COMMUNICATING CLYBURN’S QUID PRO QUO for CAPTURING SOUTH CAROLINA’S PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY for OBAMA

© 2010 jbjd

“Communicating Clyburn’s Quid Pro Quo for Capturing South Carolina’s Presidential Primary for Obama” does not dwell on whether House Majority Whip  Jim Clyburn arranged for the SC Democratic Party to ‘obtain permission’ from the DNC to move the date of their Presidential preferential primary to the head of the line by capitalizing on the state’s racial “diversity.” The documentary record is clear, he did.

This article does not debate whether Mr. Clyburn subsequently unleashed an orchestrated race-baiting campaign  against both Bill and Hillary Clinton to resuscitate Obama’s flailing run at stealing the D Presidential nomination.  Judging only by all of the evidence available in the public record, he did that, too.  (Read here, and here.)

Rather,this article just exposes Clyburn’s real reason why.

Background

A lot of people forget, FL and MI were not the only states that bumped up their Presidential preference primaries in 2008, ahead of the DNC’s schedule.  SC did, too.  Only, unlike FL and MI, Clinton strongholds that were punished for their infraction, SC was actually encouraged to break the rules.

Briefly, the Democratic National Committee’s Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling decided to add one or two early primaries (“pre-window,” or before February 5, 2008) in states with “a significant Hispanic population” (Western state) and “a significant African American population” (Southern state).  http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnothp08/dnccommission.html The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (“RBC”) “developed its recommendations to the full DNC that Nevada be added as an early caucus state after the Iowa caucuses and that South Carolina be added after the New Hampshire primary as an early primary state.”  Id. On August 19, 2006 the full DNC, meeting in Chicago, approved the RBC’s recommendations. Id.

A number of leading observers were quite critical of the Democrats’ changes.  In an August 16 column in The Hill R. Lawrence Butler, an assistant professor of political science at Rowan University, wrote, “The commission’s purpose was not to create a better presidential nomination process; it was an exercise in coalition management.” Id.

David Broeder of the Washington Post does not hide his disdain for these DNC scheduling machinations:

“The Democrats Dysfunctional Calendar”

This way lies madness, and madness is what the Democrats have wrought. When they started tinkering with their rules after the 1968 election disaster, they unleashed a fierce competition among the states to be at the head of the line, where the contests have the greatest impact on weeding the field and crowning the eventual winner.

New Hampshire was already there, thanks to a state law that had given it the first primary since 1952. Iowa jumped in with its caucuses, which launched Jimmy Carter in 1976. And then came the deluge. When state after state moved up primaries from April, May and June into early March, the “front-loading” problem became acute.

What was lost in all this was any sense of public deliberation about the choice of the next president. In the general election, people have two months or more to evaluate two or maybe three candidates. In the early primaries, eight or 10 people may be vying. What is most needed is time — and a place — for them to be carefully examined.

Historically, New Hampshire has fulfilled that responsibility. Voters there — in both parties and especially among the numerous independents who also vote in the primary — take their role seriously. They turn up at town meetings and they ask probing questions. So do the interviewers at local papers and broadcast stations. So do high school students.

New Hampshire voters don’t need — or particularly want — guidance from Iowa, and frequently they ignore the Iowa results. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) But they are stuck with Iowa. Now, thanks to the Democrats, they may be stuck with Nevada as well, and crowded from behind by South Carolina.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083002732.html

In short, despite widespread disapproval, the DNC gave SC the early primary, which enabled Congressman Clyburn to unleash the race-baiting campaign for Obama, without which contrived slings and arrows the nominee wannabe arguably would not have been able to steal the D Presidential nomination.

The Quid Pro Quo

Question:  Assuming Mr. Clyburn’s race-baiting campaign would launch Obama into the WH, had Obama promised Mr. Clyburn something in return?

Answer:  Yes; the appointment of his daughter, Mignon, to a coveted seat on the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).

Why the FCC?  Well, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), current Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation said during hearings to consider recommending Ms. Clyburn’s appointment to the “consent” of the full Senate, “[The FCC] is one of the 2 or 3 most important agencies in all of government…  The FCC has this enormous wide ranging authority, and the question is, will it exercise it, will it expand it, will it not exercise it…” (cite infra)

From the FCC web site:

About the FCC

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC’s jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

And this:

Strategic Goals

Broadband
All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentive to develop and offer such products and services.

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan/

And this.

Broadband

All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentive to develop and offer such products and services.

Description

The term “broadband” refers to advanced communications systems capable of providing high-speed transmission of services such as data, voice, and video over the Internet and other networks. Transmission is provided by a wide range of technologies, including digital subscriber line and fiber optic cable, coaxial cable, wireless technology, and satellite. Broadband platforms make possible the convergence of voice, video, and data services onto a single network.

Impact

Broadband technology is a key driver of economic growth. The ability to share large amounts of information at ever-greater speeds increases productivity, facilitates commerce, and drives innovation. Broadband is changing how we communicate with each other, how and where we work, how we educate our children, and how we entertain ourselves. Broadband is particularly critical in rural areas, where advanced communications can shrink the distances that isolate remote communities.

Objectives

Congress recognized the importance of broadband in Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which directs the FCC to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.” The Commission’s goals are to:

  • Broaden the deployment of broadband technologies
  • Define broadband to include any platform capable of transmitting high-bandwidth intensive services
  • Ensure harmonized regulatory treatment of competing broadband services
  • Encourage and facilitate an environment that stimulates investment and innovation in broadband technologies and services.

http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/

In short, the FCC carries out its statutory authority by issuing rules and regulations that determine to what extent it will permit for profit businesses like Verizon Communications, Comcast Corp., and Time Warner Cable, among the top 20 individual contributors to Bridge PAC, Mr. Clyburn’s personal slush fund, or the telecommunication companies aggregating more than $100,000 into his pocket to convert public access to the internet both directly and via mobile phone technology into a pay-for-play scheme prohibitively expensive for optimum use by  the average American.

Five FCC Commissioners direct the buying and selling of communal air space.  Again, from the FCC site:

Organization

The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/

So, what made Obama decide that Jim Clyburn’s daughter, Mignon, was the logical best choice for one of these 5 prized positions on the Commission?  Well, let’s examine her qualifications.  She had only a BS (from one of the undergraduate schools her father lists as his alma mater); a stint as the Publisher of the Coastal Times (what one SC native describes in an email to me, was a flyer distributed to local churches all evidence of which operation ceased to exist when Mignon ceased ‘publishing’); and 11 (eleven) years on the SC Public Service Commission representing the Sixth Congressional District.  http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Mignon_L._Clyburn Of course, since she only ran for a seat on the Commission in the Sixth District, the same District created majority minority that gave its first House seat to her father, Jim; it is impossible to determine how she would have fared on her own.  Yet in 2008, immediately after the November general election, Obama publicly proposed Mignon could be not just an FCC Commissioner but the new Chair of the FCC!  http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064190689&ShowArticle_ID=11011211084177219 and http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc2008119_650156.htm

Well, as with any appointment from the Executive Branch, Ms. Clyburn would have to win the “consent” of the Legislative Branch.  This would require that she survive scrutiny by the Senate Commerce Committee before facing a full Senate vote.  Surely, the Committee would insist notwithstanding her pedigree she was otherwise qualified for this position, especially considering the enormous influence Commission decisions exert on the public conversation, literally, through the products and services of its regulated industries. http://www.govtrack.us/blog/2009/07/30/markup-review-senate-committee-on-commerce-science-and-transportation-july-21st/

Here is the video of the Commerce Committee hearings on Ms. Clyburn’s confirmation.   (This does not embed.  http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/287731-1) As you will see, both the D nominee, Ms. Clyburn; and the R nominee, Meredith Atwell Baker, face confirmation together at this hearing, even seated at the table next to each other, to answer questions.

Here are the ‘credentials of Ms. Baker, then Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications & Information Administration (“NTIA”), taken from the NTIA web site.

Ms. Baker earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Washington & Lee University in 1990 and a law degree from the University of Houston in 1994.  She is a member of the Texas State Bar.

Before joining NTIA, Ms. Baker was Vice President at the firm of Williams Mullen Strategies where she focused on telecommunications, intellectual property, and international trade issues.  Earlier, she held the position as Senior Counsel to Covad Communications from 2000 to 2002, and Director of Congressional Affairs at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) from 1998 to 2000.  Ms. Baker worked at the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit in Houston and later at the law firm of DeLange and Hudspeth, L.L.P.  From 1990 to 1992, she worked in the Legislative Affairs Office of the U.S. Department of State in Washington.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/bios/baker.html

In his opening statement, Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) calls the FCC a “broken agency,”  which has failed to facilitate consumer access to burgeoning communication technology.

Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson (R-TX), the ranking member on the Committee, informs the Committee she met with Ms. Clyburn in her office.  (This begins at around the 9-minute mark.) She describes this nominee has “vast experience” with a “background in print media.  That provides an important perspective to understand the difficulties faced by newspapers and other media outlets in these very difficult economic times.  She also has an impressive public service background which I am hopeful will help guide her through the many important media issues at the FCC.”  She concludes her introduction by telling the Chair she looks forward to confirming Ms. Clyburn “on an expeditious basis.”  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says Ms. Clyburn’s years on the SC Public Service Commission will mean, issues facing her on the FCC will be “nothing new.”  He concludes, “This fine young lady is the right person at the right time for this most important job.  And she is well qualified and I hope she gets confirmed unanimously.” Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) mentions Ms. Clyburn’s experience in “small business.”   (Is he referring to the ‘newsletter’?) He is also impressed with her public service, which demonstrates her “servant heart.”

(For a prototypical exchange between questioners and nominee Clyburn, see 50:56-55:36.)

Okay, both D’s and R’s on the Committee signal Clyburn’s confirmation is a fait accompli.  But is this because of her “vast experience in print media” and her “servant heart” for public service?  Or is this because Baker (R), will not get confirmed without Clyburn (D)?

Word of Ms. Clyburn’s nomination made some people on the political ‘left’ who were concerned with ‘net neutrality’ uneasy.

Is President Obama Putting Net Neutrality At Risk? by Chris Bower

The reason Mignon Clyburn is such a worrying pick is that she is the daughter of South Carolina Representative James Clyburn, who has an anti-Net Neutrality record:

In 2006, Representative Clyburn voted against H. Amdt. 987 to ensure that network neutrality clauses be added to the Title VII of the Communication Act of 1934. The amendment required all broadband service provides to “operate its broadband network in a nondiscriminatory manner so that any person can offer or provide content, applications, and services through, or over, such broadband network with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of a charge for such nondiscriminatory network operation.”

While Mignon might not have the same views as her father, what we do know about her ranges from unclear to unpromising:

Here’s what we do know.  Clyburn serves on the South Carolina public service commission (which is considered very pro-Bell).  She is virtually unknown by knowledgeable telecom people.  And, she seems to have focused more on energy issues than telecom, if early accounts are to be believed.  Plus, Verizon and the cable trade association are very happy.  All in all, not good.

And check out this creepy comment that appeared below the Washington Post story on Clyburn’s appointment:

At Sprint Nextel, we believe that Mignon Clyburn would bring experience, deep policy understanding and the perspective of a state utility commissioner to the FCC. We have worked with her in South Carolina where she has served on that state’s Public Service Commission and we look forward to working with her again on any number of issues including restoring competition to the failed special access markets that are stifling broadband deployment in our country.

Feel reassured about the new deciding FCC vote on net neutrality and open media yet? This is a dangerous and risky appointment by President Obama that will need extensive clarification in the coming days and weeks leading up to her confirmation hearing. It seems possible that more information will be revealed that will demand a withdrawal of the appointment.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-President-Obama-Putting-by-Chris-Bowers-090504-67.html

Talking Points Memo warned back in May 2009, “Mignon Clyburn Will Kill Net Neutrality.”

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rutabaga_ridgepole/2009/05/mignon-clyburn-will-kill-net-n.php

Senate Commerce Committee members unanimously recommended the full Senate should approve Obama’s pick for the FCC.

One month later, in August 2009, Obama appoints Mark Lloyd as the FCC’s Diversity Adviser.

When asked about Mr. Lloyd’s appointment to the FCC given his past pronouncements on the need to restrict certain political speech on the airwaves, Commissioner Clyburn claims she has heard no such concerns raised about the “gentlemanly” czar.

In January 2010, Commissioner Clyburn attends the Consumer Electronics Show, evidently trying to get up to speed on the technology she regulates.

On September 2, 2010, the FCC announced it would postpone any final decisions on regulating ‘net neutrality’ until after the November mid-term elections. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/FCC-Net-Neutrality-Decision-Is-Delayed-Possibly-Until-November-836417/ The Richmond Tea Party describes this November meeting could be “the day the government seizes control of the internet.”  http://www.richmondteaparty.com/2010/10/november-30th-could-be-the-day-the-government-seizes-control-of-the-internet/

On September 20, 2010, Commissioner Clyburn hired her father’s senior counsel, Dave Grimaldi, as her Chief of Staff and media legal adviser.   Working for Daddy Clyburn, Mr. Grimaldi specialized in technology, telecommunications, foreign affairs and financial regulation. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/personnel-notes/119783-fccs-clyburn-announces-new-chief-of-staff

Conclusion and Recommendations

In the FCC as with so many governmental agencies, it would appear, you are likely to get exactly what you pay for.

Constituents of the Senators on the Commerce Committee holding Ms. Clyburn’s confirmation hearings should submit FOIA requests for these written materials that are presumably part of the record, as these were the stated basis to support her bid for the seat on the FCC:  college transcripts and copies of the Coastal Times. If either of these documents does not exist then, the Senators who recommended her confirmation to their colleagues in the full Senate notwithstanding no documentary evidence exists she is competent for the job, have demonstrated their incompetence for the jobs to which they were elected, too.

About these ads

12 Responses to COMMUNICATING CLYBURN’S QUID PRO QUO for CAPTURING SOUTH CAROLINA’S PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY for OBAMA

  1. Michelle says:

    So much corruption in one article, so cold blooded and plotted over months and years. Sickening,
    but the part that made me sickest of all, never did I think that the Civil Rights Movement under the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., would be corrupted in the ways that it has, very sad and shocking day for all of us who were involved in the movement starting from when we were kids trying to do the right thing by our Constitutional Republic and our fellow Americans. We will end the corruption in the Civil Rights movement also. “In God we Trust” to send us enough disinfectant to clean up our country especially our government once and for all.

    Michelle: Your opening line says it all: “So much corruption in one article…” I hardly knew where to concentrate or, once I ‘outed’ the quid pro quo, where to stop. Nothing this man (Obama or Clyburn) touches can be anything but corrupt. But neither man would command any power but for countless enablers, among which must be counted, us voters. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Could you please post this link over at HillBuzz? (As you know, they stopped posting my comments. See my response to Bob Strauss on the previous article on Allen West.) So far, they have only posted rumors of corruption in SC, notwithstanding several of my articles detail numerous examples of fraudulent conduct in the Palmetto State.

  2. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I will post at Hillbuzz immediately, I posted at Breitbart.tv under the Sarah corruption media story (Patton5) and Defend our Freedoms repubx, I’m sure Mia will pick it up.

    Michelle: Know what’s really sad? During the 2008 election cycle, several people I encountered responded to my conversational ‘exposes’ on Obama with choruses of, ‘Well, if what you are saying about Obama is true then, we would be reading about this in the newspaper.’ What they hadn’t counted on is that, the press has other vested interests than informing the public. Numerous post mortem analyses (and admissions) have born out the fact, at least throughout the campaign, the MSM was ‘in the tank’ for Obama. Now, as more and more web sites stop posting my comments – this one is angry I discredited one of her favorite writers; that one seeks to maintain peace by cutting me loose after complaints that I was rude and threatening, from readers whose comments to me on the blog include “fuck you”; “screw you”; “you are full of shit”; and “[y]ou’re so low, so base, so craven…”; etc. – people might wrongly conclude, the detailed analysis I provide of the fraud in our electoral system is untrue. Thus, these voters will be less well armed to combat such fraud prospectively. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Michelle says:

    I think people in error always counted on the Fourth Estate to be honest, report the facts honestly-it begs the questions re: media. Complicit, corrupt, paid off, stupid? Sure it hurts to find out someone you respected, admired has human frailties-but they can redeem themselves (the time is short) and report the truth-which will come out anyway to their detriment. The reason why is so much material has been published in so many places-no one can control that much information, people, situations, events and more. Worse the more they try to hide, the more they reveal even if by accident, and I’m not even counting the foreign press-who has no vested interest-usually.

    Michelle: Yes, of course, the truth always ‘outs.’ But countless innocent victims of the lies clutter the path to that truth, over years sometimes adding up to centuries…

    I said during the campaign, before the DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention, the key to stealing the nomination for Obama would be the votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states. Other people focused on the super delegates; but as I pointed out in my COUP series, none of these pledged delegates actually had to vote, on record, at the convention, for either candidate. That is, in the end, Obama took the nomination based on pledged delegate votes alone. Given that he was at best even with Clinton in the pledged delegate count going into the convention, that was some coup, huh.

    In the summer of 2008, when I first predicted the Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states were the key to the fraud leading up to the convention, I had little direct evidence. But when I wrote the COUP series two years later, I had all of the evidence necessary to make my case. So, people could learn a lot just from digesting that one expose… ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Peggy Sue says:

    Another good one, jbjd. Is there anything or anyone “not” corrupted these days? Honestly, everywhere you turn, the corruption and double-dealing seems the norm rather than the exception. This isn’t simply a Dem or Republican problem. It’s systemic.

    Depressing.

    Will cross-post. Thanks for the on-going research.

    Peggy Sue: You are welcome. As for corruption, well, sometimes things give the appearance of corruption when in fact, they are not. But this one is so blatant… Chair of the FCC? With maybe a bachelor’s degree (?) and no background in telecoms? IN NOVEMBER 2008, AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION? How come we knew about Obama’s general choices for, say, state, the people who were advising his campaign, like Samantha Power and Susan Rice? Mignon Clyburn was not advising Obama on FCC issues because… well, you finish the sentence. But as soon as he won the election, he owed Jim Clyburn… So her name immediately came up.

    Now, ask yourselves, why did he have to wait until May 2009 to actually make the nomination? What kind of brouhaha followed his initial foray into naming her the Chair? What wheeling and dealing smoothed the way for her seat on the Commission?

    Whatever the details, this is a bad move that portends more trouble for the average American… unless we continue to expose this fraud. Thank you for helping to spread the word.ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Michelle says:

    jbjd-
    I was thinking something really crazy that last couple of days. WE THE PEOPLE always think of the parties as Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc.
    I was starting to wonder how many names is the party formerly known as Democrat operating under-with the word Democrat in it. Until I read your articles I never knew that there was more than one. I wonder how many there are all together and are Republicans doing the same creativity with names (brand)??
    For example in Chicago you have the Mob-other names would be La Cosa Nostra, Murder Incorporated, the Syndicate, The Mob Boys, The Mob Guys, Syndicate Cities (meaning most of the town is corrupt) Stone Park, Rosemont, and a few others that I forget-then there is the classic Italian Mob, the Greek Mob, and the Russian Mob-but everyone knows it means the Mob that is corruption, vice, murder, drugs and all of their other fun stuff. Now it’s hard to tell the difference between the Mob people and Obama’s cesspool of corruption Cook County Chicago’s South Side. Tactics and corruption are the same. Hope this group ends up in the same jail as the Mobsters they hypocritically locked up, not only would it be justice it would be poetic justice.

    Michelle: OMG, what a brilliant observation! That’s right; one group with the word “Democrat” in it to collect money to run the national Presidential nominating convention. One group with the word “Democrat” in it to collect money to influence Congressional voting. One group with the word “Democrat” in it to collect money to sponsor candidates running for state office. Now, I have to write another article defining all of these D groups! GEESH! (she exclaimed with genuine fondness.) ADMINISTRATOR

  6. jbjd says:

    I briefly cross-posted my articles on NoQuarter. Here is a comment that appeared on that blog in response to ONLY CLYBURN’S PALMS GETTING GREASED in the PALMETTO SIXTH.

    azgo
    jbjd, who knows, maybe this is where Clyburn’s earmark money went as nobody seems to know where the all that money ended up!

    “JAMES E. CLYBURN GOLF CENTER

    What is the center? The 11-acre golf center, at 2091 Slighs Ave., was built in 2002 at a cost of $400,000 and serves an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 players each year, 75 percent of them juniors. Clyburn, the U.S. House ma-jority whip and an avid golfer, had the original idea for the center and helped obtain money to build it.”

    http://www.scsu.edu/news_article.aspx?news_id=377
    Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 1:26:09 PM

    jbjd
    azgo, your guess as to where Mr. Clyburn “obtain[ed]” his money is as good anyone’s! What would be interesting is, checking state allocations to the University (which, after all, is partly funded by the state legislature). I doubt anyone could get documents from the University; they are not even cooperating with the state audit!
    Tuesd

    ay, September 28, 2010, 1:48:46 PM

  7. confloyd says:

    jbjd, Have you ever posted at Hillaryis44? It is a wonderful site full of honest to goodness Hillary supporters. I have posted several times for them to check out your blog as well as Taylor Marsh’s. I also want to thankyou again for all your hard work!

    confloyd: You are welcome.

    I have not posted at Hillaryis44. But I sometimes posted at Taylor Marsh, before she supported Obama. Thank you for spreading the word about this blog. If I had the wherewithall, I would update the site and add bells and whistles. For now, the work must speak for itself. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. FranSC says:

    Very informative, jbjd! This is election night and, yes, Clyburn wins again in SC. Just makes me sick – he still controls those AA votes and only God knows where he gets the other votes.

    Hopefully with the redistricting that will take place with this new republican majority, this will be Clyburn’s last election win!! It is insane that the 6th congressional district covers most of the state of SC. Only a racist demagogue like Clyburn could pull off drawing his own district lines while looking like a sincere leader or even savior of his chosen people. I hope someone will stand up to him and say, “No, Rep Clyburn. This is unfair regardless of your arguments for a district with mostly AAs.”

    FranSC: Yeah, I know; historically, Clyburn was not able to pull off a statewide election, twice, or an earlier run at a state legislative seat, in a mixed district. http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/James_E._Clyburn I can only hope that in the next two years, any comers to the post he now holds will go door to door in the “Corridor of Shame” to inform his poor constituents, every dollar in pork he brings home to the district pales in contrast to the millions he keeps for himself and his family. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I just found this at Texasdarlin, you may want to check this for accuracy etc.

    http://www.tominpaine.blogspot.com/

    Pelosi and the DNC got what they deserved, the country didn’t
    In 2008 Nancy Pelosi helped to corrupt the Democratic primary process along with other higher ups in the DNC by forcing Barrack Obama down the throats of the majority of Democrats who voted against him as the Democratic presidential candidate.
    (more)

    Michelle: Thanks for sending this to me. There were so many inaccuracies in TominPaine’s piece; and no links. td called the artice “excellent”; here was my response to her.

    td, that article contains numerous factual errors and misrepresentations about both the DNC Rules and state laws, which have been previously fleshed out in several articles on my blog. I will briefly touch upon the major inaccuracies, although I certainly encourage readers to read these articles and to follow the several links provided, which in turn lead to original sources, including sections of the DNC Call and state law citations.

    1. Under DNC Rules, pledged delegates are never required to honor their pledges to vote for the candidate voters elected them to represent, on the first round of voting at the Presidential Nominating Convention. The DNC Call to the Convention only requires pledged delegates to use their “good conscience.” On the other hand, the laws in 13 (thirteen) states do require pledged delegates to follow their candidate into the Convention. NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (2 of 2); and A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); (2 of 3); and (3 of 3).

    2. As these videos attest, Attorney Allred not only had no prior knowledge CA was a vote binding state but also did not protest the DNC’s pressure on Clinton pledged delegates to switch to Obama on the first round based on DNC rules but rather, on the basis that CA is a vote binding state. And she obtained that knowledge from flyers summarizing my work on vote binding states which were included in packets distributed to the delegates by volunteers at the Convention. Id.

    ADMINISTRATOR

  10. confloyd says:

    jbjd, I was wondering now how you feel about Clyburn running for minority whip and do you really think Obama wants Pelosi out? I know its off subject, but your analysis is always so spot on, I’d like to get your take. Thanks

    confloyd: No problem; no question is off topic. In my opinion, Obama, for all of his intellectual shortcomings, realizes, without Pelosi to run interference against the rumored Republican onslaught of inquiries into his Constitutional eligibility for office, the election fraud they both committed to get his name on state election ballots will be exposed and subject each of them (and several others) to criminal charges. She has a vested interest in maintaining power for this reason alone. As for Clyburn, he will not become minority whip. His financial shenanigans are too close to bringing him down; the D’s cannot endure one more criminal in their midst. (I like to think my recent exposes have had a hand in his long overdue downfall.) ADMINISTRATOR

  11. confloyd says:

    Isn’t it funny now that Clyburn has backed off? So I guess Hoyer will kept his job with no threat from Clyburn….you right again!

    confloyd: I haven’t read the news yet this morning… interesting, huh. I will look forward to discerning the real reason he backed off his quest for the leadership position. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. (morning of November 13) HA HA HA HA HA! Just read, Hoyer is tops (after Pelosi); Clyburn is in “as-yet-still-undefined number three position.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45071.html

  12. [...] Clyburn once again proves, in relation to his daughter, Mignon, a Commissioner on the FCC; that acorn could only have fallen from this tree. If we are to believe his claims of being a [...]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: