Committee Hearing for Nebraska LB 654

Update: I contacted my senator to ask if the bill had been voted on. He said they would probably vote on it next Wednesday (March 16). There is still time to contact these senators and urge them to pass this sensible bill which would ensure that Nebraska voters are no longer told “It’s none of your business whether the Constitution and laws are obeyed.” Nebraska residents, please kindly ask them to vote for LB654, keeping in mind that the media has conditioned most people to think this issue is crazy:

Avery (C)
Price (VC


Committee Hearing for LB 654

This is the written testimony that I read (with a few modifications because info had already been given by previous comments), followed by the gist of the Q&A I received afterwards, as best I remember it, and last of all a report on the outcome of the hearing.

The senators were each given a copy of my written testimony and a printed version of the booklet that is at . Here’s the PDF format for what I read: Hearing Testimony Doc
Here’s the PDF format for what I read and the Question/Answer summary: Hearing Testimony and Questions and Answers  As with any of my material, you are free to copy and distribute as long as you keep the content accurate.

I’m Nellie (redacted) and I’m representing myself.


NJ law requires their SOS to verify Constitutional eligibility of Presidential candidates before placing them on the ballot. The Constitution says that only natural born citizens who are at least 35 years old and have resided in the US for 14 years are eligible. In 2008 their SOS placed these 3 candidates on the ballot:

  1. John McCain, a white republican who was not born in the United States.
  2. Barack Obama, a black democrat whose father was not a US citizen.
  3. Roger Calero, a Hispanic communist who was not born in the US, whose parents were both non-citizens, and who is not a US citizen himself.


A concerned citizen, Leo Donofrio, sued to have NJ law upheld, saying that the Constitutional eligibility of all 3 candidates was legally uncertain. The courts ruled that he had no legal standing – that it was “not his business” whether or not either NJ law or the US Constitution had been violated. The Supreme Court can take up a case regardless of standing but declined to hear that case or any of the 50+ cases regarding eligibility.


This case tells us a few things. First, it tells us that this is not about political party, since the candidates for 3 parties were challenged. Nor is it about race, since those 3 candidates were of 3 different ethnicities. The issue is the rule of law at both state and federal levels, involving state statute and the US Constitution.


Second, it tells us what doesn’t work. Only statutes that require specific documentation and what it needs to document mean anything, and only statutes which give citizens standing to sue will ever actually be enforced.


The reason LB 654 is necessary is because of the confusion over whose “business” Presidential eligibility is. For brevity I’ve written up a series of “headlines” to concisely show the current situation:

US Constitution: “President Must be Natural Born Citizen”

Congressional Research Service: “Eligibility Is States’, Congress, and Courts’ Business”

Congress: “It’s State and Court Business”

States: “It’s Congress and Court Business”

Lower Courts: “It’s Nobody’s Business”

Judge Robertson: “It’s Twitter’s Business”

Supreme Court: No Comment

Secretaries of State: “Everybody is eligible”

Media: “If We Don’t Report it You’re Crazy to Care About It”

Current NE Statute: “Trust Politicians and Media”


Sounds just like my kids when it’s time to sort the laundry. Always somebody else’s business so nobody gets it done. Except in this case, the only people who CAN interpret the Constitution are the courts (and they refuse) and the only people who WANT to enforce the Constitution are the people (and the courts won’t even let them raise the issue, saying they lack standing).

LB 654 would create a case with “standing”, so the courts can rule on the definition of “natural born citizen”. Any arguments saying that LB 654 is unconstitutional miss the key point: the only way we will get a definition for NBC is if there IS a law or candidate that is challenged in the courts.

There is every reason in the world to believe that LB 654 IS Constitutional, though, because the legal source which defined “natural born citizen” when the Constitution was ratified (de Vattel) said a “natural born citizen” is someone born on the country’s soil to citizen parents. Even 7 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court said that any other definition would be questionable because it is not known whether children born to non-citizens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US (as required by the 14th Amendment) or to the country of their parents’ citizenship.

And indeed, when the US Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution declaring John McCain a “natural born citizen” even though born in Panama, they based that on him having 2 citizen parents. So those who say that parents’ citizenship is only an issue for the “fringe of the fringe” will be happy to know that the “fringe of the fringe” includes all 100 US Senators in 2008 – including Barack Obama, his current VP Joe Biden, and his current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I’ve written up a booklet which gives details. I sent this booklet out to each of the committee members ahead-of-time because it has a lot of important information. It addresses the Constitutional issues that have been raised, and why I believe LB 654 is Constitutional in every way. And I will happily entertain any questions on those issues at the close of my testimony. But ultimately, the only parts of LB 654 that will survive are those which pass Constitutional muster, which will leave us with a definition of “natural born citizen” and the means to implement that definition in the State of Nebraska – which is exactly what we need if we are serious about defending the United States Constitution.

One state to our south, a decorated Iraq war vet sits in jail because his officer’s oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution would not allow him in good conscience to say, “It’s somebody else’s business.” His oath meant something to him. Regardless of what anybody thinks of how Lt Col Terry Lakin chose to protect the US Constitution, nobody should question how much his oath meant to him. He gave up $800,000 of his personal savings, the rest of his career as a military surgeon including benefits, and a comfortable military retirement – easily adding up to 3 million dollars. Trying to uphold his oath also cost him his reputation and 6 months in prison. Defending the US Constitution was worth that much to him.

His Commander in Chief could have spent 2 minutes authorizing the release of records he claimed to already have disclosed, and put Lakin’s conscience at ease. Apparently it wasn’t worth 2 minutes of the Commander in Chief’s time.

And now the question that I place before this committee is this: How much is your word worth? When you made the oath to support the US Constitution, did you mean it, or are you expecting somebody else to do it for you? The way you vote today will answer that question.

Question and Answer Session:

Q: How can a state legislature be able to say who has standing for a federal court case?

A: Just like the committee had to figure out (in the previous hearing) who has standing to access accident records, the legislature has the right to grant standing to sue. And this suit would be in the state court. The Constitution gives the federal judiciary jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where a state is a party in the suit. If somebody sued the Nebraska Secretary of State over placement on the ballot, Nebraska would be a party in the suit which would give the federal courts jurisdiction.

Q: What if the Supreme Court refused to take the case?

A: If the Supreme Court refuses to take a case they are allowing the ruling of the lower court to stand, in which case we still have a decision on the meaning of “natural born citizen”, which is what we need before any of the state Secretaries of State can actually know who should be placed on their ballots. The media has falsely reported that the Supreme Court has upheld lower courts’ rulings that Obama is Constitutionally eligible. The only rulings that lower courts have made is that it is nobody’s business. They have never heard the cases on the merits, never ruled on the eligibility of either Obama or McCain or on the meaning of “natural born citizen”.

Q: As a student of history, do you realize that certain people who served (can’t remember the name he gave) would not be eligible under this bill?

A: I’m not really concerned about where the chips fall for any particular person. We have a Constitution and it needs to be followed. What happens with any particular candidate doesn’t matter to me – Obama, McCain, Jindal, Rubio…. It doesn’t matter if I like this or that person, only If they’re eligible according to the Constitution. This issue is not going away because we’ve got leaders coming up whose natural born citizenship will be in question. We need a process that obeys the Constitution. In 2008 I was given a ballot that didn’t have any candidate that I could know for sure was eligible for the job. And we never CAN know those candidates’ eligibility until we know the definition of “natural born citizen”.

Q: What are you wanting to get out of this bill?

A: I want a process that makes sure that the requirements of the US Constitution are obeyed.

Q: You say you are representing yourself. Are you a member of any group or have any affiliations that you represent?

A: No, I don’t belong to any groups. I’m a housewife. I actually got started on this issue because I had questions in my own mind. The officials had made statements and I thought it would be pretty easy just to make sure they meant what it seemed like they meant. It was when I started communicating with the government officials that I realized how much lawlessness is going on in government on this issue. There are so many laws being broken on this issue, by government bureaucrats. You’ve got the booklet that I printed up and I hope everybody reads that because it details some of that, and I’ve documented a lot of the law-breaking on my blog as well. To me this is an issue of the rule of law. Laws and rules are being broken.

Q: So you are basically asking the Nebraska legislature to pass a law that invites a lawsuit we will have to pay to defend, so that “natural born citizen” will be defined?

A: Yes, that’s basically what needs to happen. It’s the only way the issue can be resolved. But Nebraska has an attorney general whose job is to deal with Constitutional issues. Right now he’s challenging the Constitutionality of the healthcare reform. That’s his job, to deal with important Constitutional issues. As it is, Nebraska taxpayers are having their federal tax dollars spent to argue these eligibility cases anyway, in defense of Obama. If we had one decision on “natural born citizen” it could prevent all these other lawsuits from having to happen and would save everybody money in the long run. Our military vets should not be spending 3 million of their own personal money just to find out eligibility, when it is really the state’s responsibility to have a process where that is ensured. And whatever cost the state would incur would well be worth it, because then normal people could know that the process could be trusted, and that they have a way to hold the government accountable to the rule of law.

Q: So this really becomes an issue of government transparency?

A: Absolutely. This is absolutely about having a process where we know that the rule of law is being upheld and where normal people can hold government accountable. This really is the business of normal people, and if we know that we have a way to hold government accountable, it will increase the government’s credibility and the people’s trust, which is an important thing.


An article at–Birth-Certificate/ says:

State Sen. Bill Avery, who chairs the committee, said the Nebraska bill, LB654, would die there.”

I don’t have any records yet regarding how each committee member voted, or the records of their deliberations among themselves. If/when I get that information I will post it here.

So there you have it. The committee apparently answered MY one question by saying no, they didn’t mean it when they swore to support the US Constitution, but are expecting somebody else to do it for them.

The next step in this process is to do their sworn job of supporting the US Constitution for them, since that seems to be their demand. I need to find out what help I can get to get signatures for a ballot initiative that would go something like this:

Any registered Nebraska voter shall have legal standing to challenge in court the legal eligibility of any candidate on the ballot, provided that the legal challenge is filed in state court before the term of office at stake in that election begins.


If you or somebody you know would be willing to help in that effort, please contact me. The US Constitution and the rule of law IS our business. That’s what America is all about. Our elected officials aren’t hearing what we’re saying to them. It’s time for we the people to step up and reaffirm the basic, foundational principles of our Constitution: the rule of law and government that belongs to the people.


  1. HistorianDude
    Posted March 11, 2011 at 8:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Congratulations on your performance in front of the Committee. Reviews, even among Obots, is that you did a credible job advancing your position. One Obot reviewer who actually observed the proceedings wrote on The Fogbow that:

    “BDZ actually handled it well, we know what she was saying is crap, some of it we would recognize as willful lies but she was restrained eloquent and unflustered.It was the best performance (by a Birther)I’ve seen so far including from bill sponsors.”

    Kudos to you.

    • Posted March 11, 2011 at 9:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you.

      What I said is pretty much reported here. What, in particular, is “willful lies”?

      The way I present myself means nothing if I’m wilfully lying. In my world being able to wilfully lie with skill is a moral offense.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted March 11, 2011 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

        Oh… perhaps the biggest one would be that this was “not about Obama,” but about process.

        But others I would include are that McCain released his birth certificate (He did not; The plaintiff in a court case against him released a forged BC, and that is the one found on-line), the assertion that Pelosi has never seen any documentation (something you cannot possibly actually know to be true), that Hawaii has twice confirmed the FactCheck COLB to be a forgery or that it is amended, or that Governor Abercrombie ever said to anybody that he couldn’t find a birth certificate (even Mike Evans has publicly retracted his claims on that issue).

        Those would be just a few examples.

      • Posted March 11, 2011 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

        First off, those things were in the booklet, not the oral testimony.

        I said McCain released an online image just like Obama did, and that we can’t know if online images are genuine because they can be easily manipulated.

        I said that the HDOH had confirmed that Pelosi had not even requested a letter of verification or to see the genuine birth records from the HDOH. That is true. I suggested that she could have been relying on the online COLB and that if she had been duped by what the HDOH has confirmed as a forgery, then Nebraska is the real loser because we gave her a signed blank check to trust whatever she darn well pleased.

        The HDOH HAS indirectly confirmed in 2 different ways that the Factcheck COLB could not be from their office because the COLB printed on June 6, 2007 did not note the 2006 amendment as required and because the “date filed” and certificate number are incompatible. I’ve documented that.

        A Star Advertiser columnist published a report (that’s never been corrected by Abercrombie or the columnist) that Neil Abercrombie had told him there was something “actually written down” in the State Archive. The State Archive website says they don’t keep records newer than 75 years old. And Mike Evans retracted the claim that he had ever SAID he talked to Abercrombie. But we’ve got multiple audio recordings of him saying exactly that.

        Who ya gonna trust, the denials or your lyin’ ears?

        You can deny what has been found all you want. There are people who still deny that the Holocaust happened, and nothing will ever convince them otherwise. But we’ve got the news article where Abercrombie made the claim. We’ve got what the State Archives says on its own website. We’ve got the audio of Evans. We’ve got the e-mails from the HDOH. We’ve got the OIP Opinion Letters, OIP Booklet, and the rulings. This stuff is all physical evidence that requires explanation. If you want to believe that all this is just bureaucratic bumbling, that’s your prerogative, but that doesn’t mean that I’m “wilfully lying” if I describe and explain the evidence we have.

        As to whether this is about the rule of law, there is no question but that this is about the rule of law. The rule of law needs to apply to EVERYBODY – and in my testimony I said that I didn’t care what happens to particular people. If Obama is eligible he’s eligible. Period. Doesn’t mean I like him, but I didn’t like Clinton either and only wanted him held to the rule of law as well. If McCain is eligible he’s eligible. If Rubio is eligible…. If Schwarzenegger is eligible…. It goes on and on. All I care about is that our government stops lying to us and telling us that it’s none of our business if laws and the Constitution are broken.

        I do want Obama out of office. Because I really believe he is not eligible. If you believed him to not be eligible would you want him to stay in office? Only if you despised the rule of law. I don’t despise the rule of law. I want the rule of law upheld.

        When people were telling me to be quiet about Obama’s eligibility situation until after the republicans had control of the house and a republican would become POTUS if Obama and Biden were disqualified, the politically smart thing to do would have been just that. But I didn’t do that, because this isn’t about politics. When I suggested my own version of a state eligibility bill I wanted the documentation to be done before the primary so that the parties would each still be able to have a candidate on the ballot, rather than to be full outta luck if they were suckered by an ineligible candidate. I wanted this bill to be passed in time to get a ruling from SCOTUS so the dems would know whether Obama was or wasn’t eligible so they could nominate somebody else if dual citizenship would disqualify him.

        The stuff I’ve done makes no sense if I was out for sheer political gain. It DOES make sense if my concern is the rule of law. From the very beginning of this blog, my emphasis has always been on the rule of law. I’ve been consistent, so I don’t know what your basis would be for ascribing other motives to me.

      • Mike
        Posted March 15, 2011 at 1:38 am | Permalink

        Professional debunker…

    • Jayhg
      Posted March 24, 2011 at 11:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Performance is right…….she’s a nut!

  2. Carol Fryer
    Posted March 11, 2011 at 9:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I dont have time to read the whole thing right now but this shows us these corrupt men running our system have so got to go. Not our business? Not standing? As though it doesnt affect citizens. How outragious !!!!!

    • Posted March 11, 2011 at 9:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Exactly. Seems to me that’s exactly what George III told the colonists.

      The idea that the rule of law is none of our business is an assault on everything this country is about.

  3. neconservative
    Posted March 11, 2011 at 10:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

  4. Bill Keller
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 1:04 am | Permalink | Reply

    Would you please seek some medical help? Please.

  5. Bill Keller
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 1:24 am | Permalink | Reply

    From Free Republic: “Of course, that could be because my e-mails are being sorted through and some of them snatched away before my very eyes…”

    Nellie, seriously, it is time to see a shrink.

    • Posted March 12, 2011 at 1:33 am | Permalink | Reply

      lol. Because only somebody crazy would imagine something like an internet kill switch or political hackers. lol

      • Bill Keller
        Posted March 12, 2011 at 2:15 am | Permalink


  6. CommonCause
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 3:17 am | Permalink | Reply

    Perhaps you should read the opinion of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny v Indiana Governor, page 17 the last paragraph:

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

    Click to access 11120903.ebb.pdf

    To say that no court has addressed this issue you have other birthers have with President Obama is being intellectually dishonest.

    I had sincerely hoped that one of these bills would pass just so birthers would finally have their answer that they have been wrong all of this time.

    • Posted March 12, 2011 at 3:32 am | Permalink | Reply

      On what date did that court hear the case on its merits, that they could make a ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen”? When were the arguments held? What discovery was allowed?

      Tell me about that case, please.

      • CommonCause
        Posted March 12, 2011 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

        The case was filed November 12, 2009. The link was provided so you could read it.

        The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION” against the Governor3 to prevent the Governor “from issuing a „Certificate of Ascertainment,‟ or any other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors . . . [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors.”

        You are capable of reading the case at the link. This case could have made it to the Supreme Court but was never appealed. Perhaps it is because they knew that SCOTUS would come up with the same definition of Natural Born Citizen as they have in prior cases like Wong Kim Ark.

      • CommonCause
        Posted March 12, 2011 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

        Just a few more relevant lines from the decision in case you don’t read it:

        The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint.
        Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v.Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
        The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
        Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

        Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States…

        More at the link:

        Click to access 11120903.ebb.pdf

      • Posted March 13, 2011 at 2:27 am | Permalink

        Read the first page. This is an opinion, not a ruling. The opinion given is that the lower judge was right to dismiss the case for lack of standing.

      • ksdb
        Posted March 14, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

        @ common cause: The Ankeny appeals decision contradicted itself in a couple of places. First it says the plaintiffs challenged Obama’s place of birth and in the second half of the decision, it says they didn’t. It claims guidance from the Wong Kim Ark decision on natural born citizen, but then admits via footnote that this decision did NOT declare Ark to be a natural born citizen. It also overlooked that the Ark decision quoted and AFFIRMED the Minor v Happersett definition of natural born citizen which says “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” Plus, this decision NEVER declared Obama to be a natural born citizen, never declared him to have been born in the United States, nor did it declare that Obama’s jpg represents a genuine and legal birth certificate. All it did was uphold the lower court’s dismissal based on the idea that the governor of Indiana could not be expected to verify the eligibility of presidential candidates on the state’s ballots.

    • Posted March 13, 2011 at 2:25 am | Permalink | Reply

      Do you know the difference between an “Opinion” and a ruling? This document clearly says on the front page “Opinion”.

      It addresses whether the lower court had made a mistake in granting a motion to dismiss. The lower court had said it was nobody’s business and this document is an opinion saying the lower court was justified in that ruling.

      There was no hearing on the merits, there was no ruling on any of the issues raised. It was not appealed to the Supreme Court because the only legal issue ever addressed in the case was whether the plaintiff had standing, or whether the case could be dismissed as it was.

      If you say this is not the case, then please show me the docket information on when the testimony was submitted, what discovery was granted, and when the cross-examination occurred. I had asked you for that before and you didn’t respond with that information.

      • CommonCause
        Posted March 13, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

        What do you think that SCOTUS would provide. The courts provide opinions. The ruling in the first case was to dismiss it. This opinion went further in their analysis of the case by pointing out the arguments of the plaintiff and they found those arguments to be wrong based on prior case law.

        You can continue to believe what you want to believe and I had REALLY hoped that this Nebraska bill out of all of the birther bills had been passed and they had done what you wanted them to do. In the end, you would have found out that Obama is NBC.

        And as Bill Keller has so eloquently stated, you choose to believe ‘evidence’ that is not really evidence. To list Tim Adams as a credible source is simply ludicrous since he was a part-time worker in a department that wouldn’t know the information he claimed to say they knew about President Obama.

        So, continue with your delusions. Something tells me that the divide there now is in the Republican Party is going to give Obama another 4 years and, part of this is going to be due to all of your ‘hard work’. You and every other birther has made the GOP look like a bunch of fools.

      • Posted March 13, 2011 at 3:02 am | Permalink

        I am asking the Supreme Court to rule that I’m wrong. I’m BEGGING them to rule that I’m wrong.

        They won’t. They won’t RULE on any of this at all, just like neither the lower court nor the appeals court would RULE on anything in Ankeny except that it was nobody’s business (granting the motion to dismiss on grounds of standing).

        And that should bother a lot of people like yourself, just as much as it bugs me. That is entirely the point I am making. If I’m wrong, fine. Have a court hear a case on its merits and rule that I’m wrong. I would be the loudest person cheering in the room, because FINALLY I would have the only thing I wanted from the courts: a ruling. Due process. Equal protection. The rule of law.

        All that stuff that has always distinguished us from your average run-of-the-mill third-world dictatorship, ya know?

    • Mike
      Posted March 15, 2011 at 1:52 am | Permalink | Reply

      Here was the actual ruling:

      ‘Affirmed’. Period. There was a lot of Obot fodder provided in the preceding statement from this judge. I am sure it is in part your standard notes.

      Nothing else was ‘ruled’ on, especially the definition of the phrase “natural born Citizen”. It is a phrase and not a term. And it meaning was clear – a natural Citizen (one whose father was a Citizen) who had that status since birth. i.e. they had always and only been a natural Citizen. Had it been a defined term it would have been “Natural Born Citizen” – in all caps and as often, all too often mis-quoted and mis-stated. Our founding father did not screw this up.

  7. Bill Keller
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 3:35 am | Permalink | Reply

    “I do want Obama out of office. Because I really believe he is not eligible.”

    The President’s name is in Hawaii’s index data, Nellie. You’re going to explain that away, too?

    You dismiss the index data, you dismiss former Governor Linda Leagle, you dismiss the current Governor, Abercrombie, who maintains the state has a written record of the President’s birth, you dismiss Dr. Chiyome Fukino, you dismiss Janice Okubo, you dismiss the Star Advertiser, you dismiss the birth announcements, you dismiss the COLB, (the official birth certificate of Hawaii), you dismiss Kapio’lani Hospital’s acknowledgement of the President’s birth on their website, you dismiss that both the Clinton and McCain campaign teams, with all their money and power, couldn’t find one iota of evidence that the President wasn’t eligible, you dismiss John Boehner, you dismiss Eric Cantor, you dismiss even Fox News, who make it their business to trash the President on a daily basis.

    You dismiss all that? Correct? If you do, ma’am, yes, you are truly out of your mind.

    • Posted March 12, 2011 at 4:23 am | Permalink | Reply

      Bill, I think you need to do some more reading on this blog. The reason I doubt Obama’s birth place is because I have LISTENED to those people and really LOOKED at those things.

      The index data. In March of 2010 Obama’s name was not in the 1960-64 birth index. Now the name is in an index book, but the page headers in that book don’t say what years it covers, and the HDOH has told me that they cannot reveal WHICH index the names come from – they have an index for “pending” BC’s, and they can’t distinguish between BC’s in the “pending” index and those in the standard index. They claim they don’t have an index of foreign births – which, if true, means that they cannot sort out which births in their index books were in Hawaii and which were in a foreign country.

      In addition, Obama’s name is right where the name for Mae Obado should be, since the name above it says it is a DUPLICATE record for Mae Obado but in the place where the original Mae Obado record should be….. is Obama.

      So the reason I question the index data is because everything about it is questionable. I have researched and paid attention to the facts that I found.

      Former Governor Lingle said they had not treated Obama’s records differently, but then later said she told HDOH Director Fukino to go look for his birth certificate. And Lingle said that Fukino had announced that Obama was born at Kapiolani – a documentably false statement. Tim Adams signed an affidavit saying that his Honolulu Elections Office supervisors had repeatedly said there was no long-form BC for Obama, that government agencies had searched the hospitals and couldn’t find anything, and that it was apparent to everyone that both Fukino and Lingle were engaging in a disinformation campaign for political reasons. Given the discrepancies in the stories, his claims seem very credible. And Lingle is the person who signed into law a “Vexatious Requestor Bill” originally intended to undo Hawaii’s UIPA (Open Records) Law, so that government would not even have to PRETEND to answer to the people. So yes, I do discount Gov Lingle, who never claimed to have seen anything herself but did make contradictory and outright false statements on issues where the evidence is there for all to see.

      Gov Abercrombie has said they have something “actually written down” in the State Archives – where records 75 years or older are kept…. AND Certificates of Foreign Birth. He told his friend Mike Evans that an investigation had searched the hospitals and could find no birth certificate. He and Evans had agreed that this would cause problems for Obama in the next election – something that Abercrombie also verbalized in the interview published in the Star Advertiser. So I don’t necessarily discount Abercrombie. I think his statements contradicting Fukino’s means we need to find out who is telling the truth.

      Fukino has never once said that they have LEGALLY VALID birth records for Obama. She originally said they have his original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. But she was at that VERY TIME illegally hiding the Administrative Rules so nobody could see what those policies and procedures were. Her second statement talked about “vital recordS”, and she said that they “verified” that Obama was born in Hawaii, but from the communications of Janice Okubo it is known that the records they have are legally-invalid. So Fukino said – and refused to answer any questions because that precise statement was all she could say, she said – that she saw the (legally-invalid) vital recordS (plural) verifying (swearing) that Obama was born in Hawaii. That could well be, but legally invalid records are worth as much as Monopoly money. The country deserves better than that.

      What “Star Advertiser” are you talking about – the one that matched exactly the announcement images that claimed to be from the Hawaii State Library but couldn’t have been? The Star Advertiser images that we were documentably lied to about where they came from? I disbelieve those announcements because I have looked at them closely and have listened closely to the stories of where they supposedly came from and noticed what all the media didn’t bother to check: that they were lies.

      Okubo indirectly confirmed that Obama’s BC was amended in 2006. I have no idea whether she was telling the truth, but I think it deserves an investigation. That’s all I’ve ever wanted, is an investigation so we would know which of these claims is true, if any.

      The Factcheck COLB has been indirectly confirmed as a forgery in 2 different ways by the HDOH

      Kapiolani Hospital does not have records of Obama’s birth there, according to Neil Abercrombie and the Elections Office supervisors. HIPAA prevents them from disclosing to the general public whether they have records or not. And Obama will not tell anybody whether he really sent a letter saying he was born at Kapiolani – a letter that Kapiolani hid on their website after WND reported on the anomalies.

      Neil Abercrombie with all his position and power couldn’t unearth any evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, even though he was in a position to get records from the hospitals, from the Vital Records Office, and from the State Archives. It’s a lot easier to prove a positive than to prove a negative, so if Abercrombie can’t even prove a positive when he has direct access to all the records, how the heck are McCain and Hillary supposed to prove a negative?

      And even at that, how do you know that neither of the Kenya birth certificates – one from the Kenyan government and the other from the hospital – weren’t the proof that Hillary or McCain dug up? Judge Carter would never let their authenticity be verified with the alleged issuing entities. IOW, even if Hillary of McCain HAD come up with positive proof, there would not have been a way to know whether it was genuine or not, as long as the judges didn’t want to deal with it. Neither McCain nor Clinton could even say “boo” to Obama without being ripped as “racist”; you seriously think they would sue over his ineligibility?

      Boehner and Cantor have no direct knowledge of any of this.

      Fox News was threatened at least twice with annihilation by the FCC if they reported on the eligibility issue, as documented by Doug Hagmann, who has handwritten secretary’s notes from the meeting where the threat was passed on to the on-air personalities. And one of the on-air personalities signed a statement saying his career, life, health, and family were all in danger if he spoke about eligibility or allowed any guest to speak about eligibility. So do I believe every word tthat comes out of somebody with a gun to their head and being told what they have to say? No, I don’t, and I think that’s very reasonable.

      So Bill, the reason you think I’m “crazy” is because I know too much that you don’t know. I’ve documented this stuff all over this place and in other places as well. Ignorance is bliss, and it makes it so easy for you to call somebody else “crazy”, but I choose knowledge and facts over somebody ignorant thinking well of me because I’m just as ignorant as they are.

      Sorry to be so blunt there at the end. My family is calling me and it’s a little frustrating to have to go over this all again, when this whole blog is full of the evidence and reasons for what I believe.

  8. Bill Keller
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 5:35 am | Permalink | Reply

    Nellie, you are going to believe what you want to believe, and you will dismiss cold, hard facts and go searching for any bit of minutia to be found in any stray blog, or any picayune misstatement, to somehow backup this crazy assertion that President Obama is ineligible. There is no talking sense to someone like this, and you are in for months and possibly years of disappointment if you somehow think you are onto something here.

    Do I seriously believe that Hilary or McCain would would sue if they had evidence that Obama was ineligible? My Goodness, they would certainly make the evidence public, and they wouldn’t have to do it themselves. They would simply plant it in the press through an intermediary. Why did they even bother running in the first place if they were not out to win it all? Hillary spent millions, and then threw it to Obama? You believe that too? Preposterous!

    They would be branded as “racist” if they had facts that Obama were ineligible? Why? Are you even suggesting that black folks would revolt because Hillary or McCain played by the rules? I’m sorry, Nellie, but yes, black folks can play by the rules, a crazy statement like that is racist in itself, and it’s no surprise coming from you as I’ve read posts where you refer to Muslim folks with the disgusting phrase “Muzzies.”

    Candidates vet their opponents to the nth degree. This is another cold, hard fact that seems to escape you. This is why all these eligiblility bills are unnecessary. This is simply the way politics works.

    Fox news was threatened with annihilation by the FCC? This is just more pure nonsense. You believe charlatans like Doug Hagmann and Lucas Smith, and dismiss the former Republican Governor of Hawaii. This is crazy thinking, Nellie.

    Neil Abercrombie is not in a position to get records from hospitals, or the State Department, or from the Vital Records offices, nor does he have direct access. This is just another of your outright lies, Nellie.

    Finally, please just ruminate over this: To believe that Obama is ineligible is to believe that scores, perhaps even hundreds of folks, are keeping this secret to themselves. Just think about that for a minute. Seriously think about it. Obama has been President for over two years, and yet still, hundreds of folks know about this secret that only you have knowledge of, and not one has come forth, not one has spilled the beans. Please, Nellie, for God’s sake, just seriously think about this. It is outlandish!!

    Good God, come to your senses!

    • Posted March 12, 2011 at 11:20 am | Permalink | Reply

      Bill, I’m not going to wrestle in the mud with you. I gave some of my evidence – hard, cold, observable facts – and there is plenty more on this blog. If you will hear that and still try saying it’s all in my head and I’m racist for thinking that you would call Hillary racist, there’s not much I can do for you. I am not crazy just because I disagree with you, and I have a GREAT God who is taking good, good care of me.

  9. Bo
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Butterdezillion, you are a fool, and that’s the least worst I can say about you. Birther’s at the very least are fools, and usually far, far worse. Do you know you share your “belief” with neo-nazi anarchists who want to succeed from the U.S.? If you would bother to do ANY research on the internet, here for example,, you would find that this is all absolute B.S. Furthermore, EVERY SINGLE COURT CHALLENGE filed by the Bigot, stupid, uninformed, lunatic fringe, right wing anarchists, etc. etc. etc…has been dismissed, with many having to pay court costs for filing frivelous lawsuits.

    Now this is just one more sign in the birther movement of “how the conspiracy is so vast…”

    You need to put as a priority dealing with your bigotry, gullibility, and stupidity. You will be better off.

  10. Christo
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I thought that the HDOH had indirectly confirmed in THREE different ways that the COLB is fake. But, in the response above, you now say just two. What happened to the third way?

    • Posted March 13, 2011 at 2:36 am | Permalink | Reply

      The third way was through their revelation of the HDOH seal. But questions were raised about that and I’m still sorting that out. Miss Tickly has been doing a lot of research on the security features of birth certificate paper, the seals, etc. I have been concentrating on a couple other really important issues and haven’t been able to take the time to thoroughly sort out the information about the seals and paper features so I’m putting that claim on hold.

  11. Posted March 12, 2011 at 8:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hey, if you’re going to redact your name, redact it from the PDF file properties too.

    • Posted March 13, 2011 at 2:38 am | Permalink | Reply

      My name is in the public sphere. That was the cost of testifying before a legislative committee.

      • Posted March 13, 2011 at 3:06 am | Permalink

        I should say here, though, that I never authorized my Facebook page to be public. When it was set up it was set to be friends only, which it is now set at again. How it changed to public without my permission and without anybody informing me is beyond me.

  12. Posted March 12, 2011 at 9:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

    BZ, the Nebraska bill will fail, and the courts won’t have to rule on what constitutes a natural born citizen. The very idea of requiring the birth certificates of a candidate’s parents is so over-the-top that all a court has to do is rule it’s constitutional overreach, and they won’t have to consider other issues. It’s not the court’s duty to look at an unconstitutional law and impose its own modification to make it constitutional, nor to even suggest to the legislature exactly how to mend the measure itself to make it comply with the constitution. Mzrk my words, the parents’ birth certificate part will sink the whole bill like a stone.

  13. PatriotSmiles
    Posted March 13, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I will contact the Legislators to vote in favor of LB654. Thanks for your hard work and efforts, you are a talented individual, stay strong and focused, we need you to shine the light for us!

    • Posted March 13, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you. There is still time since the vote is supposed to be on Wednesday – I believe the same day as Georgia has their vote.

      The sudden move by several states to try to get the bill to exempt Obama by not having the requirements in effect until 2013 suggests to me that there is more going on below the surface. Dr Kate could well be right, that the feds are using threats and/or bribes involving federal subsidies, grants, etc in order to keep eligibility bills from passing, or applying to Obama.

      I suspect that the only way we’ll get anything done is through a ballot initiative. The government can’t bribe all of us without blowing their cover and revealing just how lawless they are. And the media has no threat against normal people like they have over politicians. Because we are the peons we may well be the only people who can withstand the attack against America. Reminds me of chess; sometimes the lowly pawns are the ones who can save the day, when the powerful pieces have all been captured.

      We need to seriously look into the resources we have, to get an initiative on the ballot. Any help I can get to network with people all over the state who are like-minded would be a God-send.

      • ksdb
        Posted March 14, 2011 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

        The fact that these eligibility bills are being delayed tells me these legislators are not only protecting Obama but that they don’t trust him to be able to prove himself. If I was a faither, that would a kick in the gut, as this is basically an admission that Obama is not eligible for office.

      • Posted March 14, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

        And to agree to it ONLY IF it doesn’t apply in 2012 is especially revealing. Says that the resistance to the law is only out of a desire to protect Obama. The willingness to OFFER it to apply after 2012 shows it’s not just about Obama to the people who support it, but the INSISTENCE that it not apply to 2012 shows it’s ALL about Obama to the people who oppose it.

  14. Marlin
    Posted March 13, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

    BDZ, I have lurked for awhile now on the various birther/proofer sites. The body of work you have put together has become invaluable to folks like myself. It has helped me to better understand the tangled web that has been woven in order that a certain false nativity story is perpetuated. Your work has been used and built on by others, sadly their source has not always being cited.
    In this particular comment section I sensed the vitriol from some of the posters who are trying to demean and in turn dissuade you from your commitment to finding the truth. Their agenda and approach is consistent with Alinsky’s teachings to marginalize the opposition. In this case “truth” is the opposition. We know Obama/Soetoro and his followers embrace the Alinsky methodology. We have seen it often. It is their “calling card”.
    It is evident to anyone willing to do their own investigations, that at some level fraud has been perpetrated in the telling of the story of who really is the individual occupying the white house.
    Many a day one finds themselves replaying a version of the game “clue” and postulating variations of “Col. Mustard, with the candlestick in the library”.
    Unfortunately we have become a nation of sheeple where 35% receive gov’t largesse along with the 50% who pay no federal taxes. Clearly this is unsustainable and is destroying this once great constitutional republic. Even sixty years ago Kruschev realized that creeping socialism would be the method needed for them to change the US to their ideology.
    It appears our constitution has been violated in many ways. It is apparent that we have an administration who’s desire is to create class warfare for their own gain. It is also evident in their rhetoric and actions each day. I wish I could better understand their end game so as to be better prepared. But in no way could the outcome be good for this once great nation.
    Thank you for your commitment and dedication. You are an inspiration to many and a patriot.
    Cheers, Marlin

    • Posted March 13, 2011 at 5:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you, Marlin. There is most definitely something wrong, and to have so many people who care about America drop the ball on this – and even attack their own team over this – says to me that the lawlessness we see at the government agency level is piddles compared to the lawless thuggery going on to manhandle even powerful people who love this country.

      Jeff Kuhner said at one point that the media people he’s spoken to have told him they don’t want to cover this because they know it is so big and so serious. I think regular Americans looking at what’s happened over the last 2 years with Senate rules broken, laws crammed down our throats against our will, door locks changed to keep republicans out of committee meetings, takeover of car dealerships and money that belongs to secured investors being given instead to the unions, union thugs breaking windows in the WI capitol and threatening to kill lawmakers, dem lawmakers hiding to stop the legislative process, the borders not being allowed to be enforced, etc…. it feels to them – to us all – just as what appears to be the case: the nation and all her processes, laws, and Constitution are being taken held hostage by lawless thugs centered around George Soros.

      As for credit, I don’t want any – at least not until it’s all over. The more the information is in the hands of everybody, the less effective the thugs can be by shutting me up. And the less the thugs know about what I’m doing specifically, the less likely that they will find me worth targeting. So as long as the word is getting out, and facts documented, I’m glad if nobody knows if it originally came from me. If it was possible for me to get the facts out there while being invisible that would be best of all. So don’t worry about credit, but DEFINITELY thanks for the encouragement; I can always use more of that. =)

  15. Bo
    Posted March 13, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

    You and the people of your belief are an interesting study in psychology. If someone looks hard enough, if their mind wanders far enough, people can find a conspiracy in anything….Even the individually wrapped cheese slices in your refrigerator. You remind me of the guy I saw this summer, sitting at a card table on the “grassy knoll” in downtown Dallas. This guy would sit and ramble on to anyone who’d stop and listen how JFK was actually shot by multiple agents….How they had crawled through the storm sewer to the railroad yard…(He tested the theory himself.) This guy had his glass jar for “donations.” I’m guessing this was how this guy made a living. It was his “obsession.” As President Obama birth location is your’s.

    Deep down though, the only reasons you are really obsessing with this is that President Obama is black, his middle name is “Hussein”, and he’s a Democrat. Remove any of those items, and your trigger wouldn’t have been tripped. At least you don’t think he’s literally the Anti-Christ. (Or at least you haven’t admitted to it.)

    • Posted March 13, 2011 at 6:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Alinsky is boring. Anybody can do it.

      “Imagination” doesn’t explain observable physical phenomena such as audio recordings of statements, e-mails, images that are clearly identical even though claimed to be from different microfilm rolls, etc.

      If somebody tries to deny what is clearly visible and audible to everybody, that is the more likely instance of “wishful thinking”.

      The facts matter.

      The “racist” mantra is particularly old and boring. Donofrio’s case, for instance, questioned the eligibility of a white republican, a black democrat, and a Hispanic communist. The only thing those candidates had in common was that they didn’t fit Vattel’s definition for “natural born citizen”. There’s no need looking for racist motives when Occam’s Razor would say the motive is probably the one actually claimed: a desire for the Constitution to be followed. Especially since the “racism” in this case would have been directed against whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Apparently “birthers” must be Asian Supremacists, or something. lol

      But you illustrate your own point by accusing me of what you’re actually doing: seeing what you want to see even when the evidence refutes it.

      • Jayhg
        Posted March 23, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

        Alinsky might be boring, butter, but he is NO WHERE NEAR AS BORING AS YOU….

  16. kj
    Posted March 13, 2011 at 8:42 pm | Permalink | Reply


    BZ, you are hitting close to the mark with focused and to the point testimony. Nebraska’s one state house would provide an expedited path to an eligibility check law. The responses of HistorianDude, Dr. Conspiracy, Bill Keller, CommonCause, and Bo prove that they are concerned about the power of your work. With such high profile obots following your work, I wonder how many of your hits are from inside the Beltway?

    “The question” is growing and, if not squelched, will become a major issue for 2012. Chris Matthews and others on the left have raised the question. Even “respectable, certifiably non-crazy” people are asking it, the latest I saw was a comment by a law professor at Notre Dame. Everyone wonders why Mr. O won’t just cough it up, why the original documentation is off limits.

    We all know that McCain’s own status was gray enough that he couldn’t ask. Perhaps Hillary dropped it to avoid offending her consistency, attempting to win the game with all the Dem referee calls against her. (I wonder when she knew that the Dems would break so many of their own rules and state laws just to make Mr. Obama the candidate.) How many people really know his secrets? Michelle, a few in the HDOH, Ayres and others in Chicago? Did Pelosi, Dean, etc. know or were they afraid to look?

    If only Mr. O had not lied about so many things, perhaps his word would be sufficient. If his eligibility alone was in question, then we could grit our teeth to his incompetence in Office and ignore his connections to corrupt (and criminal) past Chicago political activities. If only the US wasn’t fighting two wars. What would be the status of the troops in the battlefield if the CIC were declared ineligible?

    As to the shenanigans of the left and the government, perhaps HD will remember having a blog with natural born citizenship historical evidence altered when I confronted him with the link. That blog entry had been up for months before only the “incriminating” part was wiped out two days after our interaction (coincidence?). Citizen WElls has provided evidence that Google has buried links to one of his embarrassing entries. As to the squelch order on the MSM, remember what happened to Lou Dobbs. Only now do Rush and Sean feel free to rib Mr. O about the birth certificate. And Mr. O’s (and Holder’s) playing deck is 95% race cards.

    BZ, thank you for your courage and work. If your work does not bear desirable fruit, perhaps challenging an application for the primary ballot can be successful where state law allows it.

    • Posted March 13, 2011 at 9:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

      After the ruling in the Strunk case (see my latest post) I am convinced that we the people are on our own. Totally on our own, except (hopefully) the Divine Hand of God. It is truly a David v Goliath situation here. No judge is going to rule rightly. No lawmaker is going to govern rightly. No media entity is going to report correctly. No law enforcement person or body is going to enforce the rule of law. We are entirely on our own with all those other powers-that-be actively working against justice. I think Soros’ power has totally taken over everything except we the peons.

      I think the only hope we have for re-establishing the rule of law is self-governance. Ballot initiatives to make laws giving ourselves standing to hold government accountable to the rule of law. I don’t know if we’d need to do something to ensure that cases be decided by jury, since we definitely can’t count on judges at this point. They are as lawless as the criminals, from what I can see. When the Constitution talks about the jurisdiction of “the judiciary” does that have to be judges deciding cases? Can a jury interpret the US Constitution? Ultimately all the appeals would end up at SCOTUS, I suppose, and that can’t be done by jury. Hmm.

      The process has been kidnapped. The whole infrastructure is lawless. This is going to have to be solved by the people, but how to do it within a totally corrupt and lawless system is the big question. Our Founders couldn’t do it; they had to wipe the slate clean and start over. Maybe that’s all that’s left for us to do. I don’t know.

      If the judges are being man-handled by Soros it won’t do any good to impeach these ones and put different ones in, because they would just be man-handled in the same way. Judge Surick had his decision against Berg faxed to him, and for him to go along with that had to involve some kind of threat. If he was threatened, then what other judges were threatened into doing what they knew was wrong? See

  17. Kanbun
    Posted April 2, 2011 at 4:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

    What happened with the Nebraska bill? Where does it stand now? Arizona’s is good, but Nebraska’s is better.

    As for you Obots, keep focusing on the newspaper clippings, the statements of the Hawaiian official, etc. None of this matters. Except for your twisting of words trying to make native=natural, the SCOTUS cases and the historical references mean exactly what they say – Barry was NOT born to citizen parents and he WAS born with dual citizenship (if he really was born in Hawaii). HE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. You dopes.

    • Posted April 2, 2011 at 5:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s not going to come out of committee. The people on that committee will never let it out, just like Janice Okubo is the dragon that sits on the treasure at the HDOH, making sure nobody can see anything that they are entitled to see.

      What I really need at this point are contacts in SD who would be willing to work with me on a ballot initiative which I would call EIVB – “Eligibility IS Voters’ Business” – which would simply give any registered voter legal standing to challenge in state court the eligibility of any candidate placed on the SD ballot, as long as the suit is filed before the term of office that candidate is seeking begins. It specifically allows the transaction logs and vital records history to be subpoenaed so that the genunineness can be determined.

      This is important because, as you know, Donald Trump is pushing to have Obama release a long-form birth certificate. I believe they have a forged BC ready to go – that was why Abercrombie made a great show of saying he would find the long-form and shame the “birthers” by releasing it. I believe he was stopped in his tracks because of talk at Free Republic about state eligibility bills needing to require the TRANSACTION LOGS, which would mean that any long-form BC Abercrombie triumphantly unveiled would eventually be revealed as having been entered into the computer system under a different name and the name changed to Barack Obama in 2010. We know that Judge Surick was threatened into passing off somebody else’s “decision” as his own. All of a sudden we have two cases which, after a 2-year wait, are being allowed to go forward by appeals judges. Why now? I suspect that what will happen is these judges will allow limited discovery – allow a long-form BC to be disclosed but NOT the transaction logs which would reveal it to be a forgery. If the judge has to decide what can be disclosed, the judge can be bought and it provides the perfect opportunity for Obama to get away with a forgery.

      But if a state law says that the discovery specifically includes the records which would audit the genuineness and veracity of all the birth and citizenship records, the judge simply has to abide by that. Or at least that’s the closest we can come to MAKING a judge do it; God knows we have judges who are plenty willing to disobey clear laws. But the judge who would make that call would be somebody living in South Dakota and would get a LOT of heat for breaking the law so blatantly.

      So I really believe that this law is critical – ESPECIALLY because these court cases are suddenly being allowed to go forward after all this time. The integrity of the courts is compromised, and Soros could easily have picked the judges he knows would listen to his threats, and told them to suddenly allow these cherry-picked cases to go forward. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for instance – even when Judge Carter has already said the case doesn’t belong in Ninth Circuit but in DC Circuit, if I’m remembering correctly. And remember that Ninth Circuit Judge John Roll was killed within 7 seconds of Jared Loughner shooting him in the aorta. The one judge in the Ninth Circuit who had the integrity to rule Constitutionally regardless of outside pressure – to be replaced by someone of Obama’s choosing.

      I’d like to pass this ballot initiative in NE, but NE requires about twice the number of signatures just by virtue of REGISTERED voters being the criteria rather than the number of those who ACTUALLY VOTED in the last election. NE’s law was ushered in by former state Sen. Dianna Schimek (a flaming liberal) who was mad at being ousted by term limits that came from a ballot initiative that passed. So she pushed through a law that makes it so that fraudulent voter registrations can effectively raise the number of signatures needed and the signature gatherers don’t know until AFTER their signatures are submitted just how many they need – a number that is determined by how many registered voters there are as of that day, regardless of how many later are found to be fraudulent.

      So Nebraska is the worst state to try to get a ballot initiative passed. But South Dakota is much more reasonable and it is close enough that I would (hopefully) be able to help collect signatures although I could not be the official gatherer because I don’t reside in South Dakota. I would certainly do everything I can to rally the troops and to inform the public on this issue.

      My problem right now is that I’ve been spending my time researching, not networking. So I don’t have connections. This is where I desperately need the rest of you to carry me. I need you to spread the word so we can find people in SD who would pitch in towards this effort. I do have somebody who is working on having the language of the ballot initiative looked at for Constitutionality, to make sure it is air-tight. Now I need to know if there are foot soldiers for the signature-gathering.

      This is the scenario I would see happening if the ballot initiative passed in November of 2012 in SD. The law would go into effect in early December. Somebody would file a suit in expedited state court, challenging Obama’s eligibility. They would subpoena the birth and citizenship records and the transaction logs and vital records histories to determine whether the records were genuine. They would find that the long-form BC submitted as well as Obama’s passport records and social security registration were all fraudulent. They would stop the lawsuit (make a motion for dismissal) before the judge could make a bad decision under duress and immediately post the proof online so the truth was known. If Obama had won the election they would also send the proof to every member of Congress, with the warning that if they certified the electoral vote they would personally be prosecuted for misprision of felony and/or treason. That might require the cooperation of a US Attorney (ugh. impossible) or a state AG (like Ken Cuccinelli of VA) who could convene a Grand Jury; I’m not sure exactly how that would work. That’s where I need the help of some legal eagles to let me know the options.

      The point is that the size of the state involved wouldn’t matter at that point. What would matter is the ability to get access to the proof of whether Obama’s records are genuine. Armed with proof that they are not genuine, there would be the ability to expose this whole mess once and for all, as well as grounds (and hopefully a process also) to start removing the people who had enabled it all along.

  18. Bill Keller
    Posted April 3, 2011 at 12:02 am | Permalink | Reply

    I had some free time today, Nellie, so I read the Canada Free Press piece by Douglas Hagmann and Judi McLeod that you link to whenever you state that media heads were threatened should they talk about Obama’s birth certificate. You have stated in the past that they were threatened with FCC annihilation and that also they were threatened by Soros, Axelrod and Emanuel. I can’t seem to find these statements in the piece that you link to. Can you point them out to me please?

    • Posted April 3, 2011 at 2:54 am | Permalink | Reply

      Those details were probably in the interview Hagmann and McLeod gave to Laurie Roth. Those can be heard at

      [audio src="" /]
      [audio src="" /]
      [audio src="" /]

      • Bill Keller
        Posted April 3, 2011 at 10:55 am | Permalink

        A three-hour radio show? Can you simply post the direct quotes? You’re a researcher, correct?

        Donald Trump was all over Fox and other networks last week repeating every birther claim out there. He’s been hired to do a weekly Monday report starting tomorrow. If Fox had been threatened, why are they letting him on, Nellie? Doesn’t make much sense does it?

      • Posted April 3, 2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

        I don’t have a transcription pedal, and if you don’t believe me when I give you a synopsis of what was said then why would you believe that I gave an accurate quote?

        There is no doubt that these threats happened. Hagmann has corroborating schedules and details, has done interviews with multiple people who were also at the meetings where the threats were relayed to the on-air personalities, and has the handwritten notes from the secretary who was at one of the meetings.

        There is also no doubt that Media Matters has been keeping a scorecard of every teeny tiny blip on the screen regarding Fox and the eligibility issue – including anything they link to, anything they say, whether they go far enough to rebut or ridicule anything that comes up. They’ve had their eye on Sean Hannity for a long time. To read what they’ve got you would think that Fox has been full-bore “birther” all along. Fox had one article where they mentioned Trump’s interview where he said he had a teeny bit of doubt about Obama’s birth certificate. They left out the part where Trump said that it was stupid of the media to label anybody crazy because they have any bit of doubt and said flatly that Obama was born in Hawaii. Media Matters used that to say that Fox was “hyping” a story about Trump – and they hadn’t done enough falling over themselves to gush about how stupid Trump was and how debunked the “birther” claims were, blah, blah, blah.

        Hannity has finally come out in full support of the need for answers, and I can’t imagine that he would have done that without permission, so there must be a crack in the ice. Notice that shortly after Hannity expressed his support, Media Matters decided to inform the whole world of their plans to do all-out “guerilla warfare”. If you really intend to bring the enemy down through guerilla warfare you don’t tell them what you’re up to. Media Matters used Ben Smith at Politico to extend their THREATS to Fox, and Hannity for the next few days on his radio show (all that I’m able to hear since we don’t have cable) used the word “intimidate” a lot of times when referring to Media Matters. And if you look at what Media Matters said, they are trying to get “regulators” to go against the parent company of Fox, in both Britain and the US. That’s exactly what Hagmann says the threat was – FCC and/or anti-monopoly measures through regulators. So shortly after Hannity went public on the eligibility issue, Soros went public with the same threats to use regulators as his hit-men against Fox. How can a person disbelieve that the threats occurred when the threats are now done openly in public via Politico?

        Why the crack in the ice? I think it’s because House Ethics Committee Chair Darryl Issa has indicated he’s not going to be sandbagged and gaslighted into oblivion on the question of whether the White House actually wrote the illegal “net neutrality” rules and simply used the FCC as their stooges. For over a year the FCC has stalled on Issa’s requests for documentation and not long ago the FCC Chair finally responded by saying that they didn’t have to disclose the requested communications because they occurred before new disclosure rules went into effect. Issa responded by saying very pointedly that this is not a FOIA request he is doing but a fully-authorized legal INVESTIGATION, and they can investigate ANYTHING THEY WANT.

        Issa is fully fed up with the politicization of FOIA requests and the crap that DHS has been doing to effectively get rid of disclosure laws – stuff like “creative” search terms so they can say that records they know exist “were not located” – such as searching the 1978 and later passport records for Obama’s mother’s 1965 and earlier passport applications, outright lying (such as the forged DOS “cable” the Passport Office presented to the judge in the Strunk case), and simply ignoring requests for long periods of time in the hopes that the requester would forget and drop the whole thing (which is the preferred runaround from Hawaii also, as I can say from personal experience). He is not amused and he is not going to take that kind of crap from anybody. That is what he has been communicating to the FCC – a point they are very slow to get through their thick skulls, so sure they have been that they could get away with whatever lawlessness they wanted.

        Case in point: even the dems on the House Ethics Committee very pointedly told the FCC rep at a meeting that he could not steal the records that were in the briefcase, which were now the property of the Committee. The guy was so convinced that he could sass and get away with anything and everything that he actually said to the committee something to the effect of, “How about I take the records with me right now and you call me later?” and actually began walking toward the door with the briefcase, to be reminded sharply that leaving would be stealing documents from a federal investigation.

        The timing of all that with Hannity’s stance and the public threats from Soros’ Media Matters is very, very interesting.

        It’s almost as if the new sheriff in town has cracked down on the mafia that threatened Fox so Fox saw an opening and ventured forth, only to be told publicly by the mafia shortly afterwards that the mafia was moving their attack to Britain where they could break up Fox’s parent company outside the reach of that pesky Sheriff Issa.

        We’ll see how Fox responds to that threat. We don’t know what Trump is going to do. It’ll be interesting to see what happens. But Fox allowing Hannity to express support for the eligibility issue just as Issa shows he is prepared to fight the FCC tooth and claw actually supports what we already knew because of the research Hagmann has done. And the public reiteration of the threat (without directly saying that the threat was over the eligibility issue, but timing it right after Hannity embraced the eligibility issue) makes the “secret” visible to everybody, which confirms it as well.

  19. kanbun
    Posted April 3, 2011 at 1:11 am | Permalink | Reply

    I did not realize that Nebraska’s state senate is “non-partisan”. I take it from your comments that there aren’t any (or enough) conservatives on the committee to move the bill. I’ve tried to read as many of these state eligibility bills as I can find, and this Nebraska bill is the best I’ve seen by far. Oklahoma’s proposal is a joke – it redefines NBC and includes foreign born U.S. citizens. It’s too bad these guys didn’t move this along.

    I appreciate your take on the SD thing. I know they have some form of proposal, but haven’t seen its language. An initiative petition would be a good idea, but I’m hoping somebody (maybe Arizona) will pass a good bill before that.

    As regards your comments that there is a forged long form ready to go, that of course would be no surprise. But, if they are going to do that, why would they not also alter the transaction logs? There is nothing these guys won’t do, and clearly the Hawaiian officials are in bed with them anyway. Seems to me that electronic fraud is considerably easier than paper document fraud when the state government is helping you. If they change the logs, nobody will even be able to get a forensic examination of the database.

    While I see the value of the initiative petition approach, particularly as it relates to standing in a challenge, I believe the most important, and perhaps the key to this is a law that requires not only Barry’s long form, but evidence of his parents’ citizenship. They cannot fake his father’s citizenship. The provisions in the Nebraska bill for documenting parents’ birth data was excellent. Arizona’s is good too, but all of the others I’ve read (except Georgia’s and they’re out too) don’t even mention parents and are incredibly weak on the requirements for the candidate’s documentation (e.g. see Oklahoma). If a law is passed that includes parents’ citizenship documentation, that will blow the lid off Barry’s tactics so far.

    Keep up the good work

    • Posted April 3, 2011 at 3:07 am | Permalink | Reply

      If a person can have standing to challenge eligibility, someone should come forward who would challenge it on a comprehensive basis – that we need to know the truth about birth parents, birth place, citizenship of parents, and whether the candidate himself is still a US citizen at all. All that needs to come into the mix so we have the facts and – if it seems like the court is not still compromised, which is a tricky question to answer – a ruling on the definition of NBC.

      The reason I say it’s tricky knowing whether the courts are compromised is because of what happened with Lakin’s case. If you remember, the retired generals pushed to have Lakin’s counsel change the approach because they were afraid that if Lakin’s counsel tried to force the eligibility issue, the judge would end up ruling badly. The argument was that no ruling at all would be better than a bad, unconstitutional ruling from a military judge being unduly influenced by the usurper. It’s sort of like whether we really want Kagan and Sotomayor deciding whether Obama is eligible, when they have a direct and severe conflict of interest and what they decide may never be able to be overturned or negated through a Constitutional amendment.

      As I’ve said, the fact that Judge Surick’s decision was faxed to him from somebody else tells us that somebody has the power to threaten the federal judges to roll over and let the inmates take over the court system. We don’t know how many other judges have done the same, but there are ethics breaches with almost every eligibility judge, including SCOTUS. I don’t know what those retired generals knew or how, but something tells me they may be on the same page as I am on this, although I was really angry at them for what they did to Lakin at the time.

      If those breaches and the lawlessness within the judiciary could be investigated and cleared up before December of 2012 then it might be worth letting the court rule on the definition of NBC, hoping it would eventually be taken up by SCOTUS. If we could get Kagan and Sotomayor to have to recuse themselves by that time, there could be hope for an actually Constitutional decision on the meaning of NBC from SCOTUS. But there’s a lot of territory between now and then so we might have to see what the lay of the land looks like at that time.

      But to even have the option we would need to have a law that gives legal standing to somebody, and have somebody who would pursue the issue comprehensively, for a determination of facts and a determination of law.

    • Posted April 3, 2011 at 3:19 am | Permalink | Reply

      My understanding is that the embedded transaction logs are created in such a way that they are automatic and cannot be manipulated – sort of like an airplane’s black box. Maybe somebody can tell me if I’m misunderstanding that.

      My preference would be an actual criminal investigation into the manipulations, law-breaking, and potential criminal actions by government officials in Hawaii and in federal offices – which would include not only the embedded transaction logs and complete vital records history but would also include depositions and lie detector tests.

      I don’t want to elaborate on it too much, but my dealings off-hand with this or that secretary or supervisor when I’ve called the HDOH to deal with requests that were being stalled suggest that there are a lot of people in those offices who know something is not right and don’t like it one bit. HI State Senator Slom has said that office needs a thorough cleaning-out, and I suspect that Dr. Neal Palafox was told by Abercrombie to resign because he may have been willing to do just that. (The gal that replaced him has made that department even LESS transparent than it was before, if that was even possible. Now they don’t even have an e-mail address for people to contact, listed on their website. They only give a web form to contact them with, and there is no way with that web form to prove that you contacted them, outside of taking a screenshot before you hit “Send” (which I’ve done). The HDOH has totally ignored my web form request for over 3 weeks now.)

      Anyway, I think if there was a criminal investigation and some of these smaller fish knew that whoever cooperated first would get off easy, they’d find a lot of takers to spill the beans.

  20. Bill Keller
    Posted April 3, 2011 at 10:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

    My Goodness, what a load of nonsense, Nellie. But that’s what you call facts!

    • Posted April 3, 2011 at 11:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Bill, what I did in the post you’re responding to is interpret facts that I believe are related. It is a combination of facts and interpretation. You’ve been through 3rd grade, right? So you know how to identify what is fact and what is opinion? It is a fact that Media Matters gave an interview to Ben Smith of Politico saying that they were going to do “guerilla warfare” against Fox – including trying to get “regulators” to turn against Fox’s business interests, including in the UK. That is a fact.

      Issa and the House Ethics Committee’s actions regarding the White House’s involvement in developing the FCC’s forbidden “net neutrality” rules are also facts, as is the fact that the FCC representative who brought documents to the committee tried to run off with the documents until told that would be stealing committee property. This stuff is fact.

      I explained why I think Media Matters all of a sudden announced to the world what they called “guerilla tactics” even though broadcasting it would defeat the purpose of the “guerilla” aspect: it was a very public way of making a threat to try to intimidate Fox into silence. Why not? What issue are they trying to silence Fox on? I don’t think it’s an accident that this revelation came within days of Fox allowing Hannity to openly support the eligibility issue.

      Especially since Doug Hagmann has a signed statement from an on-air personality who said the media company had conveyed threats to the on-air personalities in response to threats the media heads had received from Obama’s handlers if they allowed their on-air personalities to report on the eligibility issue. What Hagmann says he’s got and what has been openly stated in public are consistent with each other.

      So the Media Matters threats to Fox are a public fact at this point. They’ve been working on these plans and have used these tactics against Beck for some time now; Ben Smith said the plans were in a 2010 document that Media Matters showed him. Those are facts. I’ve explained what I think explains them going public with those plans right now. You can ridicule my analysis all you want, but people can see that I am dealing with this fact and that you are totally blowing off this fact.

      What is your analysis of why Media Matters went public with the threats at this particular time? And given that Soros’ people have done this publicly, why would it be unreasonable to think that they have done the same privately, as Hagmann says he has very specific, concrete evidence of?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: