(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4), (3 of 4), and EPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd


The Democratic National Committee Services Corporation, disguised as the DNC, installed Barack Obama into the Office of President of the United States of America by committing massive election fraud that played out uniquely during each of these 3 (three) phases of the 2008 Presidential election cycle in relation to the company’s August 2008 Presidential Nominating Convention: 1) pre-Convention; 2) Convention; and 3) post-Convention. The fraud committed both before and after the Convention has been dissected in several articles previously posted here on the “jbjd” blog.

This  four-part series entitled, “A Coup, Through and Through” analyzes the fraud pulled off at the Convention.

Keep in mind, not all fraud is created equal. While the record establishes the D’s committed fraud throughout the general election cycle, my work has remained focused almost exclusively only on that fraudulent conduct which both 1) violated laws explicitly or implicitly proscribing such conduct; and 2) arguably altered the outcome of the 2008 Presidential (Electors) election.

Part 1: Prologue to Fraud

Before Barack Obama could be installed in the Oval Office, interested parties both within and outside of the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation had to ensure he would win the DNC Presidential nomination so that his name could appear next to the D on the general election ballot.  Because, as I have previously opined, while Electors voting in December may elect anyone they want; I could not imagine they would dare to elect a President whose name hadn’t even appeared on the November ballot. NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (1 of 2) and (2 of 2). (Note:  I recently learned the D’s have been pressing state legislatures to pass the National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”).  If this thing gets through, I believe even a candidate who fails to qualify to get on the ballot in one or more states can still be elected.) (See, HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTED INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK’.)

But given the several problems they knew were inherent to his candidacy, any one of which, if exposed, could prove fatal to his political aspirations, winning the nomination would require that they clinch the nomination as far as possible in advance of the DNC convention. In this way, they could limit the scope of the public examination of the candidate apt to occur in a protracted battle for the nomination.

They were willing to do whatever it took to accumulate enough pledged delegates during the primary and caucus contests to reach the magic number that long before the convention would ensure at that time, he would be handed the nomination. Manufacture chaos at the caucuses and capitalize on the confusion created? Check. Collude with A.C.O.R.N.? Check. Censor critics with charges of racism? Check. Cultivate a compliant press willing to conceal stories unflattering to either the candidate’s character or, their own complicit conduct on the road to his nomination? Check and check.

When the numbers for Hillary Clinton, his toughest competition in the race for the nomination, placed these two in a virtual dead heat with 3 (three) more months until the primary and caucus contests ended and 5 (five) months until the convention, co-opt the free will of the voters by spreading the meme she has already lost the nomination? Check. Co-opt the free will of the candidate by calling her a sore loser if she doesn’t drop out of the race now and throw her support(ers) to him, for the good of the party? Check.

DNC rules provide if voting at the convention fails to support one candidate over the other then, special super delegates will add their votes to the totals to reach the number required for nomination. So they were also furiously pouring money into the PAC’s and war chests of these super delegates, in return for which the candidate received a public pledge of support positively correlated to the superior size of his financial investment.

But even factoring in the votes of those super delegates already expressing support for Obama, with less than 3 (three) months to go before the convention he still had not achieved the superiority in delegates that would secure his nomination. And the delay had taken its costly and anticipated toll.

Despite their best efforts to control the narrative, one of those ‘problems fatal to his political aspirations,’ known as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had leaked out. And from the time the public learned of the long close relationship between the candidate and his avowed “spiritual adviser,” he had already lost more than 10 (ten) points in the polls.

To understand what they did next, you need to know the difference between being designated a Clinton pledged delegate and an Obama pledged delegate.

Attorney Bob Bauer, then counsel to the DNC and now WH Counsel, explains the delegate selection process to the federal court in DiMaio v. DNC, a case not material to the fraud laid out here.

The DNC is the governing body of the Democratic Party of the United States and is responsible for promulgating delegate selection rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention…The nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States is chosen by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention held in each presidential election year. The National Convention is organized and run by an arm of the DNC. The delegates from each state are chosen through a process adopted by the state’s Democratic Party. For each presidential election starting in 1976, the DNC has established formal Delegate Selection Rules to govern the selection, in each state, of its delegates to the National Convention. These rules require each State Democratic Party to develop a written delegate selection plan and to submit that plan to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (“DNC RBC”) for review and approval. The delegate selection process in each state involves two basic functions: (1) the allocation of delegate positions among presidential candidates, i.e., how many delegates from that state will go to the Convention pledged to each candidate; and (2) the selection of the actual individuals to fill those positions, i.e., the selection of the people who will attend the Convention as delegates and alternates. Generally, state parties use either a primary or a caucus/convention system. In a primary system, the state party uses the state-government run or a party-run primary election to allocate delegate positions, and then a party-run meeting (caucus) to fill those positions. In a caucus system, the state party uses a series of party-run meetings — caucuses — both to allocate delegate positions and to select the persons to fill those positions. A caucus/convention system does not involve use of the state’s electoral machinery. Of the 56 states and territories that sent delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, 20 used party run caucus/convention systems.


In short, the numbers of votes a candidate receives in a party primary or caucus contest translates into so many pledged delegates awarded, based on the vote:delegate ratio concocted in advance by the party. When the contest is over, the state party meets to select which party faithful, pledging fealty to one candidate or the other, will fill the slot of pledged delegate for his or her preferred candidate and then cast a vote for that candidate at the national nominating convention.

On May 31, the DNC RBC met to finalize their response to the dilemma presented by FL and MI. Legislatures in both states had moved up their primaries in contradiction to the calendar set by the DNC. As punishment, the DNC indicated it would not seat delegates from either state at the convention. (Accused of “pandering” to Iowa, Obama had pulled his name off the ballot in MI. Clinton did not. She won heavily in both states but, the DNC and their allies in the press not only did not count those pledged delegate numbers in her totals, they did not even credit her with receiving the number of popular votes.) DNC Chairman Howard Dean had said in March, he expected delegates were “eventually going to be seated in Florida and Michigan as soon as we get an agreement between the candidates on how to do that.”  In the meantime, each state party had allocated pledged delegates based on the actual popular vote for the candidates whose names appeared on the ballot, including those delegates who filled the slots represented by the ‘name’ “Uncommitted,” a category that received 40% of the MI vote.

The Committee,  whose members were hand-picked by Chairman Dean, heard from both of the states involved, and from representatives of both of the candidates, and then made their decision.  In FL, where both candidates appeared on the ballot, the Committee awarded delegates in accordance with the popular vote, but gave each delegate only half a vote at the convention. But desperate to bolster Obama’s sagging numbers, his allies on the Committee adopted this solution for MI. First, all delegates would be seated at the convention but with only half a vote each. Second, all votes that had been cast for “Uncommitted” were now deemed to have been cast for Obama; and delegates assigned based on votes cast for “Uncommitted” would be reassigned to delegates loyal to him. Third, 4 (four) of those pledged delegates already assigned to Clinton as the result of votes cast for her; would be taken away and re-gifted to him.

In the eyes of many stalwart Democrats, by second-guessing the voters’ intent in this way, the RBC had abandoned the core principle of “fair reflection” enshrined in the DNC Charter. Harold Ickes, an adviser to the Clinton campaign, pulled no punches. “This motion will hijack, hijack, remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton and most importantly reflect the preferences of 600,000 Michigan voters. This body of 30 individuals has decided that they are going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters.”

On June 3, the primary / caucus season ended.  Clinton suspended but did not end her campaign.

Once upon a time – March 28, 2008, to be exact – Chairman Dean announced to the press he thought it would be “nice” if by “July 1,” all of the  superdelegates weighed in with the name of the candidate they would support, implicitly acknowledging even back then that neither candidate would secure the requisite number of pledged delegates throughout the remainder of the primary / caucus contests  to ensure the August nomination.  Top Democrat wants party contest decided by July 1. But on June 4, the day after the primaries ended and just 5 (five) days after the RBC issued its controversial shuffling of the MI delegate deck to sweeten Obama’s hand, the following headlines appeared in the L.A. Times:  “BREAKING NEWS:  Dean, Pelosi, Reid set Friday deadline for superdelegates’ choices, move to force end to Clinton bid

According to the article, DNC Chairman Dean; Nancy Pelosi, (Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, acting in a civilian capacity as Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention); and Senator Harry Reid jointly issued a “carefully worded statement” which was widely interpreted as “a clear step to force an end to the effort by Clinton,” telling superdelegates to make their candidate choices known “tomorrow.”

Tomorrow? Whatever happened to “by July 1”?  Why this sudden (and rather petulant) rush to memorialize Obama’s coronation?  Probably because those pesky problems with his candidacy were about to derail his political aspirations.

For months now, rumors had been swirling that Obama was not Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a “natural born” citizen, one of three requirements listed in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Then Communications Director Robert Gibbs (now WH Press Secretary) had come up with a seemingly brilliant on-line advertising campaign under the banner, “Fight the Smears,” designed to counter these mounting speculations.  The focal point of the ad campaign was an image of a mock-up “Certification of Live Birth,”  listing Obama’s place of birth as “Hawaii.”  (It was even appropriately redacted so as to give the appearance of protecting the candidate’s privacy.)  Ad copy accompanying the image reassured the public, this proves he is a “native” citizen.  At the bottom of the page, in the footer, appeared the sort of attribution required by the U.S. Code for all political advertising expenditures:  “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.”

Designing a political ad campaign such as “Fight the Smears” ‘to be used only in case of emergency’ was one thing; but actually rolling it out was another.  Because its success gambled on the truth of this one contemptuous statement:  American voters are too stupid to know that there’s a difference between “natural born”  and “native”; and that “Fight the Smears” is nothing more than a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, anyway.  Understandably, the Obama team held back on the nuclear “Fight the Smears” option for as long as it could.

Yet hard as everyone tried, Clinton just would not abandon the nomination. And why should she? Examining the traditional rubrics of success – total number of pledged delegates; popular votes; likelihood to beat the Republican in the general election – the two contenders remained within the ‘margin of error.’ Besides, neither Clinton nor Obama had amassed the requisite number of pledged delegates to wrap up the nomination on the first call of the roll on the floor of the convention.

The Obama campaign launched “Fight the Smears” on June 12.

Up until this point, the ‘dirty tricks’ carried out by operatives tied to the D Corporation to lie and cheat their man’s way into the D nomination were only sinister and underhanded.  But, with the exception of the allocation of votes:delegates in Texas, technically, they were within the letter of the law. (LULAC v. Texas Democratic Party.) All that changed in the summer months leading up to the convention, when Obama and his champions and converts, now clawing at straws, conspired to literally steal the nomination.

The state parties had specifically chosen delegates to fill the number of slots reserved for Clinton or Obama as the result of votes cast for her or him in the primary or caucus contest, based on their loyalty to either one candidate or the other. But DNC rules only insist that pledged delegates voting at the national convention “in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/fb3fa279c88bf1094b_qom6bei0o.pdf, p. 23. In other words, under DNC rules, there is no such thing as a “pledged” delegate. (At one time, the DNC did have such a “robot rule,” which required delegates pledged to a candidate to vote for that candidate at the convention. But they eliminated that rule in 1982.)

Which was a good thing for Obama emissaries who now fanned out across the country and harassed her delegates, in person and by wire, to get them to agree to switch their votes to him, before the convention.

Twisting arms to ‘turn’ pledged delegates before the convention was not only not prohibited under DNC rules but also, in 37 (thirty-seven) states, it wasn’t against the law. As for the other 13 (thirteen) states, well, that was quite a different story.

See, voters in 13 states  – AZ, GA, IN, KY, MA, NH, NM, OH, OK, OR, TN, VA, and the delegate mother lode, CA – had enacted this special legislation. ‘In our state, pledged means PLEDGED. This means, delegates pledged to a candidate as the result of votes cast in the political party’s primary or caucus election; must vote for the candidate voters elected them to represent, at the party’s nominating convention.’ (I ‘discovered’ these states in the summer of 2008 and named them “vote binding states.”) In short, extorting Clinton pledged delegates in these 13 vote binding states to commit to switching their votes to Obama before the convention, was against the law.

And they knew what they were doing was illegal.

Because as Mr. Bauer wrote in his submission to the federal court in DiMaio; “[DNC] rules require each State Democratic Party to develop a written delegate selection plan and to submit that plan to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (“DNC RBC”) for review and approval.” Id. (The DNC RBC is the same outfit that on May 31 had shuffled the candidate’s delegate count in a blatantly partisan attempt to improve Obama’s numbers and move him closer to the nomination.) And, contained in those DNC delegate selection rules is provision 2.2: Each State Party Committee shall include the following documentation with the submission of its Plan to the RBC:

(I) a copy of all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)


Being “related to the delegate selection process,” the state law that required pledged delegates to vote at the convention for the candidate voters elected them to represent was included in the delegate selection plan each of these 13 states had submitted to and was subsequently approved by the DNC RBC.  In other words, Obama’s agents who began harassing Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states to switch their votes to him, months before the convention, undoubtedly knew they were breaking the law.

But desperate times called for desperate measures.

(Next:  Part 2:  Lead-up to the Coup)

28 Responses to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4)

  1. Another excellent piece of work which deserves a front page spot in the Wall Street Journal.

    You know how to do investigative reporting and could teach today’s “so called journalist” a thing or two

    p-p: Thank you so much for the kind words; but mostly for appreciating the work. (Send this to wsj!) Wait until you see part 2, which discusses how I stumbled onto what BO’s people were up to viz a viz vote binding states. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I just sent to the following: Breitbart tv., Hillbuzz, Andrea Shea King/Radio Patriot,Defend our Freedoms/repubx, Jefferson’s Rebels, Oil for Immigration,drkate, Gov. Jan Brewer, Lt.Col. Allen West(R)FL, League of Women Voters-national and TX.
    I’m so glad you picked the Harold Ickes video-one of my personal favorites.

    Michelle: Thank you so much for putting my work out there. I try so hard to do it right; but I am not yet adept in spreading it around. Yes; I love that video. (Hey, send this to him!) ADMINISTRATOR

  3. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, as usual you have nailed the fraud, of the 2008 election.

    What bothers me most is, why all the hoopla about MI, and FL changing their dates to hold their primary elections?

    Who or what was the driving force behind this necessity,for MI, and FL,to change the dates of their primary, leading up to the devaluation of the delegates influence in their support for Hillary?

    Someone had this all figured out, way in advance of the election.

    bob strauss: FL and MI were not the only states that changed the dates of their primary contests. This is an interesting inquiry, but outside of the scope of the direct relationship between fraud:Obama’s nomination I am laying out here, which tie-in also violates the law. (This first installment only is the prologue, or groundwork for that fraud.) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Philo-Publius says:

    I sent the link for your research here to the WSJ and both Byron York & John Fund at Townhall. Fund is the journalist who wrote “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy” so investigating reports of fraud is right up his alley.

    P-P: Thank you for spreading the word. The more we all know, the less chance any one of us can steal an election. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Michelle says:

    jbjd-“Hey send this to him”. I had thought of that myself, I tried last night but I couldn’t find where it works, I did the St Michael the Archangel prayer and found him this morning. So of course I sent him an e-mail of this article. Here is all of his info:
    Harold Ickes
    Law Practice
    Harold M. Ickes, Co-Chair of Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.’s
    1300 Connecticut Avenue Northwest #600
    Washington, DC 20036
    (202) 955-6340

    Michelle: Great minds… Let’s hope he gets this. I am not saying, he is clean in all of this. But I want him to know, we figured out what they did. And we don’t like what we found. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I would tend to think he is clean in all of this, mainly because so much was going on it would be almost impossible to keep up with all of it at the time it was happening. I honestly don’t think he knew, or if he did know it would be just bits and pieces that he couldn’t prove at that time. I like to err on the side of innocence, until proven different. Plus wasn’t he a lawyer representing Mrs. Clinton, he would have huge conflict of interest problems.
    I do hope he gets this before it “gets out there”.

    Michelle: He is listed as an adviser to the campaign and not of counsel. I guess I am having difficulty sorting out the distinction between covert acts such as hassling pledged delegates or posting a campaign ad disgiused as evidence of eligibility; and just not blowing the whistle. COUNTRY before CLUB. (I have a confession. Before I knew as much as I know now about this whole fraud; just watching his appearance at the RBC meeting, I wanted to marry the guy and bear his children!) ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Mia says:

    As usual, excellent job, jbjd!

    It’s now posted on the front page at RepubX, and I’m copying and pasting to send to everyone in my contacts, along with your link so they can watch for 2 & 3.

    Thank you so much for continuing to fight the good fight!

    Mia: Thank you; and you are welcome. I am not sure how long you have been following my work on vote binding states; but the evidence of the underlying crime appears in Part 2, Lead-up to the Coup. For example, this will reference the letter sent from the AG in GA after I contacted him; telling his pledged delegates there, in this state, pledged means pledged. Part 3 details the coup at the convention. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Kelly C. says:

    Another amazing article, and I can’t wait for “part two”!! I just sent this to the Texas AG, and the open records folks here in Texas. Lets hope someone wakes up…. You’ve out done yourself. 🙂

    Kelly C.: Thank you for appreciating the work. But wait till you see Part 2, Lead-up to the Coup. In that installment, I include the documentation of the harassment. And Part 3, The Coup at the Convention, contains a name with which you Texans will be familiar. That’s right; Boyd Richie.

    Good for you for not letting your public officials in Texas off the hook. Hopefully, we will eventually persuade Texans the way to fix this electoral mess is to march to Austin and not D.C. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. jbjd says:

    I received this email from reader Kelly C., TX which I wanted to share, with her prior approval.

    To: Greg Abbott
    To: Public Records

    Several months ago, I submitted a complaint to your office, regarding the blatant election fraud associated with the 2008 presidential election – specifically, the Democratic Party, the DNC”, and Boyd Richie. I have not received a response from your office as of yet. I want you to read the following article, written by “jbjd”, who has been investigating the fraud (surrounding the Dem party) for the past two years. Her immense investigative work is very impressive, and I’m hoping after you read her article, you will perhaps reconsider your current stance of “non-response”, and PURSUE this issue IMMEDIATELY. Here is the link to the article.https://jbjd.org/2010/08/10/a-coup-through-and-through-1/ I invite you to review all of her articles, as they are all VERY well-researched.

    My fraud complaint was very simple. I wanted to see what documentary evidence was used by Boyd Richie to determine (and subsequently certify) that Barack Obama was constitutionally eligible to be placed on the election ballot in the state of Texas, for the 2008 presidential election. But my complaint has apparently fallen on deaf ears? According to the Texas Public Information Act, any NON-response by such a request for documentation is deemed to be a response of “we don’t have any documents”. Since I haven’t received a response, am I to assume that Boyd Richie committed fraud in certifying Barack Obama as constitutionally eligible to be placed on the ballot, when no such documentary evidence exists that would substantiate this claim? Do you see the dilemma? President Obama ascended to his current office FRAUDULENTLY. Isn’t that illegal?

    I’m begging you… PLEASE LOOK IN TO ELECTION FRAUD, IN 2008, by the Dem party! It ran rampant in Texas, as well as the rest of the country. Your job is to investigate FRAUD. What else do you need from me in order to look in to this??

    Thank you,

    -Kelly C.

  10. kj says:

    So Bob Bauer was (and is) Mr. Obama’s personal lawyer, was a lawyer for the DNC, and is now White House council. I would like to hear what he says in his sleep.

    Thank you jbjd for your fascinating research and excellent write ups.

    kj: You are welcome. I forget, not everyone has been reading this blog. Do a search in the search box for “bauer.” (Sometimes I refer to him as Robert, sometimes Bob.) He is all over the place. Two of my favorite Bob Bauer pieces are COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT and BOB BAUER, RUMORED-TO-BE NEXT WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, TO FEDERAL COURT: F*** YOU! Yep; I got ’em all in fraud; and I got Nancy Pelosi, Boyd Richie, Kathy Hensley, Alice Germond and others (see the citizen complaints of election fraud in the sidebar) in criminal election fraud viz a viz the ballot. When I complete this series, you will see, I have several members of the DNC in criminal conspiracy, too, pursuant to circumventing state laws regarding pledged delegates in vote binding states. Please, pass around the work. Teach people what you learn. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Excellent piece, jbjd. Thank you so much for doing this very important work. I look forward to Parts 2 and 3.

    R3A: Thank you; and you are welcome. You cannot imagine what is in store. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Philo-Publius says:

    This info has been submitted to WND, Newsbusters, Media Research Center, CNSNews.com and the Washington Examiner. They all have a large audience and you never know what story line will be picked up. We can only hope.

    P-P: Thank you, again. (Am I the only person here who also posts on sites more left of center, than right?) ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I also wanted to say, I have been getting hundreds of ‘unattributed’ hits, that is, I have no idea where they came from. (These are in addition to the dozens of hits from links readers have posted, of course!) This article has been very well received.

  13. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I keep playing Mr. Ickes(in my mind now classic video) re: the hi-jacking. I’m undecided in my own mind if he is the Chinese man (alone) who faced down the tank in Tiananmen Square, or one man alone facing the Politburo (that’s what they looked like to me). One man alone for the sake of democracy. This was about the 4 delegates MI v/s 600,000 voters-the 30 in the body making the decisions to negate them. I feel their pain, I was part of the road-kill in FL. Mr. Ickes is so right about the First Amendment, freedom of speech via our vote. I can’t believe it I’m still stunned. Of course when the Democratic party decided to break its own rules, its charter surely the Constitution and any other laws can’t be too big of a deal. The DNC gave them a license to steal, break laws with impunity?
    “You can’t imagine what I have in store.” I can’t wait, really.
    I’m so glad that this article has been well received and other folks are posting to sites that were unknown to me. A small part of me thinks that the plotters thought that they would never get caught and I wonder why?

    Michelle: I am glad you again mentioned those 600,000 Michigan voters, because this gives me a chance to clarify this figure. When I wrote the article, I had to look this up so that I could figure out exactly what he was talking about. If this represented just 4 delegates, this seemed too high. Turns out, 600,000 are the approximate voters who cast their votes for both “Uncommitted” – and this is a legitimate category, which under D rules, gets its own delegates – and those 4 Clinton delegate slots. So, by reassigning the Uncommitted’s and 4 Clintons, the RBC was pre-empting the voting preference of 600,000 voters. Get it?

    As for thinking they would not get caught; they didn’t. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Larissa says:

    I copied and pasted this to Trevor Loudon at NewZeal/Key Wiki.

    Outstanding research, excellent work!!

    Larissa: Welcome; and thank you. I do my best. For sure, if we cannot distribute the information detailing what went wrong with the 2008 election cycle then, we cannot change what needs to be fixed. Maintaining a Constitutional republic is not a spectator sport. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. TC says:

    Hi jbjd

    Yes. Excellent article(s). Thank you so very much.

    Question. Are we allowed to post your articles on our Facebook Notes pages? Of course using your name as the author. I would like to get the word out about this information on your website so everyone will share across the nation.

    Please let me know. Thanks.

    TC: Welcome; and thank you for appreciating the work. Also, thanks for asking in advance before re-posting my articles. In general, I do not object to having my work spread around the blogosphere. Just copy the copyright jbjd and you should be good to go! Please point out to your readers, we tend to be more of an interactive blog, which means some of the best work goes on in the “comments.” Let me know how your ‘friends’ respond. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. […] posted the article, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3), the series detailing the coup pulled off at the 2008 DNC nominating convention, and saw a huge […]

  17. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Not only do I wonder who is dinking around with the numbers, I also wonder why? Can you imagine if this person was your banker? is on about or near the Treasury of the United State of America? Really should give a lot of faith in Alexa numbers.
    Alexa Internet, Inc. is a California-based subsidiary company of Amazon.com that is known for its toolbar and website. Once installed, the toolbar collects data on browsing behavior which is transmitted to the website where it is stored and analyzed and is the basis for the company’s web traffic reporting

    Michelle: OMG, I cannot believe this coincidence. Less than 2 (two) hours ago, I updated PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, which cites “alexa” data. I said “alexa” now has eliminated all domestic numbers from the count for this blog. That means, D.C. has disappeared from my audience. Of course, I looked up “alexa” corporation; and found it was owned by Amazon! Great minds… again. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. Michelle says:

    In my opinion this makes all of alexa’s data worthless. If they are dinking around with your numbers,who else’s might they be “adjusting”. Great advertising for that company, especially if money is involved in some way. Not kosher alexa. I wonder if the “boss” knows what is going on at his company? could it be a rogue employee or someone at the top? No one can make a good value judgement about anything if the statics they rely on are fraudulent. This is creepy too, just like the election frauds.

    Michelle: …and if one cannot count on the numbers then one has no reason to subscribe to the service. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. Michelle says:

    jbjd-exactly, and when I thought about it-you are also on No Quarter which means they jazzed up his numbers too. But while I was thinking/pondering I went over to the Globe magazine which is doing a big article on Obama and his funky social security number(s), so I sent this article to the Globe it said something about needed to be approved by editor/moderator something like that, but they have received the article. I wrote if something about the social security number is just the tip of the iceberg. Someday the Obama admin will be compared to the Titanic we are seeing just the tip-it staggers the imagination the part of the iceberg named Obama that we can’t see-corruption not seen since Rome.

    Michelle: But wait till you read COUP (3 of 3), which is almost done. They pulled this off right in front of our noses! Once you ‘see’ it laid out on paper, you have to wonder, how so many of us were so stupid as to how our political process works; or does not. As to those who knowingly pulled off this fraud, ‘a pox on all their houses’! ADMINISTRATOR

  20. […] A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3) is the second installment in the 3-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot .  (For the first installment, go to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3)) […]

  21. Miri says:

    jbjd: Sorry that I’m late to the party. I just finished your most excellent article. You have the makings of a wonderful book here. I do hope you publish it as a book. I’m happy to see your copyright. I’m going to read part 2 now, knowing it will be as great as part 1. Somehow, you make this suspenseful, even though we already know the unfortunate series of events. Thanks, though, for reminding us of every dirty detail. The anger keeps us going.

    Miri: How wonderful to see you again. So glad you like the work. Actually, there’s a lot even those of us who ‘knew’ what was going on, really didn’t know. Wait till you see COUP 3 of 3, which is about to post. Hopefully, when this all sinks in, you will see, there are plenty of legal avenues to channel that anger. Starting with enforcing existing laws regarding the election process. And that the efforts of 1 (one) person can really make a difference. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. […] article, “The Coup at the Convention,” was laid in the first 2 (two) installments, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); and A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3).  Trust me, if you understand what got us here, to the […]

  23. […] A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3) […]

  24. Lightweight says:

    They need to investigate PUMA(party unity my “behind”)
    The grassroots movement that demanded Hillary be on the ticket or they walk out of the Denver Convention and vote for McCain.One in the sheep gate, Hillary suprises everyone by falling in-line with her whole heart and husband.It was at that point the sheep got sheered.The common people on the ground had sent in money that was apart of the deal of retiring Hillary’s debt.We need Open Party Laws that the 24th Amendment guarrenttes.

    Lightweight: Your comment is useful to those readers who have ‘been at this a long time.’ Because contrasted to their level of understanding of the political process, it evidences all of the hard work they have been putting in, to understand as much about the process as those people who used superior understanding to subvert that same process.

    “Sheep”? “They“? “Open Party Laws” and “24th Amendment guarrenttes (sic)”? Find a law, identify the violation, prescribe a cure. And next time, define your terms, including “they,” as in, “They need to investigate.” ADMINISTRATOR

  25. […] the COUP Trilogy (A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); (2 of 3); and (3 of 3) I charged that DNC operatives hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged […]

  26. […] is an interesting side note.  When I posted COUP (1 of 3) way back in August 2010, I posited that while only publicly unveiled in June 2008, FTS had been […]

  27. Reblogged this on un occhio e una lente a spasso per il mondo and commented:
    Politics are disgraceful, no matter where one stands, yet this is the grossest and most despicable I’ve come across of late. That such a fraud of a man could be elected … twice… it’s beyond me! Of course, if the opposition watches inactive… 😦

    • jbjd says:

      il neige sur Liege: Hello and welcome to the jbjd blog. Yes, we the people elected this man, twice, notwithstanding that many of us who knew better tried to inform our fellow voters. (Then again, maybe electing a competent chief executive was not the point…) ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply to Philo-Publius Cancel 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: