WANT JUSTICE for TRAYVON MARTIN? FIRST, CHARGE RACHEL JEANTEL with FELONY MURDER in his DEATH (1 of 2)

July 18, 2013

© 2013 jbjd

I believe that Rachel Jeantel conspired with Trayvon Martin to attack George Zimmerman because they suspected he was gay. We all know what happened next: Zimmerman ended up with a broken nose and Martin ended up dead. In Florida, this is Felony Murder. But more about that in the next post. For now, I want to further clarify why, as I identified in TRAYVON MARTIN to RACHEL JEANTEL: THE “NIGGA” is a “CREEPY” “ASS CRACKER”  I believe that homophobia gave rise to the underlying crime.

I began paying close attention to the trial of the State of Florida versus George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, only after the disparate public response to last Saturday’s “Not Guilty” verdict. I was especially interested in the testimony of state’s witness Rachel Jeantel, admittedly on the phone with Martin at or around the time of the encounter between the 2 men.   I watched the videos, and read the transcripts. I formed an opinion. On Monday, July 15, I wrote the first article about the case, introducing my theory that the pundits – on both sides – ‘had it wrong.’ That is, the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from a hate crime, specifically, he attacked George Zimmerman on the basis, he thought the man was gay. I posited that Racehel Jeantel, his sometime friend, might have egged him on.

The article posted on Monday afternoon. Coincidentally; that same night, in the first of what would be several public appearances over the next few days, Ms. Jeantel was on CNN with Piers Morgan to discuss the trial.

Obviously, Ms. Jeantel had undergone extensive rehabilitation since her courtroom appearance weeks earlier. For starters, now freed of the encumbrance of having to tell the truth at the risk of perjury charges; she spoke so as to be heard.  Plus, Mr. Morgan coaxed her along, having either failed to do his homework with respect to the facts or, in the alternative, ignored them altogether, instead merely parroting the political perspective of his bosses at CNN.* But, in no time at all, it became apparent to me, even the professional molding by her handlers coupled with Morgan’s kid gloves had not completed the metamorphosis. Because, despite her attorney’s fixed vigil by her side; incredibly, the more she opened her mouth, the more she revealed, I was right all along.

Okay, let’s start with Jeantel’s explanation of the phrase “creepy ass cracker,” which she claimed in testimony Trayvon uttered when she asked him to describe the man he said was following him. Again, according to her testimony, that phrase was not racial. And, again, I believe her. But in reviewing the videos of her live testimony – and there are 5 hours of this – I saw that while she insisted “creepy ass cracker” was not a reference to race; she admitted the word “cracka” is a reference to race, and is commonly used in her neighborhood to describe someone who is white. So, why had she insisted “creepy ass cracker” was not a reference to race? Again, I think, because it wasn’t. Rather, it was a reference to sexual orientation. And now, weeks after that testimony, Mr. Morgan provided her (and her attorney) with a forum to launch a brand new definition of terms. Sort of.

Specifically, Morgan asks about the term “creepy ass cracker”; but listen closely. In fact, he ends up only focusing on the “cracker” part, not on “creepy ass.” “People have said that that’s a phrase used by black people – cracker – to describe a white person. Is that true?” “No!” But she had explained under oath; of course, she and her friends regularly use the word “cracka” to describe a white person. Mr. Morgan asked her to spell the word: “C-R-A-C-K-A.” Now, listen to how Jeantel sidesteps Mogan’s question about her use of the word “cracka” and, instead, redirects attention to “creepy ass.” “That’s a person who act like they a police… like a security guard who acting like… that’s why I said to them, Trayvon said, “creepy ass cracka”… and then he keep telling me, that the man still watch him…”

Summing up; “cracka” means, white person, as evidenced by the more than 30 entries in Urban Dictionary (not one of which entries refers to someone who acts like a policeman or security guard wannabe). And, in fact, Jeantel admitted under oath, she and her people use the word “cracka” in that way. On the other hand; she insisted under oath, “creepy ass cracker” is not a racial epithet. As I pointed out previously, she is right, as “creepy ass cracker” means, someone (of any race) who engages in anal sex.

Morgan asked Jeantel whether there was any doubt in her mind, Trayvon “absolutely believed” “the creepy ass cracka” was pursing him and that he was “freaked out” by this. “Definitely, I thought say might be a rapist. For every boy, every man, who is not that kinda way, see a grown man following them… would they be creeped out? So, you gotta take as a parent, you tell your child, when you see a grown person follow you, run away, and and all that. Would you gonna stand there? Are you gonna tell your child stand there? If you tell your child to stand there, we gonna see your child on the news, for a missing person…”

Wow. Clearly, through the use of this rhetorical hypothetical; Ms. Jeantel wanted to make sure the present audience grasped that the situation in February 2012 was fraught with all kinds of sexual deviate possibility. True, on the stand; she did say people in her “culture” and “community” refer to a person acting like Zimmerman as a “pervert.” And, in all likelihood, Trayvon was “creeped out” by Zimmerman’s gaze. But in contrast to her current claims, she didn’t believe he was a rapist at the time of her earlier testimony. In fact; recalling that Martin said, a man in a car was watching him, she testified she did not respond because “she did not think it was a big idea.” Trayvon repeated, the man kept watching him. Now, she testified she posited the possibility to her friend, that the stranger might be a rapist. Trayvon joked, “Nah, stop playin’ with him like that.” She said (smiling), she told him, “Okay, then, why he keep looking at you?”  (The prosecutor described this exchange between Jeantel and Martin as “joking” and she agreed with his characterization.) Looks like sometime between February 2012 and now, a joke about sexuality turned into a fear of homosexual rape. But obviously, not a bona fide fear of rape. And certainly, not a fear of rape of a “child”; after all, at the time of his death,  according to police, Martin, 17, was 6’0″ tall and weighed 160 pounds.

(to be continued…)

* For example, Morgan said his guest had lost a “great friend,” and that “nobody knew him better than you.” But as she admitted under oath, the 2 had been estranged for several years and only reacquainted on February 1, 2012, a few weeks before his death, when Martin visited his friends who happened to live in her neighborhood.  Additionally, she admitted at trial that while phone records indicated numerous contacts between her phone and his, in the form of both calls and texts; this did not necessarily represent that the 2 had communicated with each other, as others often used her phone to contact him, too.


TRAYVON MARTIN to RACHEL JEANTEL: THE “NIGGA” is a “CREEPY” “ASS CRACKER”

July 15, 2013

©2013 jbjd

If the confrontation between Trayvon Martin (black) and George Zimmerman (Latino) in February 2012 had, at its root, a connection to race then, that link was the  perverse preoccupation of boys in the hood, with cementing a perceived image of their ‘hetero’ masculinity by means of pounding anyone they allege has a ‘homo’ sexual orientation.

In State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, Rachel Jeantel (black) testified on behalf of the Prosecution. Under oath, the witness would recount she and Trayvon were close friends, who had met in 2nd grade and recently reacquainted after a lengthy separation. Poignantly, she said he never made fun of her size. But Prosecutors didn’t subpoena her to testify because she and the deceased had been friends. Rather, they knew Rachel was on the phone with Trayvon at or around the time of his death and, after prolonged interactions, figured their ‘star’ witness could now bolster the state’s decision to charge 2nd degree murder by lending credence to a theory that Mr. Zimmerman sparked the confrontation resulting in Mr. Martin’s demise.

So, how did authorities know these two were on the phone, in the first place?  Well, it wasn’t because, she had told them. In fact, while her unique perspective resulted in testimony on the stand which the state ostensibly intended would paint Martin as an innocent bystander to Zimmerman’s aggressor; it would appear, left alone, Ms. Jeantel was in no hurry to obtain justice for her dead friend.

For example, Jeantel testified she learned at school on Monday, her friend had been shot the night before. Immediately, she checked her phone, confirming she had been speaking with Trayvon around the time George shot him. Nevertheless, she did not contact authorities. She had not contacted them 3 days after that, when Trayvon’s dad (black) called her to point out, she was the last person to speak to his son. One month later, in March, when someone ‘ghost-wrote’ her note to his mom (black), she still hadn’t contacted authorities. That she would fail to contact authorities to reveal from her unique perspective, a narrative which, consistent with her subsequent testimony, would exculpate (the conduct of) her friend in his death begs the question: why?

Ms. Jeantel didn’t speak to police until April 2; in the home of her dead  friend’s mother, who sat tearfully at her side throughout the interrogation!

Nor did she attend Trayvon’s funeral.  On the contrary; she later admitted to lying about being in the hospital during Martin’s funeral and lying about her age to try to avoid telling her story to Martin’s family and the public. Why did she go out of her way to avoid situations which could provide an opportunity to cast her friend as the ‘innocent’ in his death? She variously explained, “I didn’t want to see the body“;  and, she felt guilt.

When asked why she didn’t attend the funeral, Jeantel said, “I felt guilty.”

“You felt guilty about what?” asked prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

“I found out I was the last person, I was the last person who talked to their son,” she said.

Id.

Why such guilt? Listen closely to her testimony.

Among her revelations on the stand, more than a year after that pivotal telephone conversation, were these: Trayvon said, “a man kept watching him,” and “the nigga is still following me now.” And she said, when she asked Trayvon to describe the man following him, Trayvon replied, he was a “creepy ass cracker.” She retorted, “he might be a rapist,” prompting Trayvon to chastize her to “stop playin’ with him like that.” (She would also use the word, “joke” with him.)

She maintained on cross-examination by Defense counsel (white) she thought this was a racial incident. Asked to pinpoint the thing that gave her this impression, she referred to Trayvon’s general description of the man now identified as Zimmerman. Now, Counsel specifically asked, ‘do you mean his statement, he was a “creepy ass cracker”‘? Rachel would have none of this. Indeed; she insisted the word “cracker” had no racial connotation. And she grinned while the lawyer pressed her on the meaning he would have her impute. Because, she was telling the truth.

Urban Dictionary defines the word “ass cracker” is someone who “engages in anal sex,” for example, “That wanker is an ass cracker.” In other words; Martin was only afraid Zimmerman was gay. And Jeantel encouraged his misapprehension.

The Defense attorney, referring to Ms. Jeantel’s ‘ghost-written’  letter to Trayvon’s mom, pointed out, she had omitted the fact Trayvon had referred to Mr. Zimmerman as a creepy ass cracker. Again, consistent with his assertion that, if race was a part of this case then Martin and not Zimmerman had interjected it; he suggested, by using the word “cracker” to describe Zimmerman, Martin was the one who made this about race. And that Rachel had not used this racist term in the letter to Martin’s mother because she – Rachel – did not want his mom to know these things about her son. But Jeantel emphatically rejected the suggestion. Rather, her stated reason for leaving it out was, variously, “I did not think that was important“; and “nobody asked me.”

West pressed her on what he indicated were inconsistencies between the letter and Jeantel’s subsequent depositions and testimony – in particular her recent revelation that Martin told her he was being followed by a ‘creepy-a** cracker.’

He asked her why this was the first time she disclosed that Trayvon had referred to Zimmerman in this way.

She said: ‘Nobody asked me.’

Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349794/George-Zimmerman-trial-Rachel-Jeantel-Trayvon-Martin-prosecutions-star-witness-dragged-coals-defense.html#ixzz2Z8iPYjWI

I think that the only reason Ms. Jeantel had failed to acknowledge previously her friend, Trayvon Martin, described George Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker,” especially in front of his mother or father; is they, like her, would know exactly what this means. And that, had she been a more sophisticated witness, we never would have known this tragedy resulted not from a hate crime based  on race but on sexual orientation.

We may never know what role, if any, Ms. Jeantel played in egging her friend on.

CIA LINK to BOSTON MARATHON BOMBERS not just a RUMOR

April 29, 2013

©2013 jbjd

There seems no doubt the Tsarnaev brothers were on the CIA’s radar as possible terrorists, long before the Boston Marathon bombing. Still, on that basis, I cannot say whether the CIA’s failure to thwart the eventual terrorist attack resulted from its failure to follow through on those reports which preceded the bombing; or whether the failure to act was consistent with agency guidelines.

What I do know is this: in all of the major media reports which cite the CIA’s advance knowledge the brothers Tsarnaev might be up to no good, including the NewYorkTimes; I did not read that the daughter of  former CIA official Graham Fuller was once married to the uncle of the two men – you know, the one who called his nephews “losers” – and, in fact, once lived in his house. That is, until I turned to the news from another country. MailOnline

But you don’t have to take anyone else’s word for this connection; Mr. Fuller himself confirmed these facts to Al-Monitor, although, at the same time he verified the connection, he characterized rumors of a connection are “absurd.” Id.

Naturally, evidence of a relationship does not determine ipso facto cause and effect. That said; when it comes to asking ‘what did we know and when did we know it’ with respect to the Boston Marathon bombing; even the liberal bastion FireDogLake has begun asking questions. Is the Government Covering Something Up in the Boston Case?


IN LOCKDOWN

April 19, 2013

©2013 jbjd 

I am in lockdown because Suspect #2 in the Boston Marathon bombing is on the loose down the street.

Since late last night, when the headlines only read, MIT officer shot; I have been glued to the computer, following a live video feed on WCVB, the local news, and a live twitter feed on the Boston Globe. Because almost immediately, the report of the initial shooting was followed by reports describing multiple police forces had identified the getaway car, and were in active pursuit of what was overheard on Boston police scanners were ‘two men of Middle Eastern descent.’ Based on this overwhelming show of force; and the perceived appearance of the alleged perpetrators – I had seen several still images of the Suspects #1 and #2 and thought they looked Middle Eastern, too – I immediately figured the shooters had something to do with the bombing.

This post is not intended to be a news story; you can read the details on your own. And it is not going to provide a description of the atmosphere in town – before, during, and after the race – or, background information of the towns themselves –  Watertown, Boston (Copley Square), and Cambridge (aka The People’s Republic of Cambridge) – with respect to the events occurring here. (The race passes a couple of blocks from my home.) I hope to do so, when this is all over. I just want to point out what I consider to be a salient aspect of the news coverage.

There has been virtually no focus on the facts that the brothers, ethnic Chechen, are Muslims; that they identify themselves on their FB pages as good Muslims; and that, their father named them after historical Muslims who advocate the very violence subsequently perpetrated by their namesakes. Even the boys’ uncle, interviewed at his home in MD, tried to preempt any discussion that his nephews’ actions were somehow related to their being radical Islamists. Asked why he thought the men had done such a thing, he replied, “Being losers, hatred to those who were able to settle themselves – these are the only reasons I can imagine,” sternly adding, “anything else, anything else to do with religion, with Islam, is a fraud, is a fake.” (He further expressed extreme remorse for the attacks, offering to get down on his knees to beg forgiveness from the victims. None of the reporters followed up by asking whether this quest for absolution included prostrating himself to those victims of the Jewish faith.) But thus determined to insulate the Muslim faith from any scrutiny with respect to these acts which, however late in the game, even President Obama conceded constitute terrorism; he was anxious to redeem the family’s Chechen ethnicity. “You put a shame on our entire family — the Tsarnaev family — and you put a shame on the entire Chechen ethnicity,” Tsarni said.

Before the brothers were officially identified as both the suspects shown in the FBI videos from the Boston Marathon bombing and, the suspects in the murder of the MIT police officer; local Muslims were already hoping the perpetrators were not ‘one of them.’

Grief and dread for Boston Muslims

Like so many others this week, local imams have been praying since Monday’s bombings.

They’ve been praying for the victims. They’ve been praying that the ­fanatic who did this is caught quickly and brought to justice.

And they’ve been praying for something more: Whoever it is, please don’t let him be a Muslim.

“What will happen to us if they arrest someone and that someone turns out to be a Muslim?” Imam Talal Eid, a chaplain at Brandeis University, said Wednesday.

He recalls the backlash that followed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He remembers being afraid to send his children to school for a few days afterward, and the way some began to view all Muslims with suspicion, even hostility. A few fringe-dwellers even spoke of internment camps like those that held Japanese-Americans during the ­Second World War.

The country has changed since 2001, Eid said. People know more about ­American Muslims now, are less afraid of them, less likely to make the many pay for the sins of the unhinged few. But we have a long way to go.

“I am still worried,” he said. “We are still labeled. Muslims may be out of the red zone, but we are still in the yellow zone, not the green zone.”

If the terrorist turns out to be a disaffected survivalist, a white supremacist, or some other flavor of domestic extremist, he will stand in a courtroom alone, with only infamy for company. If he is a Muslim, thousands will be called upon to answer, by ­association and stereotype, for his actions.

Leaders in the community will then go right into what Ibrahim Rahim, imam at the Yusuf Mosque in Brighton, calls “apologist mode.”

The attack fills him with immense grief, said Rahim, who leads a largely Arab-American congregation of several hundred. Born in New York, he has lived in Boston since he was 12, and he feels this attack as viscerally as any native. But all week, his grief has been bound with dread.

“As you process it, you think, ‘Oh boy, this looks like something from overseas, that might be affiliated to Islam, and here we go with that again,’ ” he said.

Preparing for that possibility, Rahim has been strategizing for days with another imam, William Suhaib Webb at the 1,000-member Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center in Roxbury.

“We have to figure out a narrative,” ­Rahim said. “We’re talking about a unity service on Friday if it turns out to be what we hope it isn’t.” He and other imams will make it clear that anyone who takes a life has no right to call himself a Muslim, that whatever brand of Islam extremists may practice, it has nothing to do with the faith lived out by their congregations.

“We do so much interfaith work, we apologize so often for many of the things that do not reflect Islam,” he said.

Still, both imams know, all the work they have put into building bridges to the wider community will be threatened.

But the past few days have made Yusufi Vali, executive director of the Islamic Society of Boston, more optimistic that those bridges are strong enough to withstand an onslaught.

“I’m proud to be a Bostonian,” he said. “The way our community has bonded together has been an amazing feeling inside this tragedy.”

As he spoke, three Boston police cruisers and one state trooper sat outside the mosque, just in case. Since Monday, he has heard from officials at two local temples ­offering support: “It may be hard being a Muslim in Boston this week,” one e-mail read. “If there is anything we can do, from one congregation to another, please let me know.” A longtime Mission Hill resident, worried about a possible backlash, offered to gather neighbors who could escort Muslim women to the grocery store.

“This is what Boston is about, right?” ­Vali said.

Yes, that is what we are, or try to be.

But please, let’s not put it to the test. Again.

Yvonne Abraham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at abraham@globe.com.

“[H]ard to be a Muslim”? Well, how about, being an 8-year-old Christian boy standing at the finish line to watch his father run the Boston Marathon, standing next to the Muslim jihadist who planted the bomb which minutes later killed him? Or the man whose legs were blown off below the knees minutes after the bomber, looking him straight in the eye, placed the weapon of mass destruction on the ground right next to him? “[P]ossible backlash”? Like what? Like not trusting anyone who espouses a faith which, when it is not encouraging its adherents to commit violent jihad, is sanctioning such terrorism, with no questions asked?


POLITICOS PURPOSELY OUTFOX PUBLIC when it comes to FOX (News)

November 5, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

Assume, for the sake of argument, that FOX News is both unfair and unbalanced. (And just because according to the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, MSNBC is even more unfair and unbalanced, doesn’t mean, it’s right! Likewise, ignore CNN’s Candy Crowley, so-called moderator of the Presidential debate, who insinuated herself into the exchange for the purpose of establishing the false meme that, as early as September 12, 2012, Obama called the September 11 assault on Benghazi a terrorist attack. After all, she apologized, on CNN, immediately after the debate was over.)

Further, assume FOX reporters and analysts like Jennifer Griffin and Catherine Herridge continue to focus on various aspects of the murders in Benghazi only for political reasons, namely, to draw support away from President Obama and onto Governor Romney. (I won’t guess the reason you attribute to the recent coverage from Eli Lake at The Daily Beast; or ABC’s Jake Tapper, or David Ignatius from the Washington Post…)

And assume that, before yesterday, November 4; CBS’ on-line version of “60 Minutes” featuring Steve Kroft’s interview of President Obama on September 12, 2012 had this part of the story right, namely, Obama called Benghazi a terrorist attack from the beginning (notwithstanding 2 weeks later, he told the U.N. General Assembly, this was a spontaneous riot triggered by a Mohammed video).

Okay. But on November 4, CBS finally released video of that same Kroft interview of Obama, only now edited to include snippets which they had previously omitted and which arguably had contributed to a false interpretation that the President had really called the September 11 attack against Ambassador Stevens,  “terrorism,” as early as  September 12. (RealClearPolitics featured the video on their front page today.)

As you can see (and hear); regardless of whether Obama says he said on day 1 this was a terrorist attack; obviously, he did not. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134495n&tag=mg;60minutes

Now, read today’s FOX analysis that President Obama lied in the 3rd debate against Governor Romney, when he – the President – insisted he had been calling the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack, all along.

What President Obama really said in that ’60 Minutes’ interview about Benghazi

Know what this means? As a fair and balanced consumer of news; you need to recalibrate your assumptions.

P.S. You may ask; except for its use as political capital, does it even matter precisely when the President called Benghazi a terrorist attack, anyway? Yes, indeed it does. Because as you will see; under the U.S. Code and numerous policies and procedures promulgated by everyone from the DoD to the DoS; the President’s response obligations are triggered by whether this event was considered a terrorist attack. Furthermore, determining whether pre-attack conditions should rightly have triggered conduct intended to forestall the events of September 11, is also critical to a full analysis of what went wrong. That is, investigators must determine not only what the President knew but also when he knew it.


COMPROMISING our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

October 28, 2012

©2012 jbjd

In what became known as the “Great Compromise,” attendees at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 formulated a bi-cameral Congress, with one body – the Senate – consisting of 2 (two) citizens from each state; and the other body – the House of Representatives – consisting of 1 (one) citizen fronting for each 30,000 citizens in the state. In this way, the Congressional power of the smallest states, whose populations could be said to be ‘over-represented’ when it came to number of citizens per each Senator; was offset  by the power of the largest states when it came to number of Representatives resulting from superior population. The Constitution and the Idea of Compromise

If we Americans better understood that, the Legislative branch of government is predicated on the fact, this Constitutional republic functions through a representational government, which is intended to fairly apportion power among all of the constituent states; and that, Electors are chosen consistent with this principle, that is, the number of Electors in each state equals the number of U.S. Senators (2) plus the number of U.S. Representatives, which varies with population; then, many of us might not be so eager to scrap the current system and replace it with a one-person-one-vote scheme more consistent with what some mistakenly characterize is, in fact, a Democracy.

To say nothing of the fact that when we finally get around to shoring up our election laws so as to guarantee that only the Presidential candidates Constitutionally qualified for the job may appear on the ballot and subsequently be voted for by Electors in any one state; our endeavors will not be offset by lax conditions allowing anyone to get on the ballot or be elected President by Electors, in another.
HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK’


TRUMP to LEMMINGS: DO NOT LOOK BEFORE you LEAP!

October 24, 2012

©2012 jbjd

Today, in a calculated display of hubris rivaled only by a production spawned from President Obama’s re-election campaign, Donald Trump has unveiled his much touted October “bombshell“: a “deal” to entice Mr. Obama to produce both his college and passport applications and records. Trump promises that jumping through this hoop “by October 31,” and “to my satisfaction,” and “if it’s complete,” will yield a check for $5,000,000 to Obama’s designated ‘charity.’ (I put the word ‘charity’ in single quotes because in addition to listing a well known outfit like “American Cancer Society”; he lists not only the umbrella enterprise of “AIDS research”; but also the generalized category “inner city children in Chicago.”) He couches his request in terms of acting on behalf of the people, to end their “questions” and “anger.” Yes, he knows that the President will be doing a “great service for the country” by allowing them to “know something about their President.” In short, by releasing the documents Trump mentioned, the President suddenly will “become transparent.”

Of course, some of us know, no “thing” coming out of this dog-and-pony show will inform anyone where Barack Obama was born.

For starters, notice that Trump qualified his reference to Obama’s “long-form birth certificate” by adding (after an obvious pause) “or whatever it may be.” It’s the “whatever it may be” which should have been the tip-off, Trump is wearing his circus barker hat. Why do you suppose he is ‘hedging his bets’ as to the ‘document’s’ authenticity?

As I explained in SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE back on April 1, 2012 (and other articles linked therein), what was released on April 27 was the political ad campaign conceived, executed, and launched by the President’s re-election campaign, the contents of which were fully protected by the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on restrictions on political speech. Featuring the image of the mock-up of a long-form birth certificate, the ads ran on internet sites such as WhiteHouse.gov/blog. (Emphasis added.)

Do you suppose that Mr. Trump, in April 2011 still a possible contender for the Presidency; doesn’t recognize a political ad campaign when he sees one?

Trump asserts he forced the President’s April 27 release of this advertising image: “I’m very honored to have gotten him to release his long-form birth certificate…” Presumably, he means, in a desperate attempt to quell doubts as to the President’s birth status which have swirled unabated for more than 3 years, since the primary in 2008; it was his – Trump’s – many references to concerns as to whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, uttered as a (pseudo) Presidential candidate in the spring of 2011 which compelled the release of the document at this particular time. (Again, crediting the release of the certificate – “or whatever it may be” – to the President, as opposed to correctly attributing the release to the President’s re-election campaign, cannot have been an innocent oversight.) But, of course, Trump had no more to do with either the substance or the timing of the April 27 appearance of the long form image; than any of the other millions of Americans challenging the narrative of Obama’s birth and demanding some sort of documentation. In fact, its release was triggered by the formal announcement of the President’s re-election campaign 3 weeks earlier, on April 4, and the accompanying mandatory filing with the FEC which then allowed the solicitation of funds in his name by the newly formed re-election campaign, funds which the campaign immediately translated into expenditures on political advertising such as the long-form ad. In other words, it was the official (read, legal) kick-off of the President’s re-election campaign which provided the first opportunity to address what were ongoing eligibility issues that could jeopardize his re-election. (The formal kick-off of the President’s campaign was also accompanied by previously scheduled events associated with the re-election campaign, including a stint on Oprah and a major NY fundraiser, also on the 27th. Id.)

SHE SAID / HE SAID contains not only a lucid (albeit lengthy) explanation of the long-form image as a campaign expenditure; but also references several other articles on the “jbjd” blog, dispelling the long-form myth, including  HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard), which points to the lethal problems associated with allowing candidate ‘self-authentication.’ Indeed, did you notice that Trump’s deal for Obama’s records never specifies who must transmit these records, or to whom these records must be submitted? And while he says, the documents must be “complete” and to his “satisfaction”; he never specifies, who will determine whether these criteria are met. Because he knows better.

For example, during the recent Presidential debates; Obama verified the authenticity of some of his ‘facts’ by citing their source was “reporters.” What if these same “reporters” verify any forthcoming records? (See Pooh-poohing Pulitzer) And recall that Annenberg Political Fact Check staffers with no expertise in document authentication confirmed, the mock-up of the President’s Certification of Live Birth, and accompanying ad copy, were real. (See RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’) Assuming she is being sincere in this heated exchange with John Sununu from the Romney campaign; Reporter Soledad O’Brien is only one of millions of Americans who still wrongly believe, what APFC says must be true.

UPDATE 09.17.15: The original video is no longer available. In its stead, here is a link to a page explaining what happened between Ms. Soledad and Mr. Sununu on CNN; and points to the recent metamorphosis to the ‘factcheck’ URL. http://www.tcunation.com/profiles/blogs/soledad-o-brien-political-hack-constantly-getting-caught-in-the

In sum, Donald Trump knows better than to contend that any ‘documents’ forthcoming through this publicity stunt will increase the knowledge of the American people about the circumstances of our President’s birth; or diminish our ire at what many of us feel is a con. On the contrary; by failing to take advantage of media opportunities like this, to educate the public that, legally, the April 11, 2011 long-form release by the Obama re-election campaign was only part of a political ad launch; and worse, by cynically encouraging the Obama campaign this opportunity to repeat that ploy; Trump only broadens the con, and exacerbates our ire.

Obviously, Mr. Trump thinks most Americans are as foolish as does President Obama.


RA’AM-TA’AL

September 26, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

Whether supporting Israel means, endorsing its people as individuals or, its government; one cannot support Israel without supporting Muslims.

They are in the Knesset, the Israeli counterpart to our Congress.

From the Jewish Virtual Library:

Here are the names and bios of current members of Ra-am-Ta’al, from the official web site of the Knesset: Talab El-Sana, Masud Ganaim, Ibrahim Sarsur, and Ahmad Tibi.  And, as you can see, all are native Israelis. (That is, they list Israel as their place of birth.)

Know what this means? That charging the subway posters championed by Pamela Geller, which do not mention Muslims, are nonetheless anti-Muslim because she is a Zionist, that is, she is zealously pro-Israel; makes absolutely no sense.

Nu?


DEATH in LIBYA

September 12, 2012

©2012 jbjd

It is noon here on the east coast; the news is flooding in on events in Libya and already, the propaganda is saturating the airwaves along predictable partisan lines. And, as usual, unless you take in divergent viewpoints, you will get the story all wrong.

First, especially for those of you who have only gotten your news from blogs; please, listen to Secretary Clinton’s live briefing from the U.S. State Department.

.

Secretary Clinton’s remarks can help to place in their proper perspective those reports and images found on the likes of  Drudge on the one end or The Boston Globe on the other; I was particularly struck by the clarity offered by just a few lines, not necessarily spoken in this order.

When the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post, some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital and they helped rescue and lead others to safety.

(Just because you see an image of a man being carried by crowds does not mean, they are doing him harm.)

…we must be clear-eyed in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group, not the people or the government of Libya.

(According to the CIA, Libya is 97% Muslim, Thus, it is safe to say, most of the embassy attackers and murderers were Muslim. If you agree that in using the word “savage” to describe those Muslim Libyans who attacked and murdered embassy staffers, Ms. Clinton referred only to the conduct of the brutes and not to either their nationality or religion then, please, leave Pamela Geller alone.)


THE 2012 TEXAS BALLOT CHALLENGE

July 16, 2012

© 2012 jbjd and kjcanon

Given current election laws; the only way to keep an ineligible candidate out of the White House is to keep the candidate’s name off the ballot, in a state that only allows to be printed on the ballot the names of candidates federally qualified for the job. But what happens when election officials in a ballot eligibility state – like Texas – are determined to ignore those laws? Then, the only way preserve the integrity of the ballot; is to take those officials to court.

View this document on Scribd

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Please, contribute to THE 2012 TEXAS BALLOT CHALLENGE challenge.


%d bloggers like this: