MICHELLE GOLDBERG HAMMERS ANOTHER NAIL in the MSM COFFIN

© 2011 jbjd

Granted, Michelle Goldberg has her own web site; has written a couple of books which, according to her, were well researched and appear to be selling well (id.); and writes a column for the Daily Beast. But assuming she means what she says in her recent diatribe, “Why Birthers Won’t Die,” that is, taking on face value that she is not writing just for provocation or brainwashing then, I cannot emphasize enough: when it comes to issues related to establishing Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, Ms. Goldberg has demonstrated she has absolutely no idea what she is talking about.

It’s not just the fact she repeats the fallacy, the hard copy of the electronic image President Obama calls a birth certificate and recently ‘released’ to the press, is actually a long form birth certificate, that makes any information coming from her suspect.  (I will write another article focusing on the lunacy of anyone’s continued bona fide belief, photocopying any electronic image adds to its authenticity.) Obama’s Director of Communications, Daniel Pfeiffer, posted this image on the WhiteHouse.gov blog. Ms. Goldberg even links her readers to that image effectively reasserting its authenticity.  But Pfeiffer’s job is to shape the President’s message and not to communicate news, which is the job of the Press Secretary (notwithstanding Robert Gibbs, Director of Communication of Obama’s Presidential campaign and former Press Secretary for President Obama often conflated those 2 positions).  Unlike Ms. Goldberg, Mr. Pfeiffer was doing a good job, by shaping the message.

Or that, she uses Mr. Corsi’s refusal to buy into this lie (that a bona fide birth certificate has been released) as a weapon against his motives and intellect.  In spades.

Much of Where’s the Birth Certificate? rehashes old, debunked stories meant to cast doubt on Obama’s birth in Hawaii. But the book also claims that even if Obama was born in the United States, he still might not be a “natural-born citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship, which would make him ineligible for the presidency. To make this argument, Corsi dredges up a constitutional theory popular in white supremacist and anti-immigrant circles, making an invidious distinction between those granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment and those who were citizens under the Constitution as originally written.

What?  Only those identified with “white supremacist and anti-immigrant circles” espouse that a bona fide difference exists between the terms “natural born citizen” in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution; and the term “citizen” as used in the 14th Amendment?  (Of course, I reject claims by Corsi or anyone else that citizens of non-citizen parents are not natural born citizens; and this only makes sense, since I maintain that no ‘legal’ definition of NBC exists absent a ruling by a federal appellate court, in a case on point.)

Worse, adding insult to injury, Ms. Goldberg justifies her political stereotyping using flawed reasoning, thereby additionally exposing her Constitutional  ignorance.

But Corsi’s ideas about the 14th Amendment, if taken seriously, wouldn’t just affect the children of immigrants—they could disqualify all black people from the presidency. “Obama defenders who want to define him as a natural-born citizen because he is native-born and a citizen under the 14th Amendment are engaged in an effort to redefine Article 2, Section 1, away from its original natural law meaning,” Corsi writes. The original meaning, of course, did not encompass black people. That’s why we needed the 14th Amendment in the first place.

Let me point to the absurdity of just one segment of this drivel:  Ms. Goldberg’s mistaken focus on Corsi’s phrase, “effort to redefine Article 2, Section 1, away from its original natural law meaning,” to mean that, Mr. Corsi rejects Obama’s Presidency based on his race.  She reasons, it is this focus on race which motivates Corsi to object to any attempt to steer the conversation toward 14th Amendment inclusion of blacks as eligible to become President, and away from the original intent, which clearly excluded blacks. But whether he is racist; she doesn’t know her Constitution and, based on her ignorance, obviously misconstrued the ‘plain meaning’ of Corsi’s words.

The phrase “natural born citizen” is listed in Article II, section 1, as a condition of Presidential eligibility.  And, the word “citizen” is listed in Article I, sections 2 and 3, as the eligibility requirements for Representative and Senator, respectively, put there almost 100 years before the 14th Amendment.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

Get it?  The Drafters used the word “citizen” in 2 (two) different contexts of eligibility for office, one to be President; and the other to be a member of Congress. (Technically, the wording for President applies to eligibility; whereas the term for Congress applies to actual holding of the position.  This makes sense since members of Congress are elected directly – perhaps the Drafters did not trust the average citizen to choose the right person for the job – whereas Presidents are chosen by Electors who, it would appear safe to predict at the time, could not be anticipated to elect a President they were not certain was eligible for the job .) Since the Drafters used these 2 (two) different phrases, the tenets of statutory construction require that, we must assume, therefore, the Drafters meant 2 (two) different things.  “When Congress includes a specific term in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it should not be implied where it is excluded.” Arizona Elec. Power Co-op. v. United States, 816 F.2d 1366, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987); see also West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Arcata Community Recycling Ctr., 846 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 856 (1988). http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s104.htm

See, contrary to Ms. Goldberg’s wishful projection; Corsi wasn’t at all waxing nostalgic, harkening back with longing to a time in our history when no blacks were counted as citizens and thus, could not be elected President (or Representative or Senator).  Rather, his use of the phrase “original natural law meaning” referenced the requirement of eligibility for President in Article II – natural born citizen – as opposed to, say, the original requirement in Article I for holding the office of U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator – citizen – which excludes the modifier, natural born.  Both of which applications of the term “citizen” he undoubtedly would agree should presently be read to include all citizens now Constitutionally defined as such, through the 14th Amendment.  Even those whose skin color is black.

In other words, even assuming a preference for color; Corsi just wants people to stop conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen.” Get it?

But that excerpt points to my biggest objections to Ms. Goldberg’s hit piece on Mr. Corsi: her disingenuous diatribe against the man for what she paints as a racially motivated focus on the 14th Amendment. Those of you who have dissected the information on this blog probably already ‘get’ that she reverses cause versus effect. In fact, the eligibility argument only arose because Obama raised it by calling himself a “native” citizen and not “natural born.”  Indeed, he set up this false dichotomy, way back in 2007, when he – or perhaps more accurately, his campaign’s Director of Communications, Robert Gibbs – wrote “Fight the Smears,” the propaganda piece I have argued they would never have made public had he stolen the D nomination before the D Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  And in that same electronic advertising campaign, he posted the red herring argument about the 14th Amendment, couching it in racial terms, perhaps to misdirect the attention of astute citizens who otherwise might have noticed, he had conflated the 2 (two) Constitutional terms; and suspected a likely reason to be, he was trying to mask his ineligibility.

Want to see the evidence that supports my hypothesis, Ms. Goldberg?  IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO; or  TOO IGNORANT TO LEAD Of course, I am only a blogger.  (Then again, so was Dan Pfeiffer, in the context of posting that electronic image of the ‘document’ entitled, “Certificate of Live Birth” on the White House blog.)

Granted, maybe I am holding Ms. Goldberg to too high a journalistic standard.  After all, in the context of writing for the DB; she wears the hat of “columnist,” arguably absolving her from the profession’s constraints of both accurate and impartial reporting.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I am reporting that, evidently, Mr. Corsi’s book endorsed the work originating here on “jbjd” focused on filing citizen complaints of election fraud with state A’sG in those states with existing laws requiring candidate eligibility for office in order to access the ballot.  However, I have not read his book.)

About these ads

17 Responses to MICHELLE GOLDBERG HAMMERS ANOTHER NAIL in the MSM COFFIN

  1. bob strauss says:

    Great article, I will spread to CW, the people deserve to know the truth.

    bob strauss: Thank you. (I always await with trepidation that first comment from “jbjd” ‘regulars,’ my ‘touchstone’ on whether this makes sense.) ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Pete says:

    jbjd,
    I have followed this for years, but you said something unique, profound, and very easy to overlook. Let me paraphrase.

    ‘The President isn’t elected by the people.’

    The decision upon whom is POTUS is based upon electors from states. Since this process is different, and the position is the head of 1/3 of the government, there had to be a check and balance system. The founding fathers placed a unique restriction, NBC, as described by Vattel, that was more than citizenship. The President has to be born under jurisdiction and of Citizen parents.

    Now, you have to consider the implications of what you just said and said before! We have an illegal POTUS and Vice-Potus, and (name withheld by jbjd). We have a corrupt electorial system, caused by voter fraud. We have a corrupt congress, whom refused to enforce the Constitution requirement (and yes they are charged with it). We have corrupt Supreme Court and judicial system whom has turned a blind eye.

    This amounts to an autonomous federal government that no longer requires ‘We the People’. Obama and company are taking money from the people to enrich corporations and bankers, wage foriegn wars for others interests, and kick back contributions for media control and re-elections. Fascism has arrived, and the working americans have become slaves.

    Obama’s eligibility was the canary dying in the coal mine. I’m glad you noticed.

    Pete: I printed your comment notwithstanding it contains grossly inaccurate claims as to my position, evidencing the fact, you have not read my blog. (Do any of you regulars not yet know my position on this?) However, obviously, I deleted offensive language. Next time, less hyperbole and more fact-based rant, please.

    1. No legal definition of NBC exists until the federal appellate court sings. No legal definition of NBC exists until the federal appellate court sings. No legal definition of NBC exists until the federal appellate court sings.
    2. We wrote state election laws allowing Electors to elect someone ineligible to be POTUS. We wrote the laws requiring Electors to vote for the nominee of the party. We are the ‘they’ you called names.
    3. President Obama is the lawfully elected President, notwithstanding he may not be Constitutionally eligible for the job. Again, this sentiment is posted throughout this blog.(Hiring a high-school dropout for a job requiring a Ph.D. means, the hiring authority was willing to hire an ineligible employee. If the hiring authority failed to vet the candidate for scholastic eligibility then, this does mean, s/he was not hired, anyway.)
    4. Read DEFINITION on DEMAND. Then, please, stop shoving Vattel in my face. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. creeper says:

    jbjd, my apologies for posting this here. I could not find an e-mail address for you and wanted to thank you for your comments re: Barton and Wallbuilders on another blog. Greatly appreciated.

    creeper: No problem. We shout less over hear, sacrificing no passion or accuracy along the way. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Ed Sunderland says:

    Virtually “all” of the media are intellectually lazy about Obama, his past, forged and fraudulent records, and are clueless when it comes to his clear lies. I really think they are enamored at the prospect of a socialist in office.

    The media is like the teenage “malcontent” that rebels at anything even though there is no rational reason.

    I get angry at the lack of concern by elected officials to do even a cursory investigation. Written requests and phone calls are useless when the “leadership” is not interested in looking into the matter. Now they say the issue is “political” and don’t want to do anything.

    Your article was right on about Goldberg and MSM is in my insignificant.

    Ed Sunderland: Hello, again! Know what I think is funny? So many members of the media, having conflated Longfellow’s poem with actual history, assumed Sarah Palin ‘got it wrong’ about Paul Revere, even without checking! Then, they found out, she was right. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef01538f075243970b I wonder whether any of these media outlets who now realize they improperly assumed, she was wrong; might be willing to give their assumptions about Obama’s eligibility for POTUS, a second look… ADMINISTRATOR

  5. north las vegas says:

    Heavy reading. Informative to this layman.
    (btw the link to DEFINITION on DEMAND is incorrect )
    Takes the emotional wind out of the “not an NBC argument” sails (drat)..
    I use your blog as a reality-check, i.e., what should be done that can be done.

    north las vegas: Welcome! And thank you so much for the heads up about the bad link; all fixed. When you say, “Takes the emotional wind out of the “not an NBC argument,” to which part of the post were you referring? As for “what should be done that can be done,” well, as you alluded, I am only trying my best to ‘keep it real.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  6. kj says:

    jbjd,

    Is there anything in the Constitution preventing a black person from becoming president in 1792? It would be doubtful that a black person would have been elected to that office before the Civil War in spite of the presence of free blacks in the United States and black citizens. Surely there were also free black natural born citizens in the most restrictive sense of born on the soil to citizen parents. Didn’t citizen free black men always legally have the same rights as other citizens including the right of suffrage?

    The 14th amendment was written to assure former slaves that they were citizens also. (Obama’s appeal to citizenship under the 14th amendment is a reference to black liberation from slavery.) Of course the social attitudes needed to accept blacks as equals have been slower coming than the associated legal framework.

    Whatever your answer to my comments above, any effort to tie ‘birthers’ to racism is simply racist. As Mark Steyn said: Yes I’m racist. Obama’s black side is okay. I don’t like his white side…

    kj: Nothing in the Constitution prohibits anyone who is elected by Electors, from becoming President. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. bob strauss says:

    kj: Nothing in the Constitution prohibits anyone who is elected by Electors, from becoming President. ADMINISTRATOR
    *************************
    What if those electors were fooled into believing the person they voted for was eligible to hold office when he really wasn’t? What can be done to right this wrong?

    bob strauss: There is no law against stupidity. As for lawsuits, well, I suppose, an Elector who felt wronged could go after the party/club for fronting an ineligible candidate. But, of course, the Electors are chosen by the club precisely because of their established fealty. Again, no law in any state requires Electors to elect only a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job. So, popular voters have no grounds either legally or civilly to go after Electors just for electing an ineligible President. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, have you seen this? Maybe there is hope after all.

    Supreme Court decision Bond v. United States, June 16, 2011, Tenth Amendment, Standing, Eligibility cases
    Posted on June 21, 2011 by citizenwells| Leave a comment

    Supreme Court decision Bond v. United States, June 16, 2011, Tenth Amendment, Standing, Eligibility cases

    “Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

    bob strauss: “Hope after all” for what? Link? Holding? ADMINISTRATOR

    • bob strauss says:

      sorry I gave no link, I saw your comment at CW, so all is well, you found it.

      bob strauss: That’s okay. I have been completely caught up in a personal project involving whistle blowing against the state. In the meantime, while I have been responding to comments on this blog, I have posted only sporadically elsewhere. Thankfully, your comments here have sent me to CW, where I was able to clarify a couple of common misconceptions about the law and, legal procedure! ADMINISTRATOR

  9. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, another post from Leo Donofrio.

    US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.
    Posted in Uncategorized on June 21, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

    The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

    Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”. read more.

    naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

    bob strauss: I wish I had really read your comment before clicking on the link. Because, while I still would have checked out the material you provided, since you provided it; before looking, considering the source, I would have discounted its value to the overall eligibility debate. Notwithstanding my opinion of his legal acumen; simply put, no legal gambit attempted in court by this practitioner in relation to the issues of Constitutional eligibility for POTUS; has been upheld by that court, or on appeal.

    Besides, the issue of Constitutional eligibility for POTUS cannot be resolved with respect to any particular candidate absent an actual ruling by the court on such definition, whether that ruling is ultimately supported by the court with reference to dicta or law review articles (another favorite non-binding source of authority often cited to support the ‘legal’ theories of this same practitioner).

    And, you (and so many others) keep forgetting. The Constitution only says who is eligible to be President. It does not preclude Electors from choosing the ineligible candidate. (On the other hand, as I have pointed out in this article, under that same Constitution, U.S. Senators and Representatives “shall” have satisfied qualifications, to serve!) ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Al says:

    Hi jbjd…please use this comment in your forum–the one with my avatar–thanks–Hope all is well:

    “Another thought-provoking read, jbjd, well done. From the very beginning there seems to have been a concerted effort to lump anyone, and everyone who questions the legitimacy of Mr. Obama into fanatical, irrational zealots akin to racists. Of course, truth be told, there are some who certainly fit this notion. However, it’s reassuring to see within your present thread that you, and a great many others disprove that notion with an ability to use objective and critical thinking.

    Again, hat tip to you for all you’ve done to educate/inform the rest of us, with your unique style of placing an emphasis upon the facts instead of conjecture.”

    Al: Know what still bothers me? I now spend an inordinate amount of time ferreting out the truth when, in the past, I relied on a handful of ‘news’ outlets to print the facts. Know what bothers me more? I used to believe what I read. (I also resent having to micromanage my elected officials, state and federal, at the same time I pay them to do this job!)

    Thank you for your continued visits and ‘atta girl’s.’ School is out for summer (literally); hopefully, I will step up the pace on this blog… ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Al says:

    You raise a valid point about the present state of the MSM, jbjd, and you can bet your last dollar that the old days of genuine investigative-journalism, where the Bob Woodwards and Carl Bernsteins types broke genuine news for public consumption/review is a thing of the past. Today, sadly, the “free press” seems to be choreographed to dance in unison toward a pre-determined outcome. Nevertheless, please don’t let it bother you, it’s just a sign of the times is all. You seem to come from an era/background where truth, hardwork and decency marks the highest standard, so it’s fully understandable why you, and a great many others, take issue as private citizens with using your valuable time to do what honest and hardworking taxpayers are paying others to do (I’m sure the Founding Fathers didn’t envision a society where taxation without representation meant the “representatives” of the people could have their cake and eat it too). Hopefully, whatwith your announcement that “School is out for the Summer (literally)”, that it will be a time of reward and relaxation as you continue to educate/inform those around you.

    To date, jbjd–am drawing upon your sharp legal prowess here, Have you developed any specific language that State representatives around the country may chooose to use in introducing legislation in their respective States to enact/pass candidate eligibility laws?

    Al: I am reading a brilliant 800-page biography of Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury. To say that, the press back then was scandalous is a gross understatement. Unsigned diatribes printed by the owners of the publication was common; and political ‘parties,’ albeit in their infancy, ‘owned’ various publications in the same market, and filled their pages with propaganda worthy of any current rag. No; I am not faulting the caliber of the press but rather, my ignorance and complacency. I take full responsibility for being a lazy citizen. Of course, this does not absolve paid public officials from doing their jobs.

    I have used your comment as the focus of the next post. And, since you asked for more ‘schooling,’ here goes. The correct phrase is, ‘…eat your cake and have it, too.’ See, once you have eaten your cake; you cannot still have it. However, of course, you can both have your cake and then, eat it. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=You+can%27t+have+your+cake+and+eat+it+too ADMINISTRATOR

  12. [...] Here is part of a Comment submitted by long time loyal “jbjd” reader, Al, on the previous post: Submitted on 2011/06/23 at 07:05 [...]

  13. Al says:

    First, It’s enncouraging in this day and age, jbjd, that anyone accepts responsibility for their own actions, so I admire and respect you for finding less fault with the media as much as taken yourself to task for exhibiting some ignorance and complacency, which I’m sure has less to do with the caliber of person that you are than with how trusting you may have been of others to simply do their best in the delivery of their craft/trade.

    Appreciate the clarification and free “schooling” (woohoo, no tuition fee) you shared regarding the correct saying of “eat your cake and have it, too.” Actually learned something new today. Speaking of learning, in respect to your new thread, it wll be interesting to read the wisdom of your other loyalist, who have contributed their fair share of meaningful and worthwhile contributions here over the years.

    What are the lessons of 2008? Where do we go from here? It’ll be interesting to read your thoughts next week when I return. Safe travels.

    Al: I usually choose links with more gravitas than, say, “Urban Dictionary”; but, I like to acquaint people with that site because I have found that, they translate many popular sayings into language ‘older’ people can appreciate, thereby enabling them to get to ‘know’ younger people better. But the literary analogy of ‘cake’ is actually quite old. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    There’s no doubt that someone of your stature/class would usually choose links with more gravitas. Thanks/Hvala for sharing the Urban Dictionary link though. It seems it may be pretty resourceful for a throwback relic like me, who may need to access it from time to time to better understand the promising up and coming generation. When I clicked upon the link to read the correct saying of having one’s cake and eating it too that you provided, there were some other popular sayings that our young folks have “modernized”. Suffice it to say, some of them will leave one blushing if they dare click upon them, so after learning what a “biffy” was I high-tailed it out there as fast as I could.

    Now, onto more serious discussion, specifically about adopting language for enacting state legislation to ensure a candidate’s eligibility to be on the election ballot. I’m going to research the existing legislation of the six states who already have laws on the books over the next 48hrs., and then return to weigh in on your next thread. Have to wonder aloud though if these existing state laws have less to do with a federal election than with state and local elections(of course, I’ll have my answer after reading the respective State material). Meanwhile, Don’t you think the people would be better served if sensitive issues like candidate eligibility were not written with ambiguity and loopholes? One of the expressions I came across in your resourceful Urban Link you shared was ” you can’t be a little bit pregnant, you either are or you aren’t”, so, with that said, jbjd, once again drawing upon your sharp legal prowess here, to your knowledge, Is there a single definitive law covering candidate eligibility on the federal level?

    In fairness to you, my own take upon Mr. Obama was/is he is eligible to hold his present office provided that Hawaii was indeed a State in the Union prior to his birth (it was); and, that his birth Mother was a U.S citizen who directly passed natural born citizenship status upon him. Where, if anywhere, am I incorrect here? Thanks for your time today. Enjoy reading your blog, and respect you for pushing for clean, open and fair elections. Back on Tuesday after conducting some research. Please feel free to use the brilliance the good L-rd gave you to educate me, or as you’ve said so many times before, “sorry to burst your bubble, Al”, and then there’s that proverbial “but” followed by your propensity to share facts and enlighten one in the process. Safe travels.

    Al: Let me try to save you some time. None of the states for which I drafted citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG; has a law that spells out what are the specific requirements to get on the ballot. However, they all have a law limiting ballot access to only those candidates who are qualified for the job. And each complaint cites the law in each state! In order to get the name of the D nominee for President on the ballot; by law, someone in the D party, either state or national, had to inform election officials who was that nominee. In some states with these ballot eligibility laws, like HI and SC, the party had to explicitly write, in words prescribed by law, ‘this candidate is qualified for the job.’ Again, no specific evidence of qualification was required; and, no one was authorized to check, anyway. These complaints allege that the people in the D party who swore Obama is qualified for the job in order to get the state to print the candidate’s name on the ballot; could not have ascertained beforehand he was really qualified, based on any evidence available in the public records. Further, having found no evidence in the public record, citizens of these states asked members of the D party who submitted these statements of candidate eligibility, ‘On what basis did you ascertain such eligibility?’ And they would not tell them.

    Now, a clarification. When you say, ‘federal election,’ you understand, this is a misnomer, right? Because all elections, whether or state or federal office, such as U.S. Senator; are actually state elections. That is, the election is conducted by the state, according to state laws. (Federal laws respecting civil rights, or voting rights, may be implicated but, the election is a tradition state function.)

    As a teacher in the inner city, luckily, I am familiar with the Urban Dictionary. Because the teachers in my son’s school in the ‘burbs, were not. Someday I will post an anecdote about how this awareness of the Urban Dictionary saved my son from being expelled from high school in the 9th grade. (He just graduated!)

    Finally, I have no idea whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job. That is, absent a legally binding definition of the “NB” part of NBC; I cannot say he satisfies the requirements of the “C.” But, I repeat, I believe he was lawfully elected, notwithstanding I have proven the DNC Corporation’s Presidential Nominating Convention was rigged; as I have often pointed out, their game, their rules. And I believe he was lawfully elected even though I believe election fraud was committed to get states with ballot eligibility laws to print his name on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    First, Thank You for your promptness in responding to my comments(hat tip in appreciation). Congratulations to your son on his successful graduation(seems there’s some truth to that old expression “fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree”). Certainly wish him well in his future endeavors.

    Now, back to the business at hand, and thanks/hvala for the heads up on clarifying that where the existing states with candidate eligibility laws already in place require that a perspective candidate be eligible/”qualified for the job”, that there isn’t a law defining “what are the specific requirements to get on the ballot”. Given this revelation, it seems the dynamic of ambiguity and loopholes may reign supreme.

    Thanks for the clarification on the origins of all elections–local, statewide and/or federal–springing from election laws rooted within each respective state, which may or may not imply that any legal challenges to any candidate’s eligibility may have to be brought at the state-level, something you have contended all along (not lawsuits as much as initially asking on what grounds/documentation the respective state’s election authority ascertained a candidate’s eligibility).

    I saw that Mr. Strauss (Bob) has left a comment over on the next thread, so am off to read his thoughts. Thanks again, jbjd, for your promptness. It is appreciated. Wondering aloud how any legislative body can create a law void of any specifics…hmmm

    Al: You are welcome. Your comments make me realize; saying something ‘once’ is not enough. See, I ‘figured’ out this situation a long time ago. As former “jbjd” bog cheerleader Michelle often said, ‘Once you ‘get it,’ it’s so simple!’ She added, sometimes, she had to read an article more than once to ‘get it.’ Have you read, OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES? Michelle and others think this simplifies the ballot eligibility issue, and is a good place to start… ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Al says:

    GOOD Day, jbjd!

    Appreciate the link you shared–“Out of the Mouths of Babes”, and will actually read it, so I may potentially become as astute/of keen discernment as I remember Michelle being. Not promising you a miracle though, but will invest some quality time into reading the material–and thanks/hvala for sharing it, jbjd.

    Had an opportunity to read Mr. Strauss’ sensible comments over on the new thread, and will return tomorrow to post over there as well.

    Al: Sometimes, I forget how much ‘learning’ time is required to get up to speed. Take your time. ADMINISTRATOR

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: