© 2012 jbjd

More evidence, the internet can function as the great equalizer.

Just because so far, SoS Hope Andrade (R), with all of the human and financial resources available to the state; has determined to withhold information from her office’s official web site, which is vital to making the voters of TX well-informed at the polls – TEXAS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. – does not mean, these facts cannot be disseminated, anyway.

SATURDAY MORNING SHOW 05.12.12 by Lone Star Voice | Blog Talk Radio. Hosted by Mel Moss, with guest Kelly Canon (and her guest, jbjd).

If other citizens of TX (and throughout the US) labored as diligently as Kelly Canon from Arlington, TX to learn how the electoral system functions; to hone up on the issues that matter to them; and, determined to promote those issues within that system based on their new found knowledge, to target their activism to those members of government whose job is to address such citizen petitions; we would all know that the Presidential candidates whose names appear on our state ballots are Constitutionally eligible for the job. (And in states like TX and SC; that eligibility status could be ‘fixed’ by the time ballots are printed for use in the 2012 general election!)

Stop focusing the Presidential candidate eligibility issue on such things as privileged private documents or paid political advertisements. As I told you way back in the summer of 2008; it’s all about getting on the ballot. Trust me; it’s never too late to become a civic citizen, even if in your state, it’s too late to fix the ballot in time for the 2012 general election.


Join Kelly in supporting the work going on here at “jbjd.”


  1. Tony says:

    For those of you that say “stop focusing on the eligibility issue”, I say that you are so out of touch with our Constitution that you need to not participate in any political discussions until you have gone back and read the Constitution again…..and this time, actually comprehend what you are reading!

    • jbjd says:

      Tony: ‘Comprehend what I am reading’? I have no idea what you are talking about. And I am sick and tired of engaging in these ‘straw dog’ exchanges.

      Sure, the Constitution says, no one is eligible for President who is not 35; a 14-year resident; and a NBC. So what? It doesn’t say, Electors cannot elect someone who is ineligible; nor have the states enacted any such laws. And until the federal appellate court weighs in; what is a NBC, anyway?

      If you know the issues related to Presidential eligibility, which are addressed throughout this blog; you know that, until states enact laws requiring only the names of eligible candidates may appear on the ballot; and which define the standards of ballot eligibility; and which delegate authority to check eligibility to a state official; it makes no difference to electing an eligible President, whether you or any other individual claims s/he is eligible for the job.

      Keep spewing this tripe; meanwhile, in the 4 years since 2008; as far as I know, no legislature in any state has amended state election laws which would prohibit a Constitutionally ineligible President from being elected in 2012. Because you and people like you are pursuing dead end strategies, like trying to prove a particular candidate is ineligible; which cannot possibly achieve the ends you claim you want to achieve. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Tony says:

        “‘Comprehend what I am reading’? I have no idea what you are talking about.” Yes, that much is apparent.

        You and your cute commentary “Keep spewing this tripe….” are a large part of the problem. The law is there- and all your pushing for the state legislation isn’t going to do squat if the judges will not enforce it in court. So shut your pie-hole about what the electors can and cannot do- they will do whatever they want UNTIL they are held accountable in a court of law. THAT is where the push needs to be. We should have NEVER been in this situation in the first place, but people did not want to do their J-O-B correctly. I give a crap if you are the admin or not, you want to liken what I have to say to “straw dog exchanges”, then you are asking for it. You don’t like it, ban me. Otherwise, read WTF I said and apply it as necessary, or ignore it.

        • jbjd says:

          Tony: Okay, now that you are done stomping your feet and holding your breath to get me to see things your way; let’s try this.

          Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that you are correct. That is, the law is not the problem but only its executive or judicial enforcement. (This also assumes, for the sake of argument; the lawyers and others going into administrative and law courts who run smack dab into this faulty judicial and executive enforcement, are correctly applying the law.) Please, cite to a state law that requires only an eligible Presidential candidate may appear on the ballot AND assigns the responsibility to check such eligibility to the state official in charge of elections. (No need to quote the Constitution; my readers and I already know, no law requires Electors to elect only a Constitutionally eligible President.)

          Perhaps then you will admit it makes more sense for readers to suspect you are shilling for someone who is making money off the public’s general ignorance of state election laws or campaign finance laws or the like; than to trust your ‘apparent’ ire results from a bona fide concern with electing a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job.

          As for me; I know exactly where you stand. ADMINISTRATOR

          • Tony says:

            Hey, Mr. “I know exactly where you stand”…..I don’t have a blog or my own page….and I am certainly don’t have a page riddled with buttons that say “DONATE”. So, for you to make some wild accusation that I posted what I post for money (either for myself or anyone else) is utter nonsense.

            Let’s start with the left coast state of California. In 1968, the SoS Frank Jordan removed the name of Edridge Cleaver for lack of qualification- he was not 35; the California Supreme Court upheld the removal of Mr. Cleaver. (can you say PRECEDENT?) Strike one.

            The same situation occurred again in 1984 when Larry Holmes was removed for lack of eligibility. Strike two.

            Most of the lawsuits against Barry have been dismissed prior to the granting of discovery. These cases have been dismissed for the flimsiest excuses the judge could find- lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, lack of compelling evidence (since it was already twittered and tweeted about). Not one case has made it over this hurdle, even if it meant a ruling that flies in the face of precedent. It is not a matter of getting newer tougher laws, it is a matter of forcing the courts to do their sworn duty. As it stands, once it is proven that Barry was NEVER eligible, I would be the first to call for the removal of EVERY member of SCOTUS and the removal of every judge that poo-poo’d the case out of their court. I believe at first some of these judges believed the case was BS, but now that there is so much evidence out there, the last thing they want is for a case that they tossed to be proven. They should live in fear that they will be summarily dismissed once it is proven, because that will be the very next item on the list!

            These people even found a way to supress the evidence proving a lack of eligibility in a criminal case! US vs. LTC Lakin, the evidence that would have provided adequate defense for LTC Lakin was not allowed- even though it would have proven his innocense (and by default, Barry’s ineligible status)! The M.R.E. gives a great deal of latitude to the defendant when it comes to exculpatory evidence- very low thresholds. Now, if they can do this in a criminal case, where the rules of evidence are well established, what makes you believe they will allow a challenge to go forward, even if all 50 states write explicit laws for eligibility? Strike three.

            I am not saying that we shouldn’t get the states to push for more explicit laws regarding ballot eligibility- good on you for pushing for that. What I am saying is that unless the real problem is fixed, you are pissing in the wind. The real problem is the courts that simply refuse to hear the case, no matter what. THAT is the problem.

          • jbjd says:

            Tony: No legal citations?

            Especially with respect to LTC Lakin, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have written extensively about his case, for lay people. But Mr. Lakin himself has admitted, he broke the law. And, when push came to shove, he dropped his insistence on Discovery, finally conceding the fact; by definition, claiming to have disobeyed illegal orders makes no sense if so as to prove those orders were unlawful, he needed ‘evidence’ from the CiC! But as the military tribunal explained; the analysis required to establish the legality of an order or the illegality of his conduct in refusing an order, was not dependent on whether the CiC is a NBC. (Do a search on this blog for Lakin.)

            I have also explained several times; absent a law requiring an election official to vet a candidate for Constitutional eligibility, s/he may always exercise discretion to kick off the ballot someone known not to be eligible for the job. (It has to do with allocating state resources…)

            Finally, I have explained numerous times; given that the process which was exercised to elect President Obama was spelled out in the Constitution, he is legally the President, regardless of whether he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.

            You spend so much time here writing your comments; but not reading the more than 100 articles to learn how our electoral system works.

            As for the downloadable documents; well, perhaps you think asking for donations for the fruits of my labor are ridicule-worthy; I do not. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Tony says:

    “Perhaps then you will admit it makes more sense for readers to suspect you are shilling for someone who is making money off the public’s general ignorance of state election laws or campaign finance laws or the like”

    Hey, rock on with your bad self- I didn’t say that you were out of line for asking a small donation for your work. Don’t assume that I post anything for my own (or another’s) benefit.

    LTC Lakin’s statements AFTER the sentencing were made out of regret. Regret that he could not make a difference and in hopes that his statements would carry some weight with the convening authority. You see, in a military court, even though the judge may sentence someone to whatever the UCMJ allows, it must be approved by the convening authority. The convening authority has the power to reduce a sentence as he/she sees fit. They have the power to toss out a sentence (rarely done, and at their own risk). The judge deflected the focus of the case and protected the lie in one decision. If you read the Military Rules of Evidence and read precedents on evidentary rulings, you will see that the ruling was extreme and flies in the face of standard practice before a military court. Without access to a military law library, or an expensive subscription to the West Group, you can see some of these rulings and opinions at

    Unlike civilian courts, in the military system an appeal is automatic.

    Again, the problem is the twisting and spinning of the law until it suits the agenda- in this case, keeping the truth from ever seeing the light of day. It is not enough that we have laws in place that allegedly prevent such things from happening; they are worthless if the courts can simply refuse to hear an argument. The Constitution is pretty straight forward about eligibility, and if any case can make it to the discovery level, this will all be academic. That will never happen as long as the courts can simply find ways to not hear a case.

    BTW- I have read MUCH of your work and have been a suscriber for a very long time; I posted today because I felt you were dismissing a very important piece.

  3. gregnh says:

    Two things. 1) I was keeping tabs on your blog from an RSS feed. It would ping your Somehow I came across the blogtalk radio show mentioned in this post and took the time to listen to the whole thing and realized you had changed your domain. I have no idea how many others are only seeing the last post on the worpress domain “Fremenies List”.

    2) Please let me know when the hearing is scheduled in July so I can help the turn out.


    • jbjd says:

      gregnh: The hearing of the Interim Elections Committee of the TX House of Representatives is a forum (ostensibly) involving Texans only. The full legislature convenes again in January 2013, at which time the testimony taken at the hearing (hopefully) will have ripened into proposed legislation which will then have to pass the full legislature. Or, if enough interest can be raised before that time; an emergency session can be convened, with corresponding legislation passed in time to impact the ballot in the 2012 general election.

      Yes; as in all states, moneyed interests (lobbies) fronting for national political parties will be weighing in, trying to tilt the scale to their point of view. And, as always, I will be lending my uncompensated hand, trying my best (as both time and circumstance allow) to level the playing field.

      As for the faulty RSS feed, well, I have no idea what this means but, I will look into this. In the meantime, please, read the articles about the launch of President Obama’s long-form birth certificate campaign ad. RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT ADMINISTRATOR

      P.S. Do you use Google Chrome?

  4. gregnh says:

    I would only be putting the word out for Texan’s to attend.

    An RSS feed, Really Simple Syndication, is the best way to keep tabs on blog posts. When you click on your RSS feed button on your side bar it will prompt you where to place the feed. I use have mine along the bookmark bar and then the overflow runs with a pull down. I have pictured mine here.

    So when you click on one you can see all the titles with the most recent on top. When you changed your domain your feed went from to but unless I investigated I would not know that change had occurred.

    • jbjd says:

      gregnh: Yes; we need well-informed Texans present at the election hearing. Absolutely. And, given the latest ‘news’ from the SoS with respect to the problems Kelly (and Bruce) brought to her attention – this will appear in the next article – it seems, we will need their presence before that time.

      I went from .com to .org ages before the particular post you last accessed through the RSS feed. Are you using Google Chrome? (I am learning as I go along…) ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply to jbjd Cancel 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: