©2011 jbjd

Why, in April 2011, is Bill Press, a D among D’s – after all, how many D’s rise to the top of the CA state party? – still touting that July 2009 WH presser when he pretended to ask then WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and Mr. Gibbs pretended to answer, this question:  Why do people still not believe President Obama is a NBC?  (And how was Mr. Press able to recall the date of that session off the top of his head, anyway?)

Watch this.

Did you catch when Mr. Press claimed Barack Obama first released his HI birth certificate in 2007 –  “In 2007, the President produced his birth certificate…” – but then checked himself and said this – “…asked the state of HI to, they did; they put it up on line; that’s what they do in HI, end of story.”

Notice that, in this present exchange, Mr. Buchanan asks Mr. Press for the reason that the WH press corps is not asking Mr. Obama why he chooses not to release his birth certificate; but that Mr. Press responds by saying, ‘I did, a year-and-a-half ago; Google it!’  Actually, in 2009, Mr. Press did not ask why the President does not release his birth certificate.  Because releasing this document was not the point of that dog-and-pony show.  Rather, the point of that charade was to reinforce the meme, such document had already been released and was posted on line.  In fact, Press only asked Gibbs this question:

Is there anything you can say that will make the Birthers go away?

thus cueing Gibbs to repeat that the electronic image of the COLB mock-up appearing on the paid political ad called “Fight the Smears” really is Obama’s birth certificate, which he – Gibbs – told Obama to post to silence questions as to whether he was “born in this country.” Id.

(It’s all here; read this.  PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his  PRESS CREDENTIALS)

But know what really jumped out at me?  Even after Press caught himself, now crediting HI with producing the COLB rather than Obama; and ambiguously using the pronoun “they” to mean either HI or Obama’s campaign; he still acknowledges, this document that was obtained in 2007 was posted on line.  (Does he mean to falsely imply that, once the document was obtained (however it was either ‘obtained’ or ‘fabricated’) it was immediately posted?)  So, here’s the question I would ask Mr. Press.

Given your acknowledgement that this document was obtained in 2007 and subsequently posted on line; and given the fact that the attribution in the footer of the FTS web site containing the electronic image of this document, evidences this was copyrighted in 2007; and given that Mr. Gibbs claims he asked Obama to release this document; then why did the D’s wait until June 2008 to release it?  (This is a rhetorical question.  As I have answered previously, this tripe called “Fight The Smears” would never have seen the light of day if Obama and his co-conspirators hadn’t bungled the theft of the D Presidential nomination so that even after the primary/caucus season ended, no clear winner emerged.  If they had been better crooks then, with the over-weighted caucus votes and accompanying shenanigans, they could have wrapped up the nomination before people started asking questions about whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.)

P.S.  And when Gibbs said back in July 2009, ‘I asked Obama to post his birth certificate a year and a half ago’; this really jumped out at “Miri.”  (I told you, the Comments here at “jbjd” can be as intriguing as the Posts!)


  1. FranSC says:

    jbjd – I just hope somehow Donald Trump has access to your work – assuming you would not object to that. He is the first to be able to talk down the angry opposition that includes the Washington Press Corp as well as the Whoopi/Joye types of the world. I have been trying to send him info about you and how you have dealt with the Birth Certificate issue. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find enough time to figure out the best way to do that. Please tell me that is taken care of and I can stop worrying about trying to inform him about you.

    FranSC: So nice to hear from you! Actually, I have no idea whether my work reaches the people trying to expose any of the illegalities that tainted the 2008 Presidential election; and, of course, I believe, it should, for many reasons, including but not limited to these.

    My work has earned legitimacy because its overall focus is the electoral system, and not any particular individual. My overarching concern is whether laws were broken; and not with whether I ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ a particular candidate; or agree with the general preferences of voters, however ill or well informed I might consider their choices.

    Plus, I discount matters that do not directly impact on the electoral process, whether I think these have merit.

    And my work is well-documented and legally sound.

    Bottom line, anyone familiar with the work that goes on here, could intelligently rebut any of this ‘noise’ you describe, with one or two lines, like, ‘Okay; but on what documentary basis did (fill in the name) Certify to state election officials in applicable states; that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job?’ Or, ‘Assuming everything you say about the President’s bona fides is true; then why wouldn’t (fill in the name) tell us, ‘That’s what we used as the basis for our Certification,’ when we asked?

    FYI, I am swamped, too. Suffice to say, blowing the whistle on the Presidential election process is not the only fraud that has consumed my life; but the other is much closer to home…


  2. Martha says:


    Thank you for your insightful analysis of Obama’s constitutional ineligibility. It took me a while to wrap my mind around the concept that the online COLB was simply a paid political announcement. But, after I read through your reasoning and evidence in various posts, I now frame my understanding around that fact. It shows how calculating and devious the Obama operation is.

    What I find mind boggling about the effort to expose Obama’s ineligibility to be president is that the people most actively involved in the research, the court cases, speaking out are predominately DEMOCRAT Hillary supporters, PUMAs, if you will. Yet, the birther issue is always tied to the right wing. I know that many conservatives in the blogs and media have distanced themselves from the issue because of PUMA involvement and smell a rat. I wish they could see it at face value. After observing all the time and effort so many PUMAs, such as yourself, jbjd, havegiven to this effort and what you’ve managed to uncover, I, as a conservative, am deeply impressed and respectful. I’m glad we are in this together. But, I’m curious. How does it feel flying under the radar of the media’s wrath?

    Martha: Welcome to the blog. I found your comment surprisingly touching (perhaps because I am in the midst of finalizing a tome that describes another government cover-up much closer to home). I know this blog contains information that sometimes requires more than one reading to digest. “Michelle” often said, she had to read and re-read some articles. But she agreed, once you ‘get it,’ the fraud is apparent.

    Even if I am flying under the media’s wrath; I believe, I am not flying under their radar. Some time ago, when I was able to check my stats on “Alexa,” my general numbers were understandably much lower than some of the better known ‘birther’ sites. However, in Washington, D.C., they were quite high. This meant, someone was watching.

    As for this distinction among ‘right,’ or ‘birther,’ or ‘PUMA,’ well, I think people who stratify others according to labels have no genuine appreciation that, we are all in this together. And as such, we are all entitled to our individual thought. That’s why I cannot engage in the hyperbolic rants, a practice which, based on my experience, has (eventually) discredited other pundits. Whether this rigid orthodoxy originates with the left or right; crazy is as crazy does.

    And this probably explains why D.C. is reading. And why the worst criticism I receive tends to be more in the nature of charging I am misguided, rather than insane. It’s true, the COLB is part of an electronic ad campaign. It’s true, no one who Certified Obama is a NBC will disclose the documentary basis for that Certification. It’s true, members of the D club on behalf of Obama illegally strong-armed Clinton pledged delegates from vote-binding states to switch their votes in advance of the Convention. It’s hard to argue with facts. And, with no other distractions like absurd ‘findings’ from internet ‘experts’ conducting ‘exclusive’ ‘investigations’ resulting in ‘must see’ reports; there is nothing else to attack.

    Finally, a clarification. I supported the candidacy of Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama or John McCain. But I am not registered as a member of the D club; and I never voted exclusively for one party or another. In fact, I am “Unenrolled.” That means, I am actually more independent than an “Independent,” which is the name of a political party!


  3. patrick says:

    I’m very much a TEA Party kind of guy and i appreciate all the work that jbjd has done to expose the out and out fraud that happenend in the 2008 election. i have to thank the PUMA’s for doing the work that the chicken RINO’s won’t do. thank you for all the very valuable information. please protect yourself as the people you are exposing are very dangerous

    patrick: Welcome! And thank you for appreciating the work that goes on here. I think that, between the articles and the exchanges with readers, the “jbjd” blog provides a comprehensive deconstruction of the ‘drama’ surrounding the 2008 general election cycle. But as I recently responded to Martha; even though I thoroughly identified with the PUMA’s – COUNTRY before CLUB – I was not registered D, but “Unenrolled.”

    And thanks for the ‘heads up.’ I intend to post an article dedicated to the revelations that have appeared on this blog which could have attracted the most unwelcome attention from the subjects of those pieces. Maybe we’ll take a vote to see which revelation readers think is the most ‘explosive.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Mick says:

    (Comment deleted in its entirety by jbjd.)

    Mick: I had intended to post this Comment along with my Reply with a Disclaimer so as to remind readers, this blog does not trade in unsubstantiated allegations whether disguised as facts; or name calling; or… And this is where I decided not to waste any more time constructing a reasoned response. Because the third element in the series was going to be something like, ‘…or exchanging views ad infinitum with people whose diatribes evidence, they are not actually reading the blog, anyway!’ ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Al says:

    Yet another well written post, jbjd. No one is pulling the wool over your eyes any time soon. Rather than press(pun intended)hard on this issue, seems Mr. Press and a great many others with MSM credentials are more willing to lob softballs towards the Obama Administration than tackle this issue head on once and for all. For something that would take about 15 minutes to resolve, this whole matter (the elusive birth-certificate)continues to pit decent people against one another. Just show the dang thing already, so my fellow Republicans can concentrate on the core issues affecting our nation, and mount a serious challenge to Mr. Obama in 2012.

    Al: I hate to burst your bubble but… I could not care less what document (if any) is produced at this time. I cautioned people to stop focusing on any one document. Because even assuming, in some fashion, the production of this document satisfied all concerned as to its authenticity – and, considering factors such as, who issued this; who is displaying it; how did it get into the hands of that person; etc. this is a HUGE assumption – this questions remains unanswered: what did the people who swore Obama was eligible to get on the ballot use to ascertain his eligibility in 2008? They could not have used any birth certificate that (happens to be) produced now; or else, they would have told us, when we asked. ADMINISTRATOR

    • TeakWoodKite says:

      TGIF jbjd. I really enjoy your posts and have attempted to assert them in conversation with the people around me and guage the interaction. It is some what alarming to discover that an arguement based on the law is scoffed at and denounced as lacking from those who would pronounce transparency is now the coin of the realm and BO as the source of such mint.

      Really!, after all the cheese melted off the “BC” this week, like toner on wet paper, behold another image is cast on Big SCREEN at the Ministry of Truth. Chain of custody and all that “atesting” to.
      I do not think any affidavit files regarding the BC is worth a thing. Considering purgury was committed with intent by more than one person…

      great comments on this thread. 🙂

      TeakWoodKite: You raise an important principle. That is, understanding the major ‘news’ stories of just the past few years takes substantial time and effort. And reading, lots of reading. Your investment in understanding how our country works made you a more well-educated civic citizen. (After all, that FL case perfectly illustrated the intersection among the 3 branches of our government. Interestingly, I use another FL case, the probate battle surrounding Terry Schiavo, to explain the ‘checks-and-balances’ role of the 3 branches of government.) But then, you did what was necessary to increase the general level of civic knowledge, that is, you discussed your learning with others. Whether they understood what you were saying (or, it seems wanted to hear what you had to say). But spreading knowledge is necessary because, what is that phrase, all boats are lifted by the same tide?

      I rely on long-time readers like you to ‘spread the word.’ I don’t have the forum available to so many others whose analyses of these events fall far short of the so-called ‘truth and accuracy’ mark, however ill or well intentioned. Thank you for both taking the time and effort to ‘get it,’ and then, trying to raise the information tide of others by sharing the dividends of your learning investment. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Al says:

    You raise a legitimate point, jbjd. As much as I wish a document–any document for that matter just to make all of this go away(is he or isn’t he), you are absolutely right–focusing too much on a magically produced document–seemingly appearing out of thin air, still doesn’t address/answer why the folks who swore to Mr. Obama’s eligibility in 2008 did so, and what determing factors they used then to ascertain his eligibility. Thanks for the redirect, jbjd.

    Al: But this still leaves the problem of how to ascertain a candidate for President is a NBC (or, at least a C, which the courts have already well defined). More than a year ago now, when I first raised the issue – at that time, I was still hoping the citizen complaints would do the trick – I thought about vetting panels, like an eligibility board, convened early enough to allow or challenges or appeals that would still allow the candidate to get on the ballot. Let me think more about this… any ideas?

    But I still think, focusing on the people who have to certify the candidate, and enforcing strong criminal sanctions against anyone committing ballot fraud, provides a strong incentive to make sure s/he is eligible for the job.

  7. Al says:

    Good morning, jbjd!

    No doubt you are an extremely bright/smart cookie, and your strategy to place the emphasis/focus upon the people who have to certify the candidate(s) or face criminal sanctions is the way to go. Thanks for your continued commitment to educate, and promote noble ideas like a free people, living in a free Republic deserve fair elections…H/T

    Al: OMG! I read your Comment before I had a chance to reply; and then, when I got home, I read about Obama’s release of another image of another document! I absolutely will write a new article. But for now, to Reply to your Comment, let me just point out, whatever was released today, did not exist when those D’s Certified he was for real; because he just submitted the letter requesting the document, according to him! ADMINISTRATOR

  8. azgo says:


    There must be at least at least a couple million forensic scientists out there now using their home computers!

    Another image out there with different graphics.

    This time the image is not on a not on a political advertisement format, but linked to a more neutral web site, “SlideShare” from “The White House Blog”.

    Maybe the White House got the message that a campaign web site (FTS) is a paid political advertisement and the requesting/confirmation letter are important, but they certainly didn’t get what a genuine birth “identification document” is with the proper “authentication feature[s]”.

    I suppose politicians can legally lie as this blog has pointed out even if the source comes from the executive branch of our national government.

    Some how all of this reminds me of the title of your article, “ARE YOU LYING THEN OR ARE YOU LYING NOW?

    Two questions, the President said in his speech today, “People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate.”

    What affidavits is he referring to?
    Why didn’t he bring out the so called genuine birth certificate for the press or even a person of impartial legal authority to examine?

    Same game, different graphics, and certainly just more “silliness”.

    (This action today by the White House will make providing documentation for review by state election officials for ballot eligibility easier, but the state must require the state election official to receive the documentation directly from the government agency who keeps those records.)

    azgo: I am so glad you sent in this Comment. Great minds… I listened to the President on Hulu, while I was making dinner. I will find a transcript; but for now, what jumped out at me were his self-serving statements, as well as those from Stephanopoulos, about the affidavits, and the 2 contemporaneous birth announcements… You are absolutely right. There is no ‘there’ there. And they absolutely know this.

    I have to tell you, I haven’t put up a new article in a week but this blog has tripled its hits each day for the past 3 (three) days. Someone’s reading…

    “Same game, different graphics.” Perfect. And, already, the ‘experts’ are lined up to de-construct the JPEG.

    I never say, “I told you so.” But… I warned people, ‘producing what purports to be a ‘long form birth certificate’ in 2011 means absolutely nothing insofar as establishing, the D’s who Certified his eligibility in 2008, had any basis for such Certification.

    I have to write an article on this. But, you are spot on in your analysis. Sadly, Obama has a knack for appealing to low information voters. That’s why we have to keep plugging away with the facts. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. And that was the other thing; Obama said, this has been an issue for 2 1/2 years, since the campaign. (Also, I saw somewhere that people have resurrected the meme, the “anonymous” person who questioned Obama’s bona fides during the campaign, came from the Hillary Clinton camp.) But, as we know, it has been an issue for much longer than that, since 2007, when FTS was copyrighted; and it didn’t come fro Hillary but from Robert Gibbs, and Bob Bauer, and the rest of the cabal determined to install Obama into the WH.

    • azgo says:


      You make good points.

      Another thing people must understand from this lighting strike of a White House proclamation is that BO is claiming now with the B/C image, ‘See, I am a citizen and this convinces you I am eligible and I don’t even have to try to ascertain whether I am a natural born citizen or not, …suckers’.

      I put up my comment yesterday, “‘Fight the Smears’ is a Paid Political Ad” with the ‘jbjd’ article links at an LA Times article, “CNN investigation: Obama ‘birther’ claims have no merit” and at Investors.com, “If Obama Is Natural-Born, Why Suppress Evidence?”. You must have gotten hits from people at those sites. (I never have gotten disagreement comments with my “‘Fight the Smears’ is a Paid Political Ad” analysis.)

      azgo: Yes; I get hits from those links. (Thank you so much for spreading the word.) But when I get hits from such links, I can see that these hits came from those links. I was saying, discounting hits from such links; I am receiving hundreds of hits that are not from any links, meaning, readers are coming here on their own! Someone is watching… ADMIINISTRATOR

  9. bob strauss says:

    (link omitted by jbjd)

    Document fraud or campaign ad?

    bob strauss: I omitted the link because, consistent with my previous focus, I cannot quibble over pixels that form an electronic image. We are still parsing screen shadows from an ad copyrighted in 2007 (FTS); will analyzing this latest vision take us past the 2012 general election? ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Greg Goss says:

    Hi jbjd, I hope this finds you well. And yes you get direct hits from me all the time.

    I am writing here because I can’t find your email, I thought I did have it. You don’t have to publish this it is just a question for my own research.

    I believe it was the Hollister case where Obama’s attorney stated that releasing the BC would be embarrassing? Do you remember that? If you do would that be in print somewhere?

    Thank you for all you do,


    Greg: You are welcome; but boy, did your message throw me for a loop (or, loop’y’). See, I had just told azgo, I get hits from links he posts, all the time. Then, you wrote, ‘yes, you get hits from me…’ See, I thought I had mistakenly confused azgo with you! I have been so swamped recently; and, with far too little sleep, I could have mixed this up. And I could not access the internet easily today, at work. (Storms, maybe?) So, I just got home and… phew! I got the names right. (Yes, I do get hits from you, too!)

    None of Defendants’ pleadings in any of these lawsuits explicitly said, any of the information contained in Obama’s birth certificate would be embarrassing; people merely surmised this would be the case and, others ran with this nonsense, without any accreditation (much like Obama does… “This is my birth certificate… ” This is my birth certificate…” “This is my birth certificate…”).

    contactjbjd@gmail.com ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Al says:

    GOOD Afternoon, jbjd!

    Upon reading your last response to me above, just want to point out how much I appreciate your attention to detail, catching–I’ll quote your sharpness here…

    “let me just point out, whatever was released today, did not exist when those D’s Certified he was for real; because he just submitted the letter requesting the document, according to him!”

    Nice pick up! Now what?

    Al: I have been in the middle of finalizing the next post for several days now; but I am also in the midst of finalizing a summary (for specific distribution) of another whistle blowing case that consumed my life BEFORE the 2008 general election. I am ‘on it,’ as they say. Will post at any time… ADMINISTRATOR

  12. bob strauss says:

    I heard you are mentioned in Jerome Corsi’s new book. I was wondering if you had seen it, and whether you have any comment?

    bob strauss: Thank you for checking; yes, I had heard that he mentioned me but, have not seen any direct quotes. Actually, I must tell you, I was dreading the release of his book, for this reason. I assumed, he would use information from my blog, which has become the standard for well reasoned and well researched information about election fraud in 2008. Because I noticed, articles he posted on the internet often ‘coincidentally’ focused on the same topic as mine. And, assuming based on this history, that he would use my work; I wondered whether he would credit me. Well, it would appear that, he did; but I have no proof. I would be curious to see what he actually said, specifically in reference to the DNC fraud someone said he credits me with exposing. (I have seen no upsurge in ‘hits’ in response to his mention.) ADMINISTRATOR

    • bob strauss says:

      I was surprised no one commented about you being mentioned in his book before me. Could it be the new posters are not familiar with your work? I will remind the people at Citizen wells.

      bob strauss: azgo sent me the link to someone on CW who posted the comment mentioning Corsi had credited me. But the comment contained no direct quotes. How did you find out he credited me? ADMINISTRATOR

      • bob strauss says:

        I may have seen the same comment, I don’t remember, but I was happy to see you get some credit for all you have done.

  13. bob strauss says:

    I remembered, from Citizen Wells, here is the comment.

    hrmfc | May 19, 2011 at 10:41 pm |

    I bought Corsi’s book this afternoon. I just finished it. I didn’t really learn anything new but I have been actively reading all of the blogs for the last few years. I am very glad that it consolidates all of the information and lists sources when applicable. I think he is pretty thorough but too cautious when stating his conclusions. He discredits Lucas Smith but doesn’t say why. Corsi doesn’t really talk about his trip to Kenya and how it was reported at that time that he was held by the Kenyan state department. Obviously I read it pretty quickly. He repeatedly says BO should release his long form so it is essential that he continue to make statements saying how this second form was also photoshopped. I liked how he gave alot of credit to jbjd and her research into the DNC duplicity. I wanted it for the documentation but also to loan it out to people who are sympathetic but not as rabid in their reading. He has a good timeline on all of the court cases and Mr. bauer’s position. He is also quite good about defining natural born over native born. Defines the isssue with McCain versus BO. Enjoy! (:

    bob strauss: Yes, this is the comment azgo forwarded. Re-reading this, I strongly suspect, Corsi highlighted Bob Bauer’s footnote in the Motion to Dismiss in the Hollister case, brought by Phil Berg. I doubt when he – Corsi – discusses this in his book promotion tour, that he credits me with both the realization as to the import of that footnote; and the subsequent analysis spelled out on my blog. But, so far, I cannot find any link between his book, and me, in Google searches. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    Have ventured back a few times now in hopes you had drafted a new post. Seems you may be still busy with “finalizing a summary (for specific distribution)of another whistle blowing case that consumed” your life “BEFORE the 2008 general election”. Hope the finish product is developing to your liking/standards.

    Also, am encouraged that your hardwork is paying some dividends, and that you are finally getting the credit you deserve. Best Wishes.

    Al: How very kind of you to pay attention to my personal story. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Bill says:

    Hi jbjd, I too have been reading your posts for what
    seems nearly 2 years now. Always very impressed and
    concerned for us as a nation.Keep up the great work.
    If your seeing hits from Seattle I could be guilty.

    Bill: Thank you. It’s always nice to hear, my hard work matters. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. democrat1 says:

    This news, if true , finally can unravel the mystery of Obama’s NBC problem

    (Link omitted by jbjd.)

    Please look into.

    Thanks for all the excellent work you are doing so far

    democrat1: I clicked on the link you provided but have absolutely no idea on what creditable legal basis anyone is issuing a subpoena for records. Please provide me with your analysis of this situation and I will respond. (In addition, I saw a list of supposedly newly arrived at ‘revelations’ the ‘points’ of which have been thoroughly discussed, in the past, on this blog. For example, the fact the COLB posted on FTS was copyrighted in 2007 is old news; anyone looking at the information in the footer of that ad or, accessed by clicking on the footer, could have seen this fact in June 2008, when FTS first went on-line.)

    People should be pressing the issue of election fraud to prevent in 2012 a repeat of 2008. Because no matter what documents were released after August 2008; or have been released since; none of these could have been the basis for that August 2008 Certification to state election officials that candidate Obama was qualified for the office of President in those states that only print on the ballot the names of candidates qualified for the job. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, thought this may be of interest to you.


    bob strauss: Thanks, bob. I saw this earlier in Daily Beast. (I am about to post an article about Michelle Goldberg’s column on Jerome Corsi.) ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply to bob strauss 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: