©2011 jbjd

Considerate readers have contacted me to make sure I have seen the latest greatest revelations from World Net Daily, that robust rag orchestrated by Joseph Farah, who rose to infamy at The Center for Western Journalism.  First, a word about WND, before I translate their latest hyperbolic fund raising gimmick.

I have previously pointed readers to “The Return of the Western Journalism Center” in Huffington Post to learn more about Mr. Farah’s own publishing ‘bizzaro world.’

I have also charged that WND features ‘writers’ whose work products have been outed on several bogs as merely being the intellectual capital stolen from others, which pattern of theft is so blatant readers have noticed!

DABIG says:

Fabulous jbjd, just fabulous!
OT; isn’t this YOUR work?!

Take care lady and have a good day tomorrow :)

DABIG: Hey, nice to see you! Thank you; I am really proud of how this turned out. And yes; that work is mine, copied by the infamous Mr. Williams, who shares my first 2 (two) initials, although he capitalizes his. (Even the title of his work parroted mine.) He claimed publicly, on the radio, he received these documents “anonymously.” And anyone who reads WND, or CFP, or any of the other rags that publish work under his name needs to take notice, there is absolutely no guarantee the work printed under his name, is actually his.

Adding insult to injury, because he only steals my work but does not bother to learn what he stole, he misstates what the materials mean. Thus, he knowingly expands the knowledge deficit of his audience as to how our political system works; in contrast to the people who used their superior knowledge to steal the 2008 election. This leaves his audience even less well equipped to combat the ‘usurpation’ of the government from the people who created that government.

You would have to ask him why he has determined to sacrifice the best interests of his audience in this way. ADMINISTRATOR

P.S. (09.09.10): Thank you for having my back throughout the blogosphere. Protecting the integrity of the work is everything.

Given this background, you can understand, I would not have clicked on the link to WND but for the referral by my reader.  Here’s what I found: 


Stunner! Supremes

to give eligibility


another look

Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court

Following was an article about the doomed Hollister appeal, one of dozens of dead ‘eligibility cases,’ along with the perfunctory appeals for funds.

Ha,  as usual, Mr. Farah is hyperbolically manipulating the emotions of WND readers into clinging to the revenue generating lie, the case it cites, already denied a hearing by the SCOTUS, has a legal chance in hell to be re-heard on the merits.  Worse, that such re-hearing could finally force Obama to vacate the Oval Office.  Not the least bit true.

In fact, assuming the ‘fact’ of the reported re-hearing is true, all it means is this.  The SCOTUS is saying, ‘We were so eager to turn down your completely infirm case  involving Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President; that we failed to issue a separate ruling denying your Motion for Recusal, as required by the Rules.’

It’s a shame so many WND readers, reasonably outraged at the election scam that gave us Obama; fail to recognize they are still being had.

Even assuming any legal case involving the President’s Constitutional eligibility for office could survive judicial scrutiny on all other procedural bases required, try to remember these facts.  No law in 2008, or any provision of the U.S. Constitution, required Electors to only elect a President who was Constitutionally eligible for the job.  (But laws enacted in several states required Electors to only elect the Presidential nominee of the Party.

Got it?

4 Responses to JERKING AROUND

  1. bob strauss says:

    Do you think Sotomayor, and Kagan were duly appointed to SCOTUS, or will they eventually be declared void?

    To avoid, even the appearance of, impropriety, shouldn’t have Obama’s two appointments recused themselves,? especially since a motion was filed asking them to?

    Saying that SCOTUS overlooked the motion for recusal because they were in a hurry to deny the original petition is not what I expect from the highest court in our country. To Hollister and others this is an important point, not to be ignored.

    The only reason Obama is still in office is because the people have been denied discovery. We all know what we will find, that is why we are not allowed to see it. Obama might be embarrassed. I doubt it.

    bob strauss: It is inappropriate to conclusively blame the high court for violating their own rules based on the supposed fact, “they were in a hurry to deny the original petition.” I posited, this would explain why they totally blew by the additional Motion for Recusal that accompanied the Writ for Certiorari. But who knows why this Motion was overlooked? Maybe a clerk simply forgot to present this separately to the Justices. My guess is as good as yours; but neither of us knows for sure why the Motion was missed. No matter; it will be reviewed. (And then, dismissed.)

    I keep telling people who don’t want to hear: BARACK OBAMA WAS LAWFULLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, NOTWITHSTANDING NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC RECORD EVIDENCES HE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB (and that he stole the D nomination). Thus, any action is legal which he undertakes pursuant to authority bestowed on that office, including nominating Justices to the Supreme Court.

    The only legal cases directly implicating Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS are those cases brought by D primary/caucus voters or by D pledged delegates, against the DNC, charging they failed to obey their rules to nominate only a Presidential candidate Constitutionally eligible for the job. This would be a sort of ‘breach of fiduciary duty’ case. Of course, as I said more than 2 (two) years ago now, the strongest situated plaintiffs for this tort would be, pledged delegates in vote binding states, who the DNC, by running an ineligible candidate, effectively compelled to breach their fiduciary duty to the voters who elected them. (See, for example,

    As for Discovery, well, this only comes into play once the case has survived the initial pleading stages, that is, after adverse rulings on Motions to Dismiss for procedural reasons; and on Motions for Summary Judgment based on the fact no evidence could be presented that would establish, Obama is not a NBC. (On the other hand, those citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG argue pretty persuasively that anyone who swore he was a NBC could not have based such swearing on documentary evidence available in the public record!)

    Please keep in mind, Lakin, besides being a legally infirm case – orders under the UCMJ come from the direct superior and not from the CiC – presented an admission of wrongdoing, merely by requesting Discovery. That is, if Lakin was uncertain he was disobeying an unlawul order then, he had no protection under any scheme of law, anyway. In other words, if he needed Discovery to prove to himself and others, Obama is not a NBC then, he had no basis under law for disobeying any orders.

    Hollister was infirm because of procedural reasons. Specifically, Holliser was too old to be re-called and so, he was an infirm Plaintiff. That is, as he would never be subject to having to choose between what he claimed might be inconsistent obligations, his case presented no controversy to the court. The court can only rule when a case or controversy is before it. (This still fails to explain why no one involved in that case bothered to expose to the court, Mr. Bauer was asking the court to take judicial notice of information contained in a paid political advertisement (“FTS”).)


  2. bob strauss says:

    Who is in charge of enforcement, when the Constitution orders that no person except a natural born Citizen shall be President, and America wakes up and finds out that Obama is not a natural born Citizen? What is the legal remedy?

    bob strauss: I will answer these questions, again, emphasizing, I have answered these previously, several times, throughout the blog.

    1. No lawfully binding definition of NBC exists. However, lawfully binding definitions of “citizen” exist. Thus, at present, we can lawfully identify (partial) eligibility by determining whether someone is a citizen.
    2. The Constitution only defines eligibility; it does not mandate that Electors may only elect someone who is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (In other words, according to the Constitution, Electors breach no laws by electing an ineligible President.)
    3. State laws could require Electors to elect only Constitutionally eligible Presidents, but no state laws mandate Electors may only elect Constitutionally eligible Presidents, either. (However, laws in several states mandate, Electors must vote for the nominee of the Party.)
    4. If states enact laws requiring the state may not print on the ballot the name of any candidate not eligible for the job then, states can define NBC for the purpose of determining whether to print the name of candidates on state ballots, which definitions will undoubtedly be challenged through the courts, resulting in a legally binding definition of NBC.

    bob, I would ask this question. Why are so many citizens in so many states outraged at others because Electors elected a man they believe is Constitutionally ineligible for the job? Why aren’t those angry voters accepting responsibility for neglecting their civic duty by not requiring Electors to only vote for an eligible candidate, who is the candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, in states that require candidates to be eligible for office to appear on the ballot (according to the definition of eligibility reached in that state)? After all, they knew they had the authority to legally restrict the vote of the Electors, as evidenced by the fact, they enacted those laws mandating, Electors must vote for the nominee of the Party! ADMINISTRATOR

  3. bob strauss says:

    I find it hard to believe that the criminals have outsmarted the system, when it comes to the eligibility of the president, and we have no direct legal recourse.

    bob strauss: Well, they have. Get over it. Because these ‘criminals’ counted on this incredulity to get away with their crimes. And when I say, crimes, remember, running an ineligible candidate is not by itself illegal. But swearing he is a NBC without first ascertaining he is, just to get election officials to put his name on the ballot, is a crime, in at least 8 (eight) states identified so far…

    I warned people in the summer of 2008, when I realized how easy would be electing a President Constitutionally ineligible for the job: if Obama becomes the D Party Presidential Nominee, and you want to keep him out of office because you believe he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job then, keep his name off the ballot.

    Very few people listened then and, judging by the scant hits on this blog, very few are listening now. (But thousands are engaged in diversionary discussions about whether indentations visible on electronic images that are part of a paid political advertising campaign, go up or down…) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. gregnh says:

    In looking forward to 2012, and the hand full of states enacting “birther” bills, would it not take only one state to force documentation and does not that state[s] already exist?

    gregnh: Even assuming, one state passes a comprehensive new ballot eligibility law before 2012, and assuming this law survives any legal challenges and takes effect in time for the 2012 general election (if not the primary/caucus contests); this still does not mean Electors will elect a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job unless 1) the law includes a provision, Electors may only elect a President whose name appeared on the ballot; and 2) the NPVI does not pass.

    On the other hand, if even one AG in a state with an existing ballot eligibility law, however flawed, acted to initiate an investigation pursuant to one citizen complaint of election fraud, then once the targeted D could not come up with a reasonable basis for swearing Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the job in 2008, this alone would signal the end to Obama’s candidacy, even without an ensuing prosecution for election fraud, or the enactment of any other laws. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: