not to discuss it. Anyway, what exactly is the purpose of all of this drama? I have already demonstrated, NP Certified BO is a NBC without verifying whether this was true; and Congress ratified the EC vote for BO based on APFC, which I have shown, does not check facts.
Start the impeachment proceedings. No more wiggle room. ADMINISTRATOR
MissTickly: Yep; Phil Berg already tried this. Go here http://www.obamacrimes.com/ and scroll down. ADMINISTRATOR
I enjoy your site and your comments here and on other blogs. I read on TD about the 25th amendment issue on declaring Obama legally unable to discharge his dutes. I was wondering if a Writ of Mandamus could compel a government official to invoke that provision?
SteveinVA: Welcome; and tell your friends. Mandamus only applies to compel that government official to perform a ministerial function. That is, the court will not violate the separation of powers absent a clear requirement in the law that, given these specific circumstances, the state actor must take this specific action as part of the job. Compelling a discretionary function to be performed in one particular way versus another is not a proper application of mandamus. ADMINISTRATOR
I will.
“Meanwhile, educate your elected representatives as to the fact, the evidence indicates, BO was never vetted as to Constitutional eligibility and it would appear this happened because he is not Constitutionally eligible for the job. ADMINISTRATOR”
MissTickly: The phrase I just posted on another blog is, no more wiggle room. ADMINISTRATOR
Thank you again, jb for an excellent post.
I have examined both Official Certifications from HI and SC signed by Pelosi, Germond and the notary, Williamson. It appears that Nancy did not sign the one you state is from HI and appears to have been forged. What I’m guessing is that the same notary, Shalifa Williamson, in Colorado, had a whole stack of certifications put before her to notarize. Pelosi purportedly acknowledged that she signed all the certifications and this woman just notarized en masse for all states, not paying attention to the signatures. In what appears to be her authentic signature on the SC certification, you can definitely see the “s” in Pelosi. In the purported forgery, there is no “s” in her signature. Can both the notary and Pelosi be charged with fraud?
How can you differentiate from which state they are as it doesn’t state on the face of the certification which state the particular certification is from?
Ladyhawkke: Thank you; your opinion of my work means a lot to me. Good question about how to identify which state received which Certification. Some of the Certifications recovered from state elections officials bear ‘receipt stamps’ that identify the state. For example, that SC Certification posted, bears the stamp, “SC Elections …” As for the HI Certification, well, that has no receipt stamp but, HI is the only state that requires that additional line as to Constitutional eligibility. (Isn’t that coincidental?) Plus, I have documentary evidence indicating this was received by HI elections officials; and this is the copy those elections officials distributed on request.
As to NP’s signature on the HI Certification… your guess as to why it differs in appearance from her signature on other signed Certifications is as good as mine. However, I do know that she has seen this signature on the HI Certification, because a copy of this Certification was hand-delivered to her House office, along with a request for documentation as to the basis for her determination, BO is a NBC. (As she previously did with all such requests, Ms. Pelosi ignored this request, too.) ADMINISTRATOR
01.22.11: I mistakenly wrote that HI is the only state that requires explicit wording on its nominee Certification, that s/he is Constitutionally eligible for the job in order for the state to print the name on the ballot. We now know, SC law also requires specific words of qualification.
BTW, I posted the same idea about filing a False Claims lawsuit on Donofrio’s website and got positive feedback from him. He wondered if the POTUS paycheck would qualify the situation as a false claim.
I hope you will look into this, too. I am very interested in your thoughts on this–it could be a good way to put into use the work you’ve done uncovering all the false claims the DNC/NP/BO have made.
MissTickly; No; nothing will work as fast as either filing a complaint of election fraud with the AG; and that makes the most sense, anyway. Because the value of NP’s Certification was to get the name of BO on the general election ballot. And she knew he was not eligible for the job. (The other ‘quick’ way to call attention to this hoax is to have a pledged delegate filing a civil fraud complaint against NP or the DNC for fraudulently usurping her (fiduciary) vote.) ADMINISTRATOR
Miss Tickly: I went back through responses to comments on older posts; and as I wrote below, Phil Berg already tried this unsuccessfully. ADMINISTRATOR
jbjd,
I have written a book on the Natural Born Citizen issue that focuses solely on Obama’s father’s citizenship. I am posting this book a chapter at a time on my blog http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com (I also am known in the blogosphere as curi0us0nefromthe60s).
Just yesterday I posted Chapter 4: The 14th Amendment. In Chapter 4 I spoke of generic proponents for Obama’s natural born citizenship status pointing to the 14th Amendment arguing that he is a natural born citizen. It isn’t until a later chapter in the book which I won’t be posting on my website for a week or two where I discuss the fight the smears website. But in that chapter I did not see the reference on their site to the 14th Amendment. Not wanting to take credit for something you have brought to my attention, I wanted to know if I revise Chapter 4 of my book on The 14th Amendment if I may quote this blog post of yours showing the fight the smears website entry that states Barack Obama became a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment. I typically don’t like to update Chapters of my book that are already posted as the intent is to not publish on my site a chapter until is complete, but given what I read on your website today, I can’t help but think this is critical information that should be contained in my book. Please let me know if you are ok with me referencing your post here.
AZ Conservative: The fact that BO put the 14th Amendment on his FTS site to support claims he is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS supports to me, he is not. Assuming BO, Sr. is his father, whether this means he is not a NBC is only an intellectual exercise until the federal appellate rules on what it means. As to referencing my blog, be my guest. Just don’t copy it. ADMINISTRATOR
Thank you jbjd, I had no intention of copying the post. I simply wish to cite the fight the smears image you have posted giving you credit for discovering this. Anyway, may I also use your full name which I believe to be Judah Benjamin (please confirm spelling and accuracy) or would you prefer that I simply refer to you in my cite as jbjd?
AZ Conservative: I am jbjd and not JB. Judah Benjamin used capital “JB”; I am small “jbjd.” JB, who posted extensively on the NBC issue as a writer on td, said many times, he holds no law degree. On the other hand, I do. Hence, the “jd.” ADMINISTRATOR
Thank you very much; I was not aware of JB. I did know however that you held a law degree. I very much appreciate the clarification and will refer to you in my cite as jbjd. Thanks again.
AZ Conservative: You are welcome. ADMINSTRATOR
Thanks jbjd, I don’t want to be argumentative but doesn’t the government official, such as the VP have a ministerial requirement to uphold the constitution. Therefore Obama is not qualified and can not legally perform his position, shouldn’t the VP or others have to make the decision to remove him from office.
I defer to your opinion but just wanted to clarify.
SteveinVA: Your premise, besides being much too vague, presupposes BO is not a NBC. And the only point about BO’s Constitutional eligibility that has been established is that NP did not determine whether he was a NBC before Certifying he was. For example, if the law said, the chief of police is responsible for handing out hackney licenses to qualified applicants; and the hackney division of the police devise a hackney qualifying procedure consisting of written and driving tests; and, according to the scoring standards, you pass the tests, thus making you qualified to receive the hackney license; but the chief refuses to give you the license then, you can file an action in mandamus in court, to ask the judge to order the chief to give you the license insofar as you are a qualified candidate under the law.
From the outset, this is the reason all of the mandamus cases filed to compel state officials to vet BO were destined to fail. That is, they were asking the court to order state officials to perform functions not clearly spelled out in the law. The judicial branch of government will not breach the powers of the executive branch of government absent a clear authority to do so. ADMINISTRATOR
I just updated the previous post, “RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS'” with this note:
UPDATE 08.14.09: Based on his submission of this footnote to the federal court in January, I am surmising that the strongest evidence BO could have provided to NP to verify his Constitutional status before she Certified his eligibility for POTUS on August 27; was this same APFC characterization of authenticity. BUT THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE HE HAD TO PROVE TO THE COURT HE WAS A NBC; WAS THAT CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION NP SIGNED AND FORWARDED TO STATE ELECTIONS OFFICIALS SO THAT HIS NAME COULD BE PRINTED ON THE STATE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOTS! This begs the question: why did lawyers from PERKINS COIE ask the court to take judicial notice their client was for real by referencing a web site run by the organization APFC, given that they could have cited his authentication as a natural born citizen in any one of the 50 Official DNC Certifications of Nomination sworn to by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?
Nice job of putting this all together in one place !!!
I also have a letter from Senator Jon Kyl, who points to Snoopes.com for his presidential qualification.
Jess Henig (staff writer for FactCheck) and author of “Born in the U.S.A.” continues to use the 14th amendment (propaganda) to claim Mr. Obama’s eligibility in this recent “The FactCheck Wire” write up.
“O RLY?
July 29, 2009″………
“If we thought it would do any good, we would point Taitz to the 14th amendment, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Compared with time-travel voodoo, though, reading the Constitution seems awfully hard.”
…….(read more)
http://factcheck.org/2009/07/o-rly/
Jess Henig’s claim of “natural born citizen”.
“More Citizenship Quibbles
March 2, 2009″……..
“This means Obama is either a natural born citizen or a time traveler. We can’t wait to debunk those e-mail rumors!”
http://factcheck.org/2009/03/more-citizenship-quibbles/
and here,
“Obama’s Citizenship and the Survival of the Fittest
October 23, 2008″………..
“Since Obama was clearly a natural-born citizen, the rumor had to adapt. The next incarnation had Obama holding Kenyan as well as U.S. citizenship. If that didn’t make him ineligible to be president, it at least portrayed him as somewhat…foreign, which could be offputting to some voters. We nipped that one in the bud, too.”
http://factcheck.org/2008/10/obamas-citizenship-and-the-survival-of-the-fittest/
Do you agree with this?
“Berg Gets Sunk
October 27, 2008″………
“Many readers have asked why Obama didn’t show up in court with his birth certificate, if he is really a citizen. Obama and the DNC had instead filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which, when it works, is usually the most efficient and least expensive way to dispose of a case.”……..
http://factcheck.org/2008/10/berg-gets-sunk/
——–
MyFactCheque.cilly
Q. – Is Jessica Henig a constitutional lawyer or expert?
A. – No, Jessica Henig earned her B.A. in history of science from Smith College and her M.A. in English from the University of Maryland.
http://factcheck.org/about/
——–
Her(past) blogs;
http://technorati.com/people/technorati/beepolicy/
Truth Tables:
“Anyone can call “ad hominem” or “straw man.” But who has the guts and the keen logical know-how to apply the tenets of formal logic to mass-media rhetoric? Not us, but we’re doing it anyway.”
Interesting………
azgo: Do you realize what you sent me?
So, in October 2008, a staffer from APFC, not a lawyer, is rationalizing that BO does not come to court armed with a real Certificate of Live Birth because he is only asking the court to grant a Motion to Dismiss. Yet, I showed you the footnote in his Motion to Dismiss, submitted in another case 2 (two) months later in which he specifically asked the court to take judicial notice, FactCheck has such documents that (they) say prove, I am for real. What a racket.
No more wiggle room. Congress needs to commence Impeachment hearings. They are the ones who ratified the EC vote for a man no one had vetted, claiming they thought he was real because FactCheck said it’s so. Well, now you know, FactCheck isn’t real, either. ADMINISTRATOR
01.22.11: I want to stress the fact, Impeachment would be predicated on the fact, given that none of the people who Certified BO is a NBC had a documentary basis for such Certification, the implication is, BO lied when he swore to election officials in states like AZ and NH, he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. This conduct constitutes election fraud. It is this criminal act which would be the basis for filing Articles of Impeachment.
jb – For whatever its worth, when I first realized the DNC did not mention constitutional eligibility on their certification of nomination but the RNC did, I requested the Florida SOS provide copies of the DNC certifications for 2000 and 2004 to see if there had been any change just for 2008. They are all the same.
rlqretired: Hey, rl. Nice work, as usual. You will recall that, per DNC rules cited above, the nominee has to be a NBC. Thus, in those states that require the nominee to be eligible for the job, merely Certifying BO was the nominee was tantamount to swearing, he was a NBC. But HI enacted a law that specifically requires the party to Certify the candidate is Constitutionally eligible for the job. ADMINISTRATOR
I am appreciating the good work you are doing here, jbjd. But surely the recourse is not impeachment, if he is not actually eligible to hold the office? How can you impeach an illegal office holder? And surely it is not up to Congress to do the work that needs to be done now – this Congress is an accessory before the fact. Nancy Pelosi and Co. are all culpable (especially as having ‘standing’), for not only not having done their job properly (an act of omission), but being an actual party to the illegality visited on the Republic (an act of commission).
The Supreme Court has the official ‘standing’ in this matter, does it not; since it buck-stops-here rules on constitutional issues. And if there were ever a constitutional issue, this is it.
My take: The military needs to be called in, to put pressure on the Supreme Court to rule on the best NBC case that can be put before it. Why? Because they have sworn an oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign or domestic”, and as long as this issue is not cleared up, they are in jeopardy of following illegal orders. For which they can be prosecuted.
The proper pressure is to be put on the Supreme Court to rule in a constitutionally-correct way on the Constitutional import here. Personally, I think the way to go is for the military to remove Obama from the office, dissolve Congress as being tainted by illegality in the matter, and install a temporary Commander in Chief, who will call for elections to be held within a time determined by the rule of law. Some of these accessories may be returned; but at least the nation will have been brought back under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Not people who arrogantly declare, I am the law. And I quote Hitler in that regard.
To this sad but necessary end, I encourage you to start letting some sincere military personnel know of your research on this matter, and ask them to keep their oath. And let the chips fall where they may.
(And make sure they are not on the Council on Foreign Relations, or have aligned loyalties. There are military personnel, and then there are military personnel. We need believers in the Republic here. Not the New World Order crowd, with their desire for oligarchical/corporate control over the world. They have damaged the social order almost fatally. We need true patriots at this Crisis/Opportunity time. Not wolves in sheep’s clothing.)
stan: Thanks for offering these well-thought out solutions to this dilemma, which appears to confront us with a ‘case of first impression.’ But, in fact, that part of the problem which would require a President who has committed an impeachable offense to voluntarily leave office, is not new. Remember when President Nixon refused to hand over the ‘tapes’ in the Watergate investigation? Exerting executive privilege, he argued he could keep the tapes; lawyers asked the court to order him to hand them over; and the SCOTUS said, ‘Give ’em up.’ This, indeed, was the real potential Constitutional crisis. What happens if the POTUS refuses to obey a court order endorsed by the SCOTUS? Do we send in the police to arrest him? Well, luckily, President Nixon obeyed the court order, handed over the tapes, and resigned from office.
The thing about this BO problem… People who believe he has usurped the office of President want him out of there immediately but are all over the map in prescriptions as to how to make him go. For example, for some people, PROVING he is not a NBC is the goal. I have been saying for over a year now, establishing his bona fides is not up to us but on him. Besides, he has done such a good job of hiding his credentials, how would anyone prove he is ineligible, anyway? No; I saw as a much easier route, using existing laws to, for example, keep him off the state ballot. That is, if the state ballot says, in order to be here, you have to be a NBC; challenge whether he is and make him prove the point! So, too, with these latest postings. I believe I have established with a strong circumstantial case that NP verified to state elections officials BO was a natural born citizen without actually confirming he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. In those states with laws that require the candidate from the major political party to be eligible for the job, such conduct constitutes election fraud. Now, petitioning your elected officials, namely, the state A’sG, to investigate election fraud, still has no bearing on whether BO is actually a NBC; but so what? If just one state AG determines the D Party perpetrated a fraud on that state to get BO’s name on the ballot; do you suppose the citizens of that state, and their Electors in the Electoral College; and the HRC pledged delegates; and pledged delegates for BO who respect the fiduciary responsibility bestowed upon them primary/caucus voters, would be the only ones upset? No; every patriot in every state will rise up in anger. Do you suppose the halls of Congress will remain silent? And can you imagine for one moment that under these circumstances, Barack Obama would remain in office one second longer than Richard Nixon, just because he could?
There are a million ways to resolve this problem of an unvetted man reaching office. And I think I came up with a way that is least disruptive to our Constitutional republic. ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. Although this is a case of first impression, I believe if BO chooses not to resign from office, he can only be peacefully removed through Impeachment, per the Constitution. Because while it is true, I believe he is ineligible to hold the office, the process that got him there was carried out according to the law. That is, the EC voted for him; and Congress endorsed their vote. ADMINISTRATOR
jbjd, This is way too good! Stan and his points are strong as well as the strength of your passionate and analytic thoughts !!!
” least disruptive to our Constitutional republic [Republic], I agree!
Thanks, you guys! Inspiration prevails!
I am not done with the ‘ever changing’ footnotes on FTS, in that who is responsible for the information now, and as the footnote originally published said, “Paid for by Barack Obama”, and then, “Organizing for America” and now the “DNC”, as a Project of the DNC. So are they [DNC] now protecting the candidate and the candidate’s committee (so that is it to say, is the DNC now claiming or adopting that the information on this web site is correct and/or is the DNC, in essence standing by the FTS web site) ?.
( P.S., just a note, as I have thought about the FTS footnote incident on a trip to Colorado, I don’t believe any more that I fast fingered the refresh button, thought I did, but the footnote “Paid for by Barack Obama” automatically refreshed itself to reflect a new footnote “Organizing for America”. WeiRd, as I have said!)
I am now reviewing and analyzing the term and phases of “citizenship” and “natural-born citizen” in the various articles at APFC. More to come……..
Privity is one thing, and I agree, but did APFC enable this under reported “not well reported” constitutional crisis to happen as these journalists applied the ‘tenets of formal logic to mass-media rhetoric’? Members of APFC are not constitutional lawyers or even claim to be experts in constitutional law.
FACT: NANCY PELOSI, CHAIR AND MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, IN THE CAPACITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, AS INDIVIDUALS, HAS APPROVED AND ADOPTED IN JULY-AUGUST, 2009, THE EXACT INFORMATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE’S ORIGINAL CAMPAIGN WEB SITE, ‘FIGHT THE SMEARS.COM’, WHICH CLEARLY STATES A CLAIM OF THE CANDIDATE BEING A NATIVE BORN CITIZEN AND AS REPORTED BY ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER-FACTCHECK AND ENDORSED BY THE CANDIDATE, A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH, EVEN THOUGH AND WITH THE STATEMENT ‘THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE”.
Question: Is NP still the chair of the DNC at this time?
Interesting…………….
More to come……………….
azgo: “Interesting…” I know; once you realize the actual fraud, it’s hard to get your mind around the scope of this, isn’t it. These people who installed BO into the WH knew so much more than we did about the system and, consequently, how to rig it to suit their purposes. You and I only ‘stumbled’ onto these myriad footers, evidencing a tangled web of PAC’s and corporations, concealing culpability. But, distilled, all of the information you are investigating goes to the ‘evidence’ aspect of the fraud. That is, citizens will report to their A’sG that NP and the DNC committed elections fraud by Certifying BO was Constitutionally eligible for the job to get state elections officials to print his name on the ballot, before obtaining proof he is a NBC; and they will back up their charges with such things as BO’s admission to the federal court in Hollister ; and APFC’s admissions on their web page; and NP’s signature in HI, etc.
For now, I am concentrating my posts on educating people as to the actual fraud, that is, the election fraud. Shortly, I will expand upon these ‘proofs.’ (MissTickly is doing extensive work on the impossibility of obtaining BO’s records from the HI DoH, too. Again, this begs the question, if individuals cannot obtain such records, on what basis did NP determine BO is a NBC?)
azgo, I am so glad you are on this. Hopefully, you are referring people you know to this site, and asking them to spread the word, too. I have tried posting on several blogs, who get a scent that I am a ‘birther’ and refuse to post, obviously assuming, nothing I have to say is worthy of hearing. But I am absolutely right on this one.
NP was never head of the DNC but only Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention. Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia, is head of the DNC. ADMINISTRATOR
Good morning jbjd, I was looking at a list of items, not disclosed, by Obama. The list was long, and ranged, from the birth certificate, to his days at Harvard. The list, contained only two items, that had been, “disclosed by independent sources”. The two items were, divorce decrees for, Obama (1964), and the Soetoro divorce, everything else remained hidden.
The author, of the article, at “The Obama File” said the “divorce papers are some of the only evidence in existence”, pertaining to Obama.
That, got me to thinking. Everything else about Obama is fake, photoshopped birth certificate, photoshopped highschool year book photos, photoshopped family photos, and newspaper birth announcements, everything is fake.
The divorce decrees, are, part of the proof, that Obama, is, who he says he is. My gut feeling, tells me, the divorce decrees, may also be photoshopped. Fakes, just like the birth announcements, forged, to expand the belief, that Obama is, who he says he is.
Do you know if anyone has examined the decrees, for evidence of photoshopping?
Everything, about this usurper, needs to be regarded, as fraudulent, and any evidence, can not be taken at face value. Let’s take a closer look, at those decrees, before regarding them as, factual. Thank you, bob.
bob strauss: Your conclusion about the inconclusivity of the ‘documents’ related to BO, which are posted on the internet, points to the reason that I have not engaged in hours of examination as to their authenticity. But I do know he made the statements in court documents submitted in the Hollister case, which I attribute to him. And those statements indicate he could not have produced documentation any more credible to NP, to verify he is a NBC. I can only assume this explains why she refuses to respond to the numerous requests asking her to identify those verifying documents. ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. We also know that school registration from Indonesia was real.
Thanks for your thoughts, jbjd and azgo.
Anent this matter of NP having been Chair of the DNC Convention: Anybody remember a curious thing at the convention, when NP and HC basically declared ‘by acclamation’ BHO to be the convention’s candidate – but didn’t actually put it up for legal affirmation, as they did not allow a negative vote to be voiced?
(snip)
Stan: You are welcome. (I took out the remainder of your comments because they focused on issues outside of the scope of this post.) ADMINISTRATOR
Pledged delegates for HRC who were coerced to switch to BO should file suit as plaintiffs against
non-NBC obama—-
to your knowledge, jbjd, have any of these delegates pursued this avenue? I remember only
too well that many delegates did NOT follow
the support to the floor.
It was a disaster.
maddie: Interesting you should ask. I can neither confirm nor deny that any pledged delegates are initiating any actions the basis of which is coercion from either BO or others in the DNC to switch their votes from HRC to him. However, if anyone would command the court’s attention as to the farce that was the DNC Convention nomination, these pledged delegates would. Keep in mind, you don’t have to be a pledged delegate to complain to your AG that the DNC committed election fraud.
As to events on the floor of the convention… Several citizen activists just like me, were scurrying around trying to ensure a floor vote. (I was not in Denver but was on the telephone to other anonymous helpers.) I kept ‘screaming,’ ‘Get to the delegates in the vote binding states!’ (I put up a post some time back about my discovery that several states enacted laws that bind pledged delegates to vote for the candidate citizens elected them to represent, onto the floor of the Convention.) Could be that, after the election, some of these delegates learned no one vetted the candidate they were coerced into supporting. They might now feel a fiduciary obligation to the voters, to get to the bottom of this.
But remember, BO pledged delegates also have a fiduciary obligation to the voters to ensure their nominee is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Surely, HRC dedegates have no monopoly on patriotism. Knowing what we know now about NP’s failure to vet, surely these BO pledged delegates would be as eager to rectify this fraud as anyone else.
ADMINISTRATOR
If the forged COLB is Obama’s best evidence, why not, hammer it home, that the document, is fraudulent? Bring Dr. Polarik out into the mainstream. Show, and tell, the American people the truth, about how they were lied to. Let factcheck defend their analysis, about how the forgery is the “real document”, and Nancy Pelosi can argue she was fooled just like all 300,000,000 Americans, into believing, Obama’s posted birth certificate is a real document.
This fraud, has gone on way to long, law enforcement was warned, and advised, about what is going on, the fraudulent documents, the birth certificate, and maybe, more importantly, the forged selective service registration.
If the forged COLB is all he has, concentrate,on the forged document. Figure out a way to force Obama to show his cards in a suit against Pelosi, as you say. If Pelosi needed the “COLB” to prove Obama eligible, the document would have to be authenticated, then we have BINGO!
bob strauss: I am so glad you raised these particular issues; let me see if I can provide an answer that makes sense to you (and, the other readers of this blog who, I am certain, feel the same way you do).
I seem to always be going back to pointing out for my readers, the frivolity of trying to authenticate documents on the internet. Even in dispelling the phantom image of that ‘newspaper birth announcement’ posted on APFC; I still did not say definitively that, the anonymous blogger – the name used was “Lori” – who first posted this image on td, did not actually obtain this from a bona fide source, who authenticated this was a contemporaneous birth announcement. What I proved is this: APFC did not authenticate this image, which they usurped from td’s web site, before announcing on their web site, this constituted “clear evidence” BO was born in the USA. In other words, I did not analyze the physical properties of that ad to discredit it, for example, pointing out from a typographical perspective, the fonts are inconsistent and the spacing varies. For most readers, my explanation as to how APFC confiscated this phantom image and insisted it was real, served to discredit that organization. (Further, showing them that BO tried to bamboozle the federal court judge into ‘noticing’ he was real, by relying on APFC’s use of that phantom image, sealed their belief BO is as bogus as APFC. And all this was accomplished without actually examining the phantom image.)
Assume the COLB is a certified copy of an actual document on file with the HI DoH. Then, why did BO ask the federal judge to take judicial notice APFC said the document is real but not submit the actual document into evidence? No; by so doing, he calls into question its authenticity.
But the primary reason I refuse to be dragged into an effort to compel a production of documents proving BO is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS is this. I elected an AG to do this job. Think of it this way: states allow the major political parties, which are little more than private clubs, to use state resources to select the names of party members whose names will appear on state ballots. In exchange for this, at a minimum, these parties should play by our rules. And if they don’t, our job is not to become individual enforcers of the law. No; that job belongs to the state AG who, unlike us individuals, has the money and the subpoena power of the state to carry out the job, too.
I believe the DNC has acted like a criminal enterprise, especially in their harassment of delegates pledged to vote for HRC, in vote binding states. And they are getting away with this because so many people who want BO exposed only want to do so, according to ‘this’ or ‘that’ particular mechanism. Of course, if you wish to pursue the avenues you propose, you will. But given the facts and circumstances of this situation, I believe I have figured out the simplest and most way of exposing, the emperor has no clothes. ADMINISTRATOR
jbjd, Thanks, for your input, my frustration is showing,mostly because, we are not being protected by our court system. The instant there was any question, regarding his qualifications, to hold office, there should have been an investigation, and quo warranto.
The AGs are doing nothing, to protect, the voters,or the process, in this case. Even, after having received, many letters, from concerned citizens,I see no investigation. Why? are they all afraid of being called racists, this has nothing to do with race, it is a legal question,and it appears, the law has no been followed. Campaign finance laws broken, forged documents, acorn voter fraud, and the list goes on.
Thanks for listening, bob
bob strauss: I know how frustrating this is. I never imagined people would vote for this man who refused to tell us who he was. (I investigated him beforehand and knew enough about who he was not to vote for him, even without knowing whether he was a NBC.) And now that I have figured out how to get him out of office, very few people are listening, even those who say they want him out! (Share this blog!) A couple of the more popular ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ blogs won’t even post my comments anymore. (Generally, ‘conservative’ blogs only blocked my work when it de-bunked legal cases brought by people popular on those blogs.) As for the courts, well, as far as I can tell, they have not yet received a case that 1) should be there; and 2) would reach the question of BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, anyway. ADMINISTRATOR
jbjd – On Aug. 14, I added an addendum via certified mail to my election fraud complaint and request for investigation received by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum back on July 30 and sending this addendum to you via email. If you think it is worthy of being added as a comment to this post, please do so.
I am aware a juris doctor would not prepare this addendum as I have but keep in mind 2010 is an election year and our current AG will be running for governor and our current governor, Governor Crist, is running for US Senate. My goal is to encourage one of these guys to promulgate that presidential preference primary rule I recommended in my original complaint whereby the major political parties must submit their candidates certifying documents before their names are printed upon the primary ballot. Most voters will agree this should be done and our governor already has the authority to do this now.
Since we taxpayers paid for a big piece of the DNC nominating convention, we own and therefore entitled to examine the documents which they assembled complying with their constitutional vetting responsibility. Makes sense to me, and I think most other Florida voters will agree.
On the other hand, as you have pointed out, if the DNC did not constitutionally vet Obama, as required by DNC rules, Nancy Pelosi has perpetrated an election fraud upon the voters of this country. If this is the case, when proper legal action is brought against Pelosi, perhaps Pelosi will chose to join us and demand Obama release his authentic birth records to redeem herself for her collusive stupidity. She should certainly have standing. The publicity alone would be fabulous and I whole heartedly agree with you that this is the AG’s responsibility, not mine.
Thanks again for your determined leadership.
rlqretired: I am so proud of you for channelling your frustration into political action. As for NP, well, the sitting Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was not chosen as the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention for nothing. She provided the imprimatur of her office on the legitimacy of the DNC’s conduct. ADMINISTRATOR
“If this is the case, when proper legal action is brought against Pelosi, perhaps Pelosi will chose to join us and demand Obama release his authentic birth records to redeem herself for her collusive stupidity. She should certainly have standing. The publicity alone would be fabulous”
Please make this happen.=O)
MissTickly: There is a reason the DNC made the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives the Chair of its 2008 Convention. Who would doubt the authenticity of her signed Official Certification of Nomination? This makes all the more suspect the fact that, BO offered up as evidence to the federal court he was a NBC; the ‘word’ of an organization that posted its opinion on the internet, rather than the actual Certification of Nomination signed by NP, saying he met all Constitutional qualification, or, if not an actual Certification, even a reference to her opinion. ADMINISTRATOR
[…] But Mr. Press got that wrong, too. In fact, Mr. Dobbs had clarified on several occasions, on the air, he believes Mr. Obama is a “native citizen”; he and the hundreds of thousands of citizens who have contacted him, just want to see the man’s actual birth certificate! (Note: In this video, Lou Dobbs conflates “native” born with the requirement in Article II, section 1 of “natural born.” His confusion is perhaps understandable, given Mr. Gibbs’ brilliant misdirection. That is, copy included in the on-line advertising campaign “Fight the Smears” clearly states, the image of the COLB proves Mr. Obama is a “native” of HI. And Mr. Gibbs included in the ad the text of the 14th Amendment which only applies to citizens who are not natural born. IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN IGNORING un-PLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, T…) […]
[…] to EARN his P…Aqeel on jbjd’s CIVICS for CIVILI…PRESS BILL PRESS to … on IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS…PRESS BILL PRESS to … on JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP […]
[…] 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-AME…) […]
[…] August 13, 2009 I posted IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERIC… on my blog, “jbjd.” This article was inspired by comments from the Honorable Nancy […]
[…] ‘FACTS’ in which I established that Annenberg Political FactCheck (“APFC”), the source often cited by members of Congress to their constituents whose work they wrongly assert h…, does not actually check facts. For example, I showed the image of a ‘newspaper birth […]
[…] (View a screen capture of the 14th Amendment on FTS at IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERIC…) […]
[…] to see the evidence that supports my hypothesis, Ms. Goldberg? IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERIC…; or TOO IGNORANT TO LEAD Of course, I am only a blogger. (Then again, so was Dan Pfeiffer, in […]
[…] job of President. (See on this blog, RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’; and IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TO….) Indeed, as I explained in my posts, that photocopy of the COLB BO put on his FTS web site in […]