A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 4)

September 6, 2010

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGHEPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 4) is the third installment in the 4-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Barack Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot.  The groundwork for the present article, “The Coup at the Convention,” was laid in the first 2 (two) installments, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4); and A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4).  Trust me, if you understand what got us here, to the convention, then you are now at the same jumping off point as those people who were determined to steal the nomination.  Yep; just like you, from here on in, they were winging it, too.  Because something they hadn’t anticipated happened at the start of the convention which could have derailed their best laid plans to obtain the nomination.  Indeed, as I wasn’t there, it is only in retrospect I can explain to you what I later realized is about to go down, notwithstanding as it turns out, I was responsible for what happened next.

The Coup at the Convention

Judging by how hard they had fought to elbow Clinton out of the race at the beginning of the primary and caucus contests, powerful parties interested in placing Obama in the White House knew from the start, the only certain way to force this flawed candidate on the American people was to limit his exposure to public scrutiny by sewing up his nomination well in advance of the August 25 nominating convention.  They failed, miserably.  Indeed, while publicly maintaining since February, his nomination was a fait accompli; even they didn’t feel comfortable enough until August 14 that, having strong-armed a sufficient number of pledged delegates and paid off the rest, no matter what, they would pull off the nomination in an open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention; to concede consistent with past practice the name of any other candidate seeking the nomination should also be formally entered into the roll.

Yes, they were confident on August 14 and for almost the next 11 (eleven) days that their Herculean investments in his candidacy over the past couple of years would pay off, better late than never.  And in the end, even accounting for the open roll call vote of pledged delegates from every state, from the floor of the convention,  he would walk away with the nomination.

Have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recruit Obama in the summer of 2006 to run against Clinton for the 2008 Presidential nomination?  Check.  Immediately thereafter, have DNC Chair Howard Dean rig the delegate apportionment process so as to ensure that Clinton, despite winning on account of real votes cast in state contests for her, would nonetheless lose and Obama, despite losing the actual vote count, would win?  Check, check, and check.   Have him appoint Pentacostal Preacher Leah Daughtry, DNC Chief of Staff, to be the CEO of the 2008 DNC  Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention?  Check.  Have him make Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, the Chair of the 2008 Convention thus enabling her to control the nomination process (and after making him the nominee, to co-sign the Certification of his Nomination swearing to election officials he is Constitutionally eligible to be President to get them to print his name on the ballot in states whose laws only allow on the ballot the names of candidates who are legally qualified for the job)?  Check.

Then, on August 25, the first day of the convention, something unexpected happened which began to unsettle his henchmen; and which, by Tuesday, August 26, the second night of the convention, had panicked them into pulling a bait and switch on the scheduled roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, scrambling to preserve the chance that just through the use of that roll call, he could get the nomination.

That’s when they scrapped the scheduled open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, simultaneously orchestrating a convoluted ploy affording them plausible deniability, they had not.

The ‘change’ in voting procedure, fashioned by both the Clinton and Obama camps Tuesday night, was rolled out to the press in Wednesday morning’s conference call.  (Even the word “change” was never used.) Bill Burton, spokesperson for the Obama campaign,  handed off the details to Jenny Backus; and she only prefaced her remarks by saying, she would “talk a little bit today, um, about some of the, um, process that you will see that will happen tonight, um, at the convention.”

Last night, convention secretary Alice Germond; ah, Jeff Berman, who is a senior adviser to the Barack Obama campaign; and Craig Smith who is a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton sent out a joint note to, um, all of the state delegation chairs with some information about, um, Wednesday’s roll call vote.  Ah, basically, um, here’s the guidance that we can give you, ah, so far.  Ah, last night and this morning, state delegations received vote tally sheets for their delegates.  Um, throughout the day today they’ll be distributing those tally sheets to their delegates.  Um, the cheat sheets will be completed by 4pm mountain time.  Eh, today from about 3 to 5pm mountain time   the voting and roll call procedure will happen.  Um, the convention will gavel open at 3, ah, there’ll be, um, 3 nominating speeches, um, for Senator Clinton, a nominating speech and seconding speeches, ah, and then a nominating speech and 3 seconding speeches for Senator Obama.  Ah, they will, ah, each candidate’s speeches will total, ah, no more than 15 minutes, so that’ll be about a half an hour of speeches.  Once the speeches are concluded the vote tally sheets will be collected, ah, by the office of the secretary, ah, and then we will begin the roll call of the states and the delegation chair or her designee will announce the totals for each candidate.  So, that’s the procedure how the roll call vote is gonna work today.

Um, and, ah, you can look forward to later this morning, ah, a joint statement from the Clinton and Obama office about who will be giving those nominating speeches, um, for each of us.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/27/roll-call-details-hammered-out/?fbid=yBSb83MFwB9

A reporter from BBC (whose name I did not get) asked, “…in reference to the roll call vote, I just wanted to confirm that there’s not going to be stoppage of, of any sort of states, that all 50 states will have their say and their vote tallies announced, right?  There won’t be any kind of stopping?” Id.

Ms. Backus replied, “Um, the guidance that we’re giving you on the roll call vote is basically exactly what I just, ah, said to you right there.  Um, it will go from, ah, 3 to 5pm mountain, ah, which is 5 to 7pm eastern, um, and that’s the procedure on how it’s gonna work.”  Id.

Joe Manus, St. Louis Post Dispatch asked, “So the roll call will be at the beginning of tonight’s proceedings; and will the states be doing their unofficial tallies like this morning at the breaksfast?” Id.

“States will, um, begin to do their, um, unofficial tallies at the breakfast and throughout the day, um, and they will turn in those tally sheets, ah, this evening after either during or after, um, the nominating speeches before the call of the roll begins.” Id.

In sum, Ms. Backus told the press, pledged delegates will begin voting at their hotels this morning and throughout the day as delegation chairs distribute the “cheat sheets” to members of their delegations, only until 4:00 mountain time, when they are due to be delivered to the floor of the convention to be added into state totals which will be announced during the roll call of all states on the floor of the convention beginning at 3:00 mountain time.

Get it?

Delegates awoke on Wednesday, August 27, and shuffled off to another round of state delegation breakfasts where, in addition to their coffee and tea, they were now served up this bitter elixir from their delegation chairs.  They would have to cast votes for their candidates after breakfast, in the hotel, behind closed doors, and then re-group on the floor of the convention.

Their response?  Total confusion.

At least according to this account published in the Austin Chronicle at 1:33 on Wednesday afternoon, describing what had happened that morning when Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”), a super delegate who had committed to Obama before the end of the primary/caucus contests, announced the new plans to the Texas delegation.  (All mistakes appear in original.)

Finally, a Roll Call Vote

Boyd Richie announced a change to the Roll Call Vote process at this morning’s Delegate Breakfast. After receiving our delegate credentials, we were directed to a small room in the west wing of the host hotel. Inside the room we presented our delegate credential and ID, then placed our president preference (Obama, Clinton, or Abstain) and signed our name. This was our official vote. The list will be copied and published then delivered to the Pepsi Center via a shuttle bus around 12:30pm (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Mr. Richie stated that officials staying at other hotels would still have the opportunity to vote later today. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Chairman Richie was upset both visibility and emotionally when some delegates asked whether observers would be present during the voting process. “We’re all Democrats”, said Richie in an angry tone. Finally, after several interruptions from some delegates requesting an observer, he asked the Obama registered agent Ron Kirk and Hillary registered agent Garry Mauro whether they wanted observers. Registered agents are the official representatives for campaigns. Mr. Kirk said they [Obama delegates] were not interested in having observers. As he said this, some Obama supporters began to chant, “Unity, unity.” In place of Mr. Mauro, John Oeffinger represented the Hillary campaign and honored the request of Hillary delegates to assign observers. John then immediately scrambled about the ballroom to schedule observers in shifts.

Strangely, we’ve also been told that we’ll vote again this evening. Mr. Richie said he did not know the process for delegates that wish to change their vote from what they placed on this morning’s ballot. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

After voting, we were sent to a table to obtain our seating assignment for this evenings Roll Call Vote at the Pepsi Center.

So, how many times do we vote? Which one counts? I guess we’ll find out tonight.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/News/Blogs/index.html/objID666330/blogID/

How many times do we vote?”  “Which one counts?”  Mr. Richie’s announcement there was a “change” in the voting procedure obviously left the Texas delegation with the impression, the ‘process’ used by the DNC to choose their Presidential nominee was ‘play it by ear.’

In contrast, that same morning, at 9:43, the Rocky Mountain News announced convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry described the voting process was ‘business as usual,’ pursuant to the ‘rules.’

Convention roll-call plans set for tonight

COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER — Each state at tonight’s session of the Democratic National Convention will announce the results of its delegate tally during a roll call that has been the source of much speculation and controversy this week.

Convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry said the roll call will take place as it has in previous conventions, despite speculations that a compromise between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might result in a departure from the usual process.

The roll call is guided by the rules of the party,” Daughtry said at this morning’s convention press briefing. “It will proceed just as the rules dictate. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) Every state and every delegate will have the opportunity to vote. Everyone will be represented. Everyone will have their votes counted.”

The roll call will begin with each state announcing its delegate vote totals for the two Democratic candidates after a series nominating and seconding speeches for Clinton and Obama, Daughtry said.

Voting has already begun, as delegates began receiving tally cards this morning. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/27/convention-roll-call-plans-set/

Guided by the rules of the party…just as the rules dictate?”  Rules?  What rules?

Certainly not the Delegate Selection Rules, 2, Participation, F:

In accordance with Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, votes shall not be taken by secret ballot at any stage of the delegate selection
process
…?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf

Or Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter:

All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/58e635582dc516dd52_5wsmvyn09.pdf

This drivel points to why I said in COUP (2 of 4), it’s useless trying to reinstate order to the Democrat’s Presidential nominating process by falling back on the rules, regulations, and Charter of the Democratic Party.

By 12:53, Ben Smith at Politico was announcing Barack Obama’s campaign has reverted to plans for a traditional roll call on the convention floor… (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

There’s a bit of confusion about the plans for a roll call, and some Democrats say they’re dissatisfied by a process that has them voting in private, by state. But that’s the old-fashioned way, says my colleague Andy Glass, who’s covered these for years.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/A_traditional_roll_call.html

But whichever version of events you bought into – “just as the rules dictate”;  “the old-fashioned way”; or ‘play it by ear’ – one thing was clear.  From the outside looking in, it wasn’t easy to recognize these events for what they were:  the signal that Obama’s warriors had decided at the last minute to scrub the scheduled open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, which was expected to have been followed by Clinton’s release of her pledged delegates, and then another vote after that, which was supposed to give him the nomination.

Incredible, huh.  Thousands of eye witnesses in Denver, including the press, scrutinizing every detail of the goings on inside the convention, and no one asked why whoever was in charge had decided to scrap the open roll call of pledged delegates.  Why?  Because they lacked the information necessary to recognize what they were observing.  So, what was this ‘thing’ that happened under everyone’s nose yet flew under the radar, so significant it caused Obama’s allies in the DNC to re-orient the nomination process at the last minute in order to hide votes for Clinton from her pledged delegates as the preferred means to guarantee his nomination?

Word had spread to the Clinton pledged delegates sent to the convention from those 13 vote binding states, including CA, that the laws in their states required them to hold fast to their candidate through at least the first round of voting at the convention; and that their Attorneys General had received complaints Obama’s people were subverting the law by trying to get those delegates to promise to switch their votes to him, even before they got to the convention. We know that at least one of those A’sG, Thurbert Baker (D-GA), instructed that state’s pledged delegates to obey the law.  Consequently, these delegates were going to obey the law, and vote for her through at least the first round.  Some, including Clinton pledged delegates from CA, even after that.

So, why was this such a big deal? BECAUSE OBAMA AND HIS CONSORTS HAD ONLY AGREED TO HOLD AN OPEN ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION RELYING ON THE FACT, SEVERAL HUNDRED CLINTON PLEDGED DELEGATES FROM VOTE BINDING STATES WOULD HAVE NO IDEA THEY WERE ‘PLEDGED’ PLEDGED TO CLINTON WHEN THEY REACHED THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION. Thus, those pledged delegates who had already been successfully co-opted  to switch their votes to him, added to those who would enthusiastically switch to him in the fabricated momentum of the occasion; plus those who would fatalistically give in to the feigned inevitability of his nomination, would easily put his numbers over the top.

But didn’t I say, in COUP (1 of 4), Obama’s agents would have known which states had vote binding laws before they twisted the arms of Clinton delegates in those states since the state delegate selection Plan sent to the RBC for approval had to include details of any state laws respecting the conduct at the convention of pledged delegates from that state? Yep; that’s what I said.  So now you’re probably thinking, ‘well, jbjd, if Obama’s people knew about the laws in those states by looking at those delegate selection Plans then, wouldn’t any delegates seeking guidance as to their conduct at the convention by examining the state Plan, be able to read about the state’s vote binding status, too?’  Nope.  Know why?  Because there was nothing in those state Plans about vote binding laws. And now you are probably shaking your heads.  Why did I say the Plans submitted to the RBC explain how Obama’s people knew in advance which states had vote binding laws if the Plans contain no information about vote binding laws!

To answer this question, you have to read the fine print in the RBC Regulations.

Section 2, Submission and Review of Plans, regulation 2.2, Formal Submission, reads, “Each State Party Committee shall include the following documentation with the submission of its Plan to the RBC…”  “I., “… a copy of all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process…”  Id. Did you catch that?  The rules don’t say, this documentation about special state laws regarding how pledged delegates must vote at the convention is a part of the state delegate selection Plan.  The RBC rules only tell the state committee, when submitting the delegate selection Plan for our approval, you have to attach this additional information.

In other words, this additional information forwarded to the RBC by the state party about special state laws respecting party delegates – this would include laws spelling out how to submit to state election officials the name of the Presidential nominee to be printed on the state ballot –  does not become a part of the accompanying state delegate Plan.  Wanna see?

Here’s California’s approved 2008 Delegate Selection Plan.  Nothing in either the Table of Contents or the body of the Plan, references any special laws requiring pledged delegates to vote for the candidate voters in that state elected them to represent, on the floor of the convention.

This means that pledged delegates wading through the various DNC documents for guidance as to how they should vote at the convention would only find this line on p. 19 in the DNC Call for the 2008 Convention:

All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.  (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

“Good conscience.”  But nothing about the law!

Here’s just a sample of language I pulled together from the laws in some of those vote binding states.

“Each person selected as a delegate shall sign a pledge that the person will continue to support at the national convention the candidate for President of the United States the person is selected as favoring until 2 convention nominating ballots have been taken.”  OR

“Each political party shall, on the first ballot at its national convention, cast this Commonwealth’s vote for the candidates as determined by the primary or party caucus.”  KY

“Each delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention of his political party shall cast their vote on all ballots for the candidate who received this state’s vote.”  OK

“Each delegate to the national convention shall use his best efforts at the convention for the party’s presidential nominee candidate who received the greatest number of votes in the presidential preference election until the candidate is nominated for the office of president of the United States by the convention.”  AZ

“As a delegate to the national convention of the Democratic Party, I pledge myself to vote on the first ballot for the nomination of president by the Democratic Party as required by Section 1-8-60 NMSA 1978.”  NM

“Delegates and alternates shall be bound to vote on the first ballot at the national convention for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary.”  VA

“The delegates to the national conventions shall be bound by the results of the preferential presidential primary for the first two (2) ballots and shall vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.”  TN

In an Opinion now appended to his state’s binding vote law, the words of the Attorney General of GA reach the heart of similar laws enacted in all of these states:  “This section reflects the legitimate interest of the state in insuring orderliness in the electoral process, and it provides a means of presenting the political preferences of the people of this state to a political party.”  GA

(Can you imagine how long it took me to research the election laws in all 50 states in order to find the 13 states that bound their delegates at the convention?)

The majority of pledged delegates from vote binding states were unaware of their special status coming into the convention.  How can I prove this?  And, more importantly, how do I know that news of their obligations under the vote binding laws of their states still managed to reach Clinton pledged delegates?  And that this new found knowledge was a game changer to the roll call vote?

In the summer of 2008, I was only one of hundreds of citizen activists who became immersed in the machinations of the Presidential nominating process of the Democratic Party.  As I previously explained, one of my contributions was to ‘discover’ and then publicize the existence of those 13 vote binding states.  As I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4), my work did not immediately ignite the endorsement of people who could have spearheaded a massive public education campaign in advance of the convention.  GA was the one state in which I and my team of Georgians were able to get out a concerted campaign to alert both Clinton pledged delegates and AG Baker, Obama’s agents were breaking the law.  And, as a result, AG Baker reminded delegates in that state, “pledged” means pledged. Id. Eventually, in the days immediately preceding the convention, my work on vote binding states did attract the attention of members of the party who, previously unaware these laws existed, saw the strategic value of the work to support the Clinton campaign.  Id.

But what I hadn’t yet told you, is that my work on vote binding states also attracted the attention of another citizen activist, from CA, who not only managed to get inside the convention, but who also had a hand in assembling packets of information that were distributed to all delegates.  Guess what she slipped into these delegate packets?  Yep; my materials on the laws regarding the votes of pledged delegates from vote binding states.

Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, was a member of the CA delegation.  She addressed the CA delegates at their first delegation breakfast on Monday, August 25.  Listen as she not-so-subtly twisted arms to get Clinton pledged delegates to violate CA law.  Imagine, the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, soliciting Clinton pledged delegates to abandon the will of the voters, in defiance of the law, in order to support her candidate of choice?   Imagine being a Clinton pledged delegate sitting in the audience under the watchful eye of the powerful Madame Speaker; holding a packet of materials that informed you for the first time, you are from a vote binding state.  How free do you suppose you would feel to question what she was saying, let alone to express disdain at what she was asking you to do?

Another member of the CA delegation receiving this information was Attorney Gloria Allred, a Clinton pledged delegate.  Watch while she informs reporters when Monday’s breakfast was over, that fellow delegates had asked her to research whether the law required them to vote for Clinton on the first round of balloting.  (Some confusion arose because CA election law applicable to either the D or the R Presidential preference primary is codified in separate sections.   But D delegates are bound by law to the candidate voters elected them to represent, arguably until a candidate is nominated at the convention.)  Ms. Allred makes a point of saying, she will vote for Clinton on the first round in order to carry out the will of the voters who elected her; but makes clear, she does not yet know whether such a result is required by law.

By Tuesday morning’s breakfast, Ms. Allred had researched CA election law.  Here she is after breakfast, informally trying to get word out to Clinton pledged delegates,  they are bound to vote for their candidate at the convention.  (I wish I could see the papers she is waving around.  Maybe one of these was my letter to AG Brown complaining Obama was poaching Clinton delegates in his state and asking him to intervene?)

Later that same day, speaking at the end of a rally to celebrate the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage, the 19th Amendment, Ms. Allred, claiming she was denied the opportunity to formally address fellow delegates at breakfast, now informs the crowds, in CA, the primary is “binding.”  She points out, ‘voting for Clinton is consistent with DNC rules which say, use your “conscience” to represent the voters who elected us, since they elected us to vote for Clinton…’

She reasons, ‘even if Hillary releases, we owe an obligation to the voters.’

That night, Pelosi, Obama, Dean, and Reid, et al. decided to call off the open roll call vote of all states scheduled to take place Wednesday evening on the floor of the convention.

So, instead of waiting until after the first round of voting during the open roll call of all states on the floor of the convention, Clinton released her delegates early Wednesday afternoon.  AFTER THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING (albeit behind closed doors at the hotel).  Now, technically, according to some of these vote binding laws, pledged delegates from vote binding states were free to vote for the candidate they in “good conscience” (from the DNC Delegate Selection Plan) concluded was a “fair reflection” (from the DNC Charter) of the will of the voters who (indirectly) elected them.  And they might have, except for one thing:  having already voted once, back at the hotel, they would have no opportunity to vote again.

This last minute early release of Clinton delegates from their pledges could have created another problem if it hadn’t also escaped detection.  See, since Clinton did not release her delegates until Wednesday afternoon; when Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states voted at their hotels Wednesday morning, they had to vote for her according to the law.  Thus, any vote totals from those 13 vote binding states that were then transmitted to the Secretary should have reflected the number of delegates appointed as the result of votes cast in the state for the candidate, at the time of the primary or caucus contest, right?  Not surprisingly, they did not.

Here are the numbers of Clinton pledged delegates awarded as the result of votes voters cast for her in those vote binding states: AZ – 31, CA- 204, GA-27, IN-38, KY-37, MA-55, NH-9 NM-14, OH-74, OK-24, OR-21, TN-40, and VA-29. This makes a total of 609, just from those vote binding states. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-HF.phtml The total number of votes from Clinton delegates just from those vote binding states we saw ‘vote’ from the floor of the convention, before NY, should have been 415.  But it wasn’t.  Not even close.  (The low number of Clinton votes becomes even more suspect when you consider, in addition to votes from Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states, the totals would also have included votes from Clinton pledged delegates who were not legally bound to vote for her but who, in “good conscience,” would have honored the voters who elected them by sticking to their candidate, at least on the first round.)

The DNC refuses to release an ‘official’ tally of votes cast in the hotels, by whom.  I received an email from a KY Clinton pledged delegate who said her delegation chair, Jennifer Moore, ignored her request for a list of that state’s votes, too.  Shortly after the convention, the DNC did release some kind of tally sheet that included ALL states, not just those states voting on the floor of the convention; but they rescinded that list shortly thereafter.   The GreenPapers published that list, with links, that are now inoperative.  In the 2 (two) years since the convention, the DNC has failed to post another list.

According to Andy Glass at Politico, “…there’s not even any formal mechanism within national party rules for each delegate’s vote to be recorded. What’s recorded is the vote of each state delegation.” Id.

The CA delegation passed.  The reason?  According to Don Frederick at the LATimes, “because a tally of its 441 votes had not been completed when the state’s name was called.”  But hadn’t they already voted back at the hotel?  (Evidently, Mr. Frederick is another one of those reporters who is unaware of the laws in those vote binding state.  He writes, “Clinton did not receive a majority in any of the recorded tallies — and in most, Obama’s backing was overwhelming. But Clinton’s support was notable in a few instances, including Arizona (40 votes for Obama, 27 for her), Kentucky (36 for him, 24 for her) and Massachusetts (65 for him, 52 for her).”  “Notable”?  How about, ILLEGAL? AZ, KY, and MA are all vote binding states.)

This means, while we can establish which of Obama’s agents suborned Clinton pledged delegates in vote binding states to violate their pledge; we cannot determine which of those delegates ended up breaking the law.  Including those pledged delegates who are PLEO‘s, or party leaders and elected officials, like mayors, governors, city councilors, and legislative leaders.   And this brings us to the heart of the matter involving Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states:  the unpledged PLEO’s, better known as super delegates.

See, here’s the thing.  As long as pledged delegates from vote binding states remained unaware of their bound status, Obama could have managed to convert an only slight (contrived) lead in pledged delegates into a landslide win.  Only, this landslide was in jeopardy once pledged delegates from vote binding states learned they were bound by the law.  But so what?  Even without any shenanigans with respect to any of the pledged delegates, based strictly on the number of pledged delegates awarded immediately after the primary and caucus contests ended; neither Clinton nor Obama had the requisite number of votes from pledged delegates alone to win the nomination.  Certainly not on the first round. At some point, if the typical give and take expected of such political theater could not produce a nominee, the unpledged PLEO’s would have broken the impasse.  And the majority of these unpledged PLEO’s had already come out publicly in support of Obama, even in states where Clinton had won the popular vote. In other words, whatever happened along the way, in the end Obama was set to run off with the nomination.

So, why the mad rush to take the nomination just from votes cast by pledged delegates?

Recall what I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4):

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

The people who staged the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention needed the pledged delegates to pull off Obama’s nomination because they did not want you to see that the votes of those unpledged super delegates had been bought and paid for, well in advance of the convention, by his wealthy benefactors…

From OpenSecrets:

For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time. In cases where Obama had made a contribution since 2005 but Clinton had given the superdelegate nothing, Obama got the superdelegate’s support 85 percent of the time. And Clinton got the support of 75 percent of superdelegates who got money from her but not from Obama. For this update to the Feb. 14 study the Center combined contribution data with a list of superdelegates and their endorsements compiled by The Politico as of Feb. 25.

http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=338

…including Madame Pelosi, his biggest ‘vote fairy godmother’ of all.

From Dr. Lynette Long, in NoQuarter:

“Bought and Paid For! By Nancy Pelosi”

As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates’ endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests.

What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren’t counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC’s, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination….

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/13/bought-and-paid-for-by-nancy-pelosi/

And that’s why they pulled off the coup that hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.

Conclusion

For readers expecting a sort of summation of the ‘lesson learned’  from all four installments of “A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH,” the main focus of which series was the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention, I offer this.

“I can only imagine Clinton would have made a much better President than Obama but, based on how he obtained the nomination, I anticipated he would make a much better crook.”  jbjd.

EPILOG

A lay person looking at this chart of delegates can easily read, the total number of delegates for either candidate fails to get the nomination.  But Obama had bought off a sufficient number of these super delegates to help him steal the nomination.  So, even with a real open roll call vote of all states from the floor of the convention, before the arm twisting and poaching, eventually, the super delegates would have had to intervene to break the impasse.
Advertisements

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4)

August 17, 2010

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

© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4) is the second installment in the 4-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot .  (For the first installment, go to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4))

Much of this article consists of comments I posted on blogs in August 2008, which provide historical and retrospective context for the conclusions at which I presently arrive.  PLEASE READ THESE COMMENTS, in order, while imagining you are a part of the Obama campaign’s team of dirty tricksters.  This will help you to understand the way in which events leading up to the convention unfolded, and how and why in the end, they had to pull off a coup in order to secure the nomination.

Part 2:  Lead-up to the Coup

Recall that the motive of the movers and shakers behind candidate Obama, was to get his name on the general election ballot by making him the nominee of the Democratic Party as far as possible in advance of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  But notwithstanding the nefarious means they had employed throughout the primary and caucus contests, they had nonetheless failed to secure the nomination.  No matter what they tried, they could not undermine Clinton into relinquishing her bid for the nomination.  Why, even now that the primary season was over, the candidate only suspended but did not end her campaign.  So, over the summer Obama’s minions, having failed to secure the nomination based on the number of delegates pledged to him, now set out to corral the hundreds of delegates pledged to her, determined to steal his nomination before the convention.

I only created the “jbjd” blog in late August, 2008, after the convention.  So, in June, after Clinton suspended her bid for the nomination, I continued commenting on other people’s blogs.  For the most part, my focus was fixed on ridding the blogosphere of its misconceptions about specific facts related to the Obama and Clinton narratives, and not on improving people’s understanding of the electoral process.  Because back then, I was as ignorant as to the nuts and bolts of our Constitutional republic as the average citizen 2 (two) years later, remains.  Especially with respect to the role played by our 2 (two) major political parties.

By the first week in August, any knowledge deficit I had suffered regarding the electoral process was rapidly melting away.  (Although as you will see, looking back, some of my comments sound so naive.)

Responding to rumors she might not be formally entered into nomination, Clinton supporters began pushing to ensure her name would appear on the ballot at the convention.  According to DNC rules – by August, I was studying those rules – this would require the signatures of at least 300 pledged delegates, as well as the candidate.  Her pledged delegates from all over the country had been demanding the opportunity to ‘represent’ the candidate the voters elected them to vote for at the convention. And, like the rest of us who had watched that May 31 meeting of the RBC, they were still smarting from the treatment their candidate had received at the hands of other members of her party.  As a result, gathering the 300 signatures would be easy.  But here was another problem.  The Chair could refuse to enter into nomination anyone who failed to demonstrate loyalty to the Democratic Party.   In light of the meme from party officials that Obama’s nomination was already a fait accompli, putting her signature on such a petition could be construed as evidence she was being disloyal to the party, which perceived disloyalty could become a bar to her formal nomination.

Yet, if her name was not formally entered and accepted into nomination then, any votes cast for her from the floor call of the roll would only be recorded as “Present.”

(Please note, from here on in, I will no longer cite to any rules of the DNC.  Because another epiphany that came to me in August was this: the DNC is a private club.  Thus, it can make and break its own rules.  And it set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules.  Plus, “discretion” is written into everything.  In other words, even if officials of the party engage in conduct that looks like it violates the corporation charter, this might only result from the fact, one objects to the particular way this discretion was used.)

With strong grassroots efforts underway to secure her nomination, on August 10, AP’s Nedra Pickler offered up “Clinton to headline second night of convention,”  subsequently published by both MSNBC and RealClearPolitics, portraying the Clinton and Obama ‘camps’ were negotiating to determine whether her name would formally be entered into nomination.

Clinton told supporters she is seeking a way for her delegates to be heard at the convention and be united after the hard-fought nominating contest.

“Because I know from just what I’m hearing, that there’s incredible pent up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, ‘OK, it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.’ That is what most people believe is the best way to go,” she said, according to video of the remarks taken by an attendee and posted on YouTube last week.

Obama told reporters Thursday he thought the negotiations with Clinton aides had gone “seamlessly,” but he also rejected the notion that there might be a need for emotional release on the part of some Democrats.

“I don’t think we’re looking for catharsis,” said Obama. “I think what we’re looking for is energy and excitement.” Id.

Ms. Pickler’s account of the Obama and Clinton negotiations contained these lines:

Delegates are not formally pledged to any candidate so Clinton does not need to “release” them to Obama. The rules also say delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination. Id.

As my readers can attest, discussing these issues I struggle  to view the glass as half full rather than half empty.  With this optimistic life view in mind, I refuse to characterize that AP, MSNBC, and RCP reporters and editors intentionally withheld from millions of their readers the material fact, laws in 13 states do bind pledged delegates to the candidate of the voters’ choice. Instead, I will grant, they just didn’t know.

Because on August 10, I still didn’t know. But by August 13, hearing bits and pieces from here and there, I was beginning to put it together.

I heard news reports that a Clinton delegate in CO was being pressured by the state chair of the party to change her support to Obama and had hired a lawyer to deal with the situation!  Now, I looked up DNC model delegate selection rules to determine whether this Clinton pledged delegate could change her mind. DNC rules tell pledged delegates to use their “good conscience” to represent the will of the voters who elected them.  Viewed in this light, the state chair who was pressuring her to change her mind to Obama could be construed to be merely encouraging her to exercise her discretion in a manner consistent with how the voters feel now, and not when she was elected.

Then, I heard something about a Clinton pledged delegate from OR being pressured to change her mind notwithstanding the law in her state required her to stick to her candidate. The law? You mean, the citizens of some states have enacted laws requiring pledged delegates they elect to follow the party’s candidate into the convention?

And that’s when the stark nature of the politics hit me:  since Clinton for whatever reason had suspended her campaign, her delegates were now unprotected.  Obama’s people swooped into the void and were picking them off, like sheep, one by one, on their way to the convention.  I knew if she was to have any chance at the nomination; those of us who supported her candidacy would have to shepherd her pledged delegates through to the nomination.

I posted my thoughts throughout the blogosphere, especially on the PUMA PAC blog, which received hundreds of thousands of hits in the days leading up to the convention.

jbjd on 08.13.08 at 3:05 am

DELEGATE VOTES AT CONVENTION

Taffy,

This is fabulous! Nice work. I know of another state – either WA or OR – because I heard this last night on riverdaughter’s radio show. (I went to riverdaughter’s site to pull up the show but was unable to access her site, while she is away.) Anyway, PUMAs from GA can contact HRC delegates from that state, to make sure they know the law in their state and ask whether the state party has pressured them to switch to BO. If GA HRC delegates have been pressured, PUMAs can propose they could write a “Cease and Desist” letter to the head of the state party, copied to the S of S, advising them to stop extorting HRC pledged delegates to violate state law by committing to switching to BO before the convention or risk being replaced at the convention.

We need to have everyone’s back, not just HRC; because everyone’s back we cover, covers her.

And this, later that day, closer to realizing the full implication of delegate poaching and thinking out loud, what to do.  (You will notice that even way back then, I was eschewing the practice of turning to ‘saviors’ to rescue our cause, in this case, Clinton’s nomination.  Rather, I urged us, instead, to rely on ourselves.)

jbjd on 08.13.08 at 6:03 pm

GRIEVE; THEN RESUME THE MISSION

We need to have the backs of the state delegates so they can back HRC. These are ordinary people, like us. Many of them probably are here for the first time, and have been blindsided by all of this. All I want to do is empower them to stay the course. Otherwise, they will be replaced (in states where this is possible).

Unless we protect our delegates, both pledged and unpledged, that is, super, they cannot protect HRC. And if the national party wasn’t afraid she could still be the nominee, they wouldn’t be advising the state parties – I am certain this is coming from the top – to reign in HRC’s pledged delegates in their states.

The information I am providing for you is actually a step-by-step self-help manual. These are incidents of first impression. That is, nothing like this has ever happened before. So, I figured out a way to address the issue.

First, check to see whether you live in a state where state laws require pledged delegates to follow their candidates, at least through the first round of voting at the convention. (So far, we know that both GA and OR law require this.)

Then, call your state delegates pledged to HRC. These are ordinary people, just like us. Some of them are first-time office holders. They probably feel as blindsided as we do. After all, they are party members, too. The woman in CO hired a lawyer; but no one should have to hire a lawyer to protect herself from attacks by her own party.

Explain you are concerned as a Democrat, as a puma (generic), or as a citizen of the U.S.A. about what is happening to the Democratic party. If they have been pressured, take notes. Tell them you’ll get back to them. Then, come back here, and I will guide you where to go next.

(Please, keep your eyes on the prize.We don’t need a savior. Somebody mentioned Gloria Allred or Alan Dershowitz. These headline grabbers would do more to attract attention to themselves than they could ever provide help to us. Anyway, they cannot do anything for us that we cannot do for ourselves.)

 

Clinton supporters debate merits of roll call vote,” a USA Today report  (published on abcnews.com) on August 13 tells of a continuing divergence of views on both whether Clinton’s name will be called on the roll; and the reasons as to why.

One of those supporters is Allida Black, a George Washington University historian who said she cashed in her retirement savings to finance travel to 14 states for Clinton. Black, a Clinton delegate from Virginia, is helping circulate the nominating petition.

“This is not a spite Obama effort,” she said. “This is for Hillary to get the respect her campaign merits.”  Id.

(Within days, I would confirm Virginia was one of 13 states I identified and dubbed the “vote binding states.”)

Professor Heidi Li Feldman, Georgetown Law, maintained a blog called Heidi Li’s Potpouri, a must-read on the days leading up to the convention.  On August 13, she posted the copy of a nasty letter Obama’s agents had sent to Clinton pledged delegates in GA.  But there was no mention that GA was a vote binding state.  Now, for the first time, I looked up GA law.  And there it was. In fact, the GA law not only requires pledged delegates to support their candidates at the convention but also contains an advisory opinion from the GA AG, supporting the law and explaining its intent.

I posted this information on Heidi Li where, like all other comments, it went into Moderation. Then, I began wondering just how many other states had these vote binding laws.  And whether this same nasty letter that had gone out to Clinton pledged delegates in GA had gone out to her delegates in those other states, too.  Later, I went back to see whether Heidi Li had posted my comment; and whether anyone from GA had responded with a comment containing references to the vote binding law in that state. By now, several comments had come through Moderation.  Mine was the only comment about the binding law in GA; but in the comment posted just above me, someone identifying as a Clinton pledged delegate from NC claimed, that mean-spirited letter that had been sent to Clinton delegates in GA had also been sent to her!

I checked; party delegates are not bound by the results of the NC primary.  But now, I knew Obama was ‘pressuring’ Clinton pledged delegates to switch their votes to him in states throughout the country; and that in some of these states, delegates were bound to the candidate through the laws of their state.

In my mind, agents for Obama enticing Clinton pledged delegates in vote binding states to switch their votes to him before the convention, were breaking the law!

I decided to turn them all in.

On August 14, CNN reported, “Clinton’s name to be put in nomination.”   Pointing to the obvious, they let us know, “Many die-hard Clinton fans have been hoping that her name would appear on the ballot.” Id.

That same day, ABC News’ Kate Snow also reported, “Deal:  Clinton’s Name Will Be Placed in Nomination at Dems Convention.” “Some details are still being worked out, but Clinton’s name will be put into nomination at the Denver convention on Wednesday.” Id. “What also hasn’t been settled yet is who will nominate Clinton and whether she will stand up with the New York delegation when they are called on.” Id. “What has been settled, however, is that after both Clinton and Obama names are placed into nomination there will be a roll call vote.” Id. “What has also been hashed out is that at some point during the convention, Clinton will release her delegates officialy (sic) to Obama and that she will make it very clear that she is voting for Obama, the source said.” Id.

Jeff Zeleny, writing for the NYTimes on August 14, announced “Clinton’s Name Will be Put in Nomination.”

(In June 2005, Mr. Zeleny, then working for the Chicago Tribune, interviewed then newly-elected U.S. Senator Barack Obama.

Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

When it comes to race, Obama makes his point–with subtlety (emphasis added by jbjd)

Obama liked the 2005 article so much, he posted this on his now-defunct U.S. Senate web site.  http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/ )

Anyway, on August 14, Mr. Zeleny reported, “Clinton’s name will be placed into nomination at the Democratic National Convention, a symbolic move approved by the Obama campaign in an effort to soothe a lingering rift with Clinton supporters.” Id. “After the state-by-state roll is tallied, Mrs. Clinton is expected to turn over her cache of delegates to Senator Barack Obama.” Id.

Summing up all of these reports from ABC, CNN, and the NYTimes on August 14, the great news was, everyone has agreed, Clinton’s name will formally appear on the ballot for the nomination; there will be an open roll call vote of all state delegations from the floor of the convention; and then she will release her cache of delegates making (most of) them free to vote for Obama and endorse his nomination.

Okay. Now, I could focus entirely on maintaining her delegates up to this ‘open roll call vote of all states’ for the nomination.

That same day, I began to formulate an action plan to turn in Obama’s gang to the A’sG of the vote binding states.  This became the basic set-up of the project.  1)  Find all of those states where the law required pledged delegates to stick to their candidates on the floor of the convention.  2) Obtain the names and contact numbers for A’sG, S’s of S, and state party Chairs in each state.  3) Identify, if applicable, any examples of delegate harassment specific to the state.  4) Compose a letter to the state AG citing the law and the harassment, requesting intervention to stop the illegal conduct.  5) Find names and contact information for Clinton pledged delegates in the state.  6) Identify local and national media outlets.  7) Recruit citizens in the state to carry out the project.

Here’s how it eventually worked. Citizens in the state printed and signed the letters to the AG with their names and addresses.  These were faxed out to state officials, and copied (with or without identifying information) to party Chairs.   Then, we sent blind copies to Clinton pledged delegates – often the only contact information we could obtain was street addresses, so these copies were sent via snail mail – along with this handwritten note near the signature line: “We have your back. PUMA.”  Copies were then distributed to the press.

I launched the project on the PUMA PAC blog.  These are just a sample of the comments I posted on that well-read blog on one day, August 14, beginning in the wee small hours of the morning.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:56 am

BO’S BC ISSUE

The bc issue isn’t ripe until after the convention, in some states, 24 hours after the convention, if he is nominated, and files nomination papers with the individual S’s of S. Blogging on other sites, I explained all this, and directed people to look for filing deadlines in their states, because the challenge window is based on these filing deadlines. Anyway, since no one can do anything about this bc situation until after the convention, please, focus on what needs to be done to secure support for HRC at the convention. And this means supporting the delegates, pledged and unpledged, to support her. This is what I am trying to do right now.

And more explanation in the ongoing formulation of my plan.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 3:56 am

HARASSING STATE DELEGATES – PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE,

read this and then, help me do something about it! Fellow PUMAs, BO’s emissaries from Chicago are now pressuring state delegates, too; and Chairman Dean is doing nothing to stop them. Here is an example of what they are doing in GA.
http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Remember, GA is one of those states that requires their pledged delegates to stick by their candidates through the 2nd ballot at the convention. We have to help these pledged delegates from this not-too-subtle extortion! Who is from GA? I will check in before noon. Please, we need to contact GA pledged delegates. You can get their names from the GA S of S. Once we help delegates in one state, all of this harassment will stop. But that state has to have a state law requiring pledged delegates to stick by their candidate; and evidence of harassment.

I stressed the importance of carrying out this project (as opposed to other ‘PROWLs,’ the name for the ‘action projects’ posted daily at the top of the blog).

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 10:28 am

Texas Tigress,

Nothing sent to the head of the state party will accomplish the goal of protecting the pledged delegates inasmuch as 1) you are asking the oppressor to stop oppressing; and 2) the pledge delegate in jeopardy does not know you have her back. We have to get to the actual delegate; and she has to be willing to report the illegal conduct either through a “Cease and Desist” letter to the state party; or notice to the S of S. And everything needs to be copied to the press.

Coercing pledged delegates to violate state law is really big. (This is different from the scenario described in Heidi Li’s link, wherein Chicago is pressuring these delegates to disclose their votes in advance.) Like, if this is a DNC directed campaign to get the state parties to exert this pressure to switch allegiances, on pledged delegates who are required by law to support their candidates, we’re talking RICO-type conspiracy. This is FBI territory.

CALLING ALL GEORGIANS! (U.S.A., not former Soviet Union)

Throughout the day, I posted pointers, like this.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 10:50 am

HOW TO IDENTIFY PLEDGED DELEGATES IN YOUR STATE

The state party is required to provide the identities of party delegates to the S of S. Call their office; these people work for you. Do not bother calling the state party; this is not worth the runaround you might get, and your resulting frustration.

Note: Pledged delegates are not super delegates.

And this.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 12:18 pm

That’s why I want people in their states to contact their pledged delegates. We do not want HRC’s pledged delegates to feel they are hanging in the wind; and we have no idea how much support HRC is able to provide to them, given this present repressive situation.

If GA is getting these conference call calls then, other states must be, too. But what makes this worse in GA is that, by law, pledged delegates must support their candidates through at least the first round at the convention. That’s why I am so desperately looking for GA pumas.

I posted information on other potential vote binding states, including CA.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:18 pm

CALIFORNIA PUMAS

STOPPING DELEGATE HARASSMENT

*********************************************
6201. …
(e) The California primary election is a “binding” primary.
Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so
as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential or uncommitted status
of the primary voters in each district. Therefore, the national
convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated
in proportion to the percentage of the primary vote won in that
district by each preference…
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=64820815600+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
**********************************************

Before I can tell you what to do in CA, I need to know what that word “binding” means here. Call the S of S elections division (916) 657-2166.

I sought favors; can someone please contact Jeff Zeleny?

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:52 pm

CAN SOMEONE DO THIS FOR ME? I AM SO BUSY ON THIS BLOG TODAY I HAVEN’T EVEN … YET!

Re-visit the DNC Call to Convention and find the page about the difference between “nomination” and roll call. Then, contact Jeff Zeleny – I find him to be pretty fair – and make sure he understands the difference between being officially placed into nomination and having your name ‘nominated’ from the floor, through which process any votes cast for you would only be recorded as “present.”

And posted more pointers on the project.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 3:50 pm

STATE DELEGATE HARASSMENT,
Implications of Letters from BO Representatives to State Pledged Delegates

As most of you already know, the principle that state pledged delegates should support their candidates at the convention is embodied in a document called
DNC Delegate Selection Rules. http://www.coloradodems.org/docs/2008DSPFinal.pdf
However, in certain states, including OR and GA, pledged delegates must, as a matter of state law, follow their candidates into the convention. So, for example, urging a pledged delegate to change her support, before the convention, is not only encouraging her to violate the spirit of the DNC Rules but also to break state law.

Any questions?

As I continued my research, I alerted readers to other vote binding states.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 5:24 pm

PLEASE CALIFORNIA PUMAS I admire your spirit but after I looked up your laws for you, I came up with this question, which no one is answering for me: what does that word “binding” mean here? You can call the S of S elections division (916) 657-2166. This will determine how best to proceed in your state. (Each state is different, which is why I have been asking you to identify your state. ) Also, I need people in each state to SPEAK to a pledged delegate to confirm HRC pledged delegates in each state are being contacted by BO’s people in Chicago and asked – under various ploys – to identify their candidates.

http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

I cannot help you with the letter from your state until I have the information I asked for, from your state. As they say in the movies, “Help me help you.”

Still trying to confirm CA.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 5:44 pm

STOPPING STATE PLEDGED DELEGATE HARASSMENT

CA PUMAS and others

I need you to do these 2 things. (I cannot tell you what to do next until I have these answers. Remember, I am trying to help out in all 50 states. I am swamped.)

1. Find out from the S of S – I gave you her # – what the word “pledged” means in the law I cited. Of course we would assume that, pledged means pledged. But I want to make sure what this means; ask specifically whether pledged delegates must vote for their candidate on the first vote at the convention. And take notes. (I have been asking for this since yesterday.)

2. Call some pledged delegates and find out whether they received a letter from BO’s people in Chicago, like the one on Heidi Li’s site.
http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Then come back here and tell me what you found out.

And at the end of that very long day, a plea for HELP!

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 11:54 pm

HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP

Turns out, there are states out there that require pledged delegates to support their candidates through the first vote at the convention. So far, there’s OR; and GA; and IN. I need PUMAs organized by state. Now. But I cannot organize you – I am too busy researching your laws and writing state-specific letter. GA will go out, first. Tomorrow. Because the AG of GA has already written an advisory opinion explaining the intent of the law; and supporting the law. I anticipate the AG will not take too kindly to people from Chicago encouraging pledged delegates in his state to break the law.

Citizens of GA pouring through thousands of comments posted on the blog each day, eventually found my comments and responded with their emails.  In this way, we assembled a team I began referring to as ‘my Georgians’ to carry out the project in just that one state. At the same time I was researching the laws, obtaining the contact information, and writing the letter to the AG for the next state.  And communicating the state vote binding project to readers of other people’s blogs, and recruiting citizens of each state to get out the letters I had written, state by state.

The next day, August 15, Ann Kornblut reported  in the Washington Post these variations on the plans for the open roll call of all states on the floor of the convention that had been reported just the previous day.

Clinton to Get Roll-Call Vote at Nominating Convention

How, exactly, the roll call will work remains an open question, advisers on both sides said. After having her name entered into nomination, Clinton could then ask her delegates to support Obama, bypassing the long process of reading names aloud. But several advisers said they think there will be some kind of roll call, which could begin as early as Tuesday night of the convention. (emphasis added by jbjd)

Hmmm…

My letter to the AG of GA went out that same day.  Copies were distributed to the SoS, the Chair of the state D party, and hundreds of state and national media outlets.

August 15, 2008

Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334

VIA  FAX: 404. 657.8733

SUBJECT:   Solicitation to Violate O.C.G.A. § 21-2-196 (2008)

Dear Attorney General Baker:

Here in Georgia, pledged delegates selected as the result of votes cast for Senator Clinton in the Presidential primary election are legally required to vote for her during first-round balloting at the party’s nominating convention.  OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL appended to the above-cited law explains, “This section reflects the legitimate interest of the state in insuring orderliness in the electoral process, and it provides a means of presenting the political preferences of the people of this state to a political party.” But in what can at best be interpreted as an overzealous advocacy on behalf of Senator Obama, in states throughout the country, including Georgia, proponents for his nomination have bombarded her delegates with subtle and not-so-subtle pressures to commit to switching support to him, before the convention.  Or, failing that, they replace the Clinton-pledged delegate with one loyal to Obama.  (See examples below.  Note that while the first link shows the copy of a letter Senator Obama’s campaign sent to pledged delegates in Georgia, they distributed this same letter to delegates in all states, including states which, like Georgia,mandate pledged delegates to follow their candidates into the convention.)  In Georgia, encouraging delegates entrusted with representing the political preference of Clinton voters, to pledge their support before the convention to Obama, solicits these delegates to break the law.

As a concerned citizen of Georgia, I am bringing this matter to your immediate attention anticipating that you will take appropriate action to ensure from now on, campaigning in this state related to the upcoming Democratic National Convention is consistent with Georgia laws.

Sincerely,

References: “Bearing Witness” (posting of letter from Khalil Thompson, Obama for America, Chicago) http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Clinton supporters protesting removal of delegate at Democratic National Convention http://www.whas11.com/news/local/stories/WHAS11_POLITICS_080814_CLINTONOBAMA.486a4d97.html

“Explain, Dems tell Clinton delegate” (article on state party efforts to discipline Colorado delegate for Clinton for refusing to switch to Obama)

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_10170139

Copy: Karen C. Handel, Secretary of State

VIA FAX: 404.651.9531

Jane V. Kidd, Chairwoman, Georgia Democratic  Party                                                                                            jane@georgiademocrat.org

Readers began posting states in which stories of irregularities regarding Clinton pledged delegates had been in the news.

KENDALBLUE on 08.15.08 at 12:23 am

jbjd @@@@@@@@@
a link about Kentucky delegate..clintonrules posted it.

http://clintondems.com/2008/08/clinton-supporters-protesting-removal-of-delegate-at-democratic-national-convention/

On the 15th, PA Governor Ed Rendell (D) appeared with Neil Cavuto on FOX and misinformed the viewing audience, there is no such thing as a “pledged” delegate.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 7:07 pm

ED RENDELL
(PA IS AN UNBOUND COMMONWEALTH)

You are going to have to reach PA delegates who might not know Ed Rendell does not know what he is talking about. He’s saying there’s no such thing as pledged delegates within the Democratic Party. And, since PA delegates are unbound, they don’t know that in other states, including CA (we think), delegates are bound. So they might believe all delegates will switch their votes to BO, meaning even if they wanted to vote for HRC, their votes won’t matter.

Another state confirmed.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 7:08 pm

OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON
(you’re next)

Anyone from Oregon – Do a shoutout to other Oregonians. Have them email you and put their addresses into a group marked OR. I am going to have you send this to me. I am writing your state letter now!

Oregon is next!

And another.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 9:29 pm

HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP
**********************************************

Does anyone have any information on the OR HRC delegate being pressed to switch to BO? I can’t find this; but I heard this on the radio. Anyway, I really want to include a link in the OR letter which, otherwise, is ready to go. WHERE ARE MY OREGONIANS? I am dancing as fast as I can.

IN is next.

Here is a wonderful wrap-up from one of my Georgians of the maiden effort in the vote binding project.

antifish 08.15.08 at 10:04 pm

OK Pumas, let’s all cheer up.

Just to let you know, in concert with our fellow Puma, jbjd, we GA pumas fought back against delegate intimidation today. Jbjd wrote a wonderful letter in legalese which was faxed to our Att Gen and Sec of State. We sent copies through snail mail to all pledged delegates letting them know we have their back. I know jbjd is eager to help each of you in your states, but please realize that she must carefully research the laws of each state in order to craft the letter properly. Let’s all be patient as we fight the strong-arming and intimidation of delegates.

A reminder we are on the side of the law.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 11:02 pm

ABSOLUTELY SOMEONE SHOULD BE SETTING UP A GENERIC PROWL TO ALL STATE DELEGATES, UNPLEDGED OR PLEDGED

I am only working on pledged delegates because they are being harassed to change their minds. And I wanted to start in states whose laws require pledged delegates to follow their candidates into convention because anyone who coerces a person to break the law needs to be stopped.

CA, Nancy Pelosi’s home state is confirmed, and gearing up to go!

jbjd 08.15.08 at 11:25 pm

REMEMBER NOVEMBER

Yes; send emails to me so I can set up a folder for CA. I will have the letter ready to go out as soon as I get your email addresses. And does anyone in CA know of any additional stories of delegate harassment? I only have one example. (I also use examples from other states, though; it would be shortsighted to assume the types of harassment out there occur in only one state.)

Still trying to reach the delegates before they head out for Denver.

jbjd 08.16.08 at 12:52 am

COPIES OF THE AG LETTERS NEED TO GO TO ALL STATE DELEGATES WHO AT THIS POINT MIGHT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT’S GOING ON AND WHO NEED TO KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON BEFORE THEY LEAVE FOR DENVER

Re-read my earlier comments today about Ed Rendell’s statement on t.v. The interviewer asked whether HRC winning was now possible. ‘Delegates can vote for anyone they want. The last time they were pledged was back in 1980 at the Carter Kennedy convention.’

State delegates can be reached by snail mail. It would be great if we could get these letters out tomorrow.

On the 16th, I posted the epiphany that Obama and the DNC are rigging the nomination.

jbjd 08.16.08 at 1:16 pm

***********************************************
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I THINK I FIGURED OUT HOW BO AND THE DNC ARE RIGGING THE NOMINATION

I posted yesterday that I saw Ed Rendell on Neil Cavuto, rejecting NC’s proposition that HRC could still win if enough delegates changed their minds, with this statement: ‘That’s not going to happen; delegates can vote for anyone they want and they will vote for BO. We haven’t had a robot rule since the 1980 Kennedy Carter convention.’ After seeing this on t.v., I began posting here to remind you PUMAs that some states require, by law, that “pledged” delegates must vote for their candidate at least through the first round of voting at the convention. I warned you the DNC was engaging in a campaign of misinformation aimed at state delegates, who may or may not know what is the law in their states, to get them to think voting for HRC would be useless. I urged you to get word to state delegates, hold your vote.

Today, I started thinking, what if “robot rule” was actually a term of art? So, I looked it up. And, sure enough, it is.
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2008/02/open-convention-ted-kennedy-1980-dnc.html

And then it hit me. BO is spending this week spreading misinformation to get state delegates – not the supers – to change their votes. We have to try to stop him. Normally, this ’shepherding’ of delegates is done by the candidate; BO has been in touch with delegates in each state. But HRC cannot do this now. So we have to.

This needs to be a prowl.

On August 17, I ‘blew the whistle’ on the true nature of “pledged” delegates and the Democratic Party.

jbjd on 08.17.08 at 5:49 pm

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT I HAVE EVER WRITTEN OR WILL EVER WRITE ON THIS BLOG… PLEASE REFER OTHERS TO THIS COMMENT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, IN SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS… I AM BUSY WRITING YOUR STATE-SPECIFIC LETTERS TO THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, TO BE COPIED TO OUR DEAR STATE DELEGATES PLEDGED TO HRC, TO LET THEM KNOW, WE HAVE THEIR BACKS…

***************************************************************************
DECONSTRUCTING DEMOCRACY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

My Dear Fellow PUMAs,

If you are going crazy trying to figure out what’s happening with the Democratic Party, join the club. I’m not kidding. Join the club. Because it just hit me, the way to understand this Democratic nominating process is to think of The Democratic Party as what it is – a club. And the only thing that makes this club so special is that it was able to get permission from each of the 50 states to collect campaign contributions and put the names of the candidates it wants to hold office onto the state’s election ballot. That’s it. That’s all there is. Let me explain.

According to Party – or rather, club rules, presidential candidates are chosen at the club’s nominating convention. Afterward, the club submits the name of its candidate for POTUS to the appropriate state official in each state – usually the Secretary of State – as part of an application to get onto the state’s general election ballot, in compliance with that state’s laws. In fact, states only allow the candidate for POTUS chosen by a “major political party” to submit ballot papers so late in the game because club rules and by-laws require their candidates to be chosen at a “nominating convention.”

The club determines who will be its candidate for POTUS on the general election ballot through a vote at the convention by people it calls “delegates,” which delegates obtained that status through an allocation process set by the club. That is, the club places the names of its proposed candidates on state ballots in the primary and caucus elections and then, in exchange for receiving a specific number of votes in that process, the candidates are assigned a delegate to vote for them at the convention. Most state delegates are given a special status, called “pledged.” According to club rules, when these pledged delegates cast their votes at the convention, they should use their best judgment to represent the wishes of the voters based on whose votes they were elected. Historically, by counting these delegates pledged to each candidate, the club has usually been able to predict which of its candidates will end up with the nomination at the end of the primary and caucus process, since one candidate usually garners enough pledged delegates to surpass the number the club set as the requirement at the convention. But not this year. Neither club candidate – BO or HRC – was assigned enough delegates through the primary and caucus process to secure the nomination at the convention. Luckily, the club had in place rules whereby this deficit in delegates could be made up by special delegates commonly referred to as super delegates who get to cast their votes for either candidate at the convention.

The Democratic Party set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern all these operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules. So, if like me, you have read club rules and believe, as I do, that members of the club have not played fair throughout this presidential nominating process, am I saying there is nothing you can do about it? Hardly.

Remember what I said in the beginning: the state only lets the club get onto official state ballots as long as they follow state rules. And unlike club rules, when states make rules, they’re called laws. (TO BE CONTINUED…)
©jbjd

And my eventual reply to the alert about delegate harassment in KY.

jbjd on 08.18.08 at 10:22 pm

OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG

KENTUCKY IS A PLEDGED STATE! I AM ON IT… LOOK FOR IT…

And the follow-up.

jbjd on 08.19.08 at 12:55 am

caracal carrie

I am all over KY – I have the law but this letter is unique since the club actually replaced a delegate pledged to HRC with one pledged to BO, ostensibly to satisfy an affirmative action requirement in either DNC or state rules – and NH. CA, GA, IN, and OR are done. When you wake up, look for the posting.

Now I was put in touch with Ricki Lieberman, in NY, a muckity-muck in the Democratic Party everyone else seemed to know about but me.  Here is how she was described on Huffington Post a few weeks earlier, in July.

Also a former Clinton “Hillraiser” (meaning she raised more than $100,000 for the campaign), Lieberman is keeping her own private hope alive with a daily email blast to supporters, entitled “Electability Watch,” which features a cascade of negative articles and other items about Obama as a means to argue that superdelegates should change their minds in Denver and crown Clinton the nominee instead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/clinton-distances-herself_n_113094.html

Ricki  printed my work on vote binding states in her now-infamous newsletter, “Electability Watch.”

I was also put in touch with a reporter from the LATimes.  I did my best to inspire him to write a story, describing the unlawful attempts made by agents acting for Obama to coerce delegates pledged to Clinton in vote binding states to switch their votes to him.  He just wasn’t interested.

On the morning of August 21, 2008, this article on Georgia Politics Unfiltered proved, our campaign to stop pledged delegate harassment had worked in GA.  (Perhaps not coincidentally, GA was the only state in which I had been able to recruit a team of volunteers to carry out all of the steps of the project, including sending a copy of the AG’s letter to the delegates along with a note saying, “We have your back.”)

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Attorney General Tells GA Delegates They Can’t Switch Their Vote At The Convention

I’ve confirmed with two members of the state’s Democratic National Convention delegation that Attorney General Thurbert Baker sent them a letter informing them that they could not switch their vote to another presidential candidate if they are a pledged delegate to someone else.

Two delegates pledged to New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Shannon Marietta of Dougherty County and Cheryl Williams of Gwinnett County, both said they received a letter from the Attorney General stating that they could not switch their vote until Sen. Clinton released them or she received less than 35% of the vote during the roll call vote.

The Attorney General’s letter cites an relatively unknown section of Georgia’s presidential preference primary law that states Any person selected as a delegate or delegate alternate to such national convention shall file a qualification oath with the Secretary of State pledging support at the convention to the candidate of their political party or body for the office of President of the United States for whom they are selected to support. The oath shall state that the delegate or delegate alternate affirms to support such candidate until the candidate is either nominated by such convention or receives less than 35 percent of the votes for nomination by such convention during any balloting, or until the candidate releases the delegates from such pledge. No delegate shall be required to vote for such candidate after two convention nominating ballots have been completed. [Source: Official Code of Georgia Annotated 21-2-196]

Both Clinton delegates said they planned on voting for New York’s junior Senator on the first ballot anyway.

I’m currently working on getting a copy of the letter.

http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2008/08/attorney-general-tells-ga-delegates.html

Ricki also contacted Alegre’s Corner, another PUMA blog, to post the work on her site, and recruit citizens from these states to download their state letters and send to the identified recipients.  That night, Alegre’s Corner had joined the vote binding state campaign.

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/diary/717/

By August 23, everyone is listening.

jbjd on 08.23.08 at 11:37 am

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

Howard Wolfson, staunch HRC supporter and formerly with her campaign, has been a pundit for FOX since some time after HRC suspended her campaign. He just announced (remote) to Cavuto, some states have laws that require delegates to vote for HRC.
Cavuto: ‘You mean even if HRC releases her delegates, they still have to vote for her?’
Wolfson: ‘Yes.’

WOW! WOW! WOW! As most of you know, finding these laws and getting out the word is what I have been working on! Isn’t this great news?

The next day, August 24, the day before the opening day of the convention, CNN, HuffingtonPost, FOXNews, and NYDailyNews, among others, attributing different sources, announced for the first time that Clinton would release her delegates at a luncheon on Wednesday afternoon, and not after the first open call of the roll of all delegates from all states on the floor of the convention.  They also announced the DNC had lifted all sanctions against FL and MI – Clinton won both states, neither one of which is a vote binding state – giving them full votes at the convention.

Still left intact since its announcement 10 days earlier, on August 14th, was the plan to hold an open roll call vote of all delegates from all states on the floor of the convention.

But would that plan still be in place at the start of the convention?

(Next:  Part 3:  The Coup at the Convention)

the DNC is a private club; they make their own rules. You don’t need a lawyer to protest their breaking the rules; these are their rules. They wrote in the use of discretion throughout their charter. This means, even if they engage in conduct that looks to you like it is against their rules, this doesn’t mean it is against the rules. It means you don’t like the way they exercised their discretion.

“GROUNDHOG DAY” in TEXAS

August 8, 2010

Know that movie “Groundhog Day,” with Bill Murray, where he plays a t.v. weatherman doomed to repeat the same inane moments of his life, over and over and over again, until he ‘gets it right’?  Here, let me show you.

Well, it’s ‘groundhog day’ in Texas.  Boyd Richie was just re-elected Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”).

Mr. Richie’s record in electing D’s to fill state and county offices in Texas is 0-29.  That’s not a typo.  Not counting him, no D’s have been elected into these offices under Richie’s leadership of the TDP.  None.  Nada.  Zilch.

Contrast this record, against the message he delivered in his first speech as Chairman after his 2006 election:  “Our job is not win arguments, but to win elections.”  I would ask, ‘Oh, yeah, Mr. Richie?  How’s that going for you?’  But I can anticipate his reply.  ‘Swell, thank you.’  Know why?  Because just like the title of this post implies, with him, it’s not about winning and losing; it’s about repetition.

Here’s another example of  ‘more of the same.’  Right out of the gate of his re-election, Chairman Richie again filed suit to keep a Republican out of office.

Democrats question Texas Sen. Brian Birdwell’s eligibility

AUSTIN – Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, who won a special election this spring to replace the retiring Kip Averitt, will have to defend his freshly minted victory against charges he is ineligible to hold the seat.

Birdwell had been living in Virginia and working for the Pentagon and moved to Texas in May 2007. State law says that you must be a resident of Texas for five years before you can run for the Senate.

Democrat John Cullar, appointed by the party to run for the seat, and the Texas Democratic Party have filed a petition in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals asking the court to resolve the question. If they prevail, Birdwell’s name would be removed from the November ballot, probably giving Cullar an easy path to victory.

“I’m going to run a comprehensive campaign, and part of that is analyzing if my opponent is eligible to represent the people of Senate District 22,” Cullar said. “I look forward to seeing that question resolved by the court. In the meantime, I’ll be out talking with the voters of the district I’ve been proud to call home for 26 years.”

Birdwell maintains that he is legally entitled to the seat. But questions about his residency and whether he was eligible were raised during the special election, which he won in a runoff with 58 percent of the vote.

Birdwell, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who was critically burned in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, voted in Virginia until 2006.

But the law is still in question because active-duty members of the military can live one place and still vote in Texas and consider the state home. Birdwell bought land in Texas in 2005, where he eventually built his house.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-statesen_07tex.ART.State.Edition1.360fc4a.html

Remember, he filed suit against the Chair of the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) in 2006, the same year he was first elected Chair of the TDP, which forced the R’s to keep the name of Tom DeLay on the Congressional ballot in November, notwithstanding at the time of the lawsuit, Mr. DeLay had moved to VA and was a legal resident of that state.  (CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2) and (2 of 2); and IDIOMS!)

So, let me ask you something.  Assume in 2012 Mr. Obama is the Presidential nominee of the DNC.  Given Mr. Richie’s historical penchant for consistency; what do you suppose are the chances he will refuse to Certify Mr. Obama’s Nomination to state election officials, on the grounds, no documentary evidence in the public record establishes he is a NBC?

P.S. Speaking of disrespecting people serving in the military (and parents of young children, and shift workers, and the elderly, and the physically challenged…)… In addition to overwhelmingly re-electing Richie, guess what arcane practice the D’s voted overwhelmingly to keep for the 2012 election?  Yep; the infamous Texas two-step, that combination of primary election and caucus free-for-all that managed to award Obama more pledged delegates than Clinton with less votes per delegate required.  And I can find no reports that anyone, R or D, with any evidence of widespread caucus fraud produced any public protests to try to change their minds, let alone  anyone in possession of a documentary film that preserved eye-witness narratives of this conduct from the citizens of Texas who had attended and participated in (or at least tried to participate in) these fraud riddled events.

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

Freedom costs.


NOW, LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!

August 4, 2010

The President is scheduled to visit Texas on August 9, 2010.  But Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) knew by July 31 he would be unable to attend a fundraising soiree with Mr. Obama at Austin’s Four Seasons Hotel due to other non-specified commitments.  In fact, he could not only not sit down to dinner with the Commander in Chief, but he was even too busy for an Air Force One touchdown meet-‘n-greet.

“Texas Democratic  candidates distance themselves from Obama”

…State Democratic Chairman Boyd Richie said the party is focused on ousting Perry and other Republican incumbents in Texas, adding that “D.C. politics” and the 2012 presidential election aren’t on the radar. “Texans are patriotic people and proud to support our president, but at the end of the day, we’ve been winning Texas elections on Texas issues, and that will again be the case this November,” Richie said.

Say what?

Best of the Blogs, a site which describes itself as an on-line community for progressive bloggers, calls it more directly like it is.

“Democrats Run From Obama”

…But the other statewide candidates are running away from President Obama like he had a combination of ebola and swine flu, and they could catch it just by being caught in the same county as the president. They may be running on the Democratic ticket, but they’d just as soon the voters of Texas forgot that when they go to the polls in November.

http://bestoftheblogs.com/Home/31852

But I think these reports of Mr. Richie dissing the POTUS based on his unpopularity, either in Texas or throughout the whole United States, miss the point.

Mr. Richie only became Chair of the TDP in June of 2006.   http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1052 And look at what Mr. Obama has put him through in that brief time.

One-and-a-half years after becoming Chair of the TDP, Mr. Richie swore to election officials the candidate satisfied the requirements of the Office of President of the United States in order to get them to print his name on that state’s Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.191.htm#191.003 Because under Texas law, the candidate must be eligible for office to appear on the ballot.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm#192.031

In March 2008, Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary.  Voting remained so close in subsequent contests that DNC Chair Howard Dean suggested Texas superdelegates could wait until July 1, a date by which all of the primary and caucus contests would be over, to weigh in on which nomination they would support at the August 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-superdelegates_24pol.ART.State.Edition1.46d87b8.html But Mr. Richie and his wife, Betty, both superdelegates, jumped the gun, announcing on May 29 that in 3 (three) months they had decided to vote in favor of Mr. Obama’s nomination.  http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/5867/

Just days later, the Richies had to realize they had made a terrible mistake.

In the beginning of June, with rumors swirling that Barack Obama, the Democratic Presidential nominee wannabe failed to satisfy the Constitutional eligibility requirement of natural born citizen; the candidate launched a new electronic advertising campaign with the slogan “Fight the Smears.”  On the web site of that same name, Robert Gibbs, then Communications Director for the candidate’s political campaign, posted an image of a mock-up of a ‘document’ labeled “Certification of Live Birth,” accompanied by copy proclaiming this image proved his client was at least  “native” born.  Presumably, being a long time politico familiar with the rigors of federal laws with respect to political campaign advertising, Chairman Richie, even before reading the attribution in the FTS footer, could recognize this was campaign advertising.  Being a lawyer, Attorney Richie was surely able to discern the legal distinction contained in an admission the candidate is a “native” citizen from the threshold Constitutional requirement of “natural born.”

Yet despite knowing he’d been ‘had,’ 3 (three) months later, after Mr. Obama was handed the nomination, Attorney Richie, a member in good standing of the Texas state bar, again swore to state election officials the nominee was Constitutionally qualified for the job in order to get Mr. Obama’s name printed on the general (Electors) election ballot.  And for almost the next year, he managed to get away with this lie.  Until the fall of 2009, when citizens began contacting AG Abbott with complaints charging that he had committed election fraud in order to get the state to print Mr. Obama’s name on its ballot and then, that he had violated the Texas Open Records law by refusing to provide requested documentation which was the basis for that eligibility certification.  https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/open-letter-ag-abbott-tx/

Of course, Mr. Richie had no documentation which was the basis for Mr. Obama’s eligibility certification.

Given these circumstances, who could blame Mr. Richie now for refusing to give Mr. Obama the time of day?  On the other hand,  Dave Montgomery, the reporter for the Star-Telegram, hints the President’s unpopularity explains Mr. Richie’s snub.  Someone should contact Mr. Montgomery to report the more likely reason why.  dmontgomery@star-telegram.com


PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS

August 1, 2010

(UPDATE 09.27.10:  I have been meaning to tell you, just a couple of days after I posted my unusually high “alexa” numbers for Washington, D.C., “alexa” stopped posting all of my domestic numbers.)

(UPDATE  08.15.10:  New “alexa” numbers posted on the bottom!)

I told you from the very beginning, I was right.

Almost 2 (two) years ago, having just begun to figure out what at that time I mostly only still ‘felt’ was wrong with the political process surrounding the 2008 election, I set up this technologically challenged blog so as to have a centralized location to publicly distribute my findings.  No doubt, those of you familiar with “jbjd” have deduced, I am not very computer savvy.  But even without the ‘bells and whistles’ of other blogs which are much more popular, when it comes to understanding that massive election fraud enabled the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation to steal the 2008 Presidential election for Barack Obama; work produced on the technically challenged “jbjd” has made this the ‘go to’ site.  And now, thanks to “alexa,” I can prove it.

I recently became acquainted with “alexa,” a sort of “Nielson” of the internet, which tracks and compares the viewership of web sites, posting such criteria as clicks, length of time on site, and demographics of viewing audience.  What a riot.   Not surprisingly given my low profile – for example, I am not linked to any search engines (?) or social networking – according to alexa, my ranking in the U.S. hovers at around 990,000.  Indeed, I have the lowest ranking of all of the sites I visit.  But guess where is the one place “alexa” points out I maintain “relatively good traffic rank”?  Washington, D.C.!

Yep; even blogs with much better overall numbers than mine, are not nearly as popular in our nation’s capital.  Take, for example, one of my favorite blogs, Afrocity.  (Find her link in my blogroll.)  Like me, she generally posts a substantial article every few days.  Her alexa rank is 448,000.  That is, her blog is twice as popular as mine.  alexa reports she has “relatively good traffic rank” in NYC:  208,000.  My “relatively good traffic rank” in Washington:  42,000.  In other words, the ratio between Afrocity’s overall U.S. rank and her rank in NYC, where she has “relatively good traffic” is 2:1.  The ratio between my national rank and my rank in D.C. is approximately 23:1!

Here’s another way to look at the popularity of “jbjd” in D.C.  According to alexa, my readers are mostly women, over the age of 40, with post-graduate degrees, and incomes over $100,000.  The demographics of Washington generally mirror those of the rest of the country.  (There are 2 (two) exceptions.  Whites comprise 33% of the District population versus 66% nationally; and Blacks are 55% versus 13% for the country.  http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/11000.html But alexa did not stratify my statistics according to race.)  In other words, there isn’t a surplus of women over 40 with post-graduate degrees earning $100,000 which would account for the popularity of “jbjd” in that one market.

So, who in D.C. do you suppose is reading “jbjd”? (This is a rhetorical question.)

Look at this partial list of the work I have undertaken and published on this blog in relation to Mr. Obama’s fraudulent election.

•I learned that laws in some states require the candidate to be qualified for office to appear on the ballot.  Members of the D party swore to state election officials in these ‘applicable’ states Barack Obama was qualified for office to get those officials to print his name on the ballot.  But hundreds of thousands of citizens unsuccessfully seeking out Mr. Obama’s vital records confirmed to me, based on documents available in the public record, none of these D’s could have ascertained beforehand the candidate was Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Swearing he was Constitutionally qualified for office without first ascertaining, for example, he is a natural born citizen, just to get his name printed on the ballot is criminal election fraud.

I figured out we could go after the law breakers by filing citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG in these applicable states.

First, with the help of “jbjd” readers, we researched state laws so as to identify those applicable states.  Then, we obtained from state officials in these states any documents that were submitted by D officials to Certify Mr. Obama’s nomination and, depending on who had submitted those Certifications, contacted those D officials to request the documents that were the basis for their Certification.  When they failed to produce the requested documentation – and they always failed to produce the requested documentation – I drafted state-specific citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG, and posted these for downloading.  So far, hundreds of citizens in 6 (six) states already identified have downloaded and sent these complaints.

•I observed that representatives of Mr. Obama were pressuring delegates pledged to Hillary Clinton to commit to switching their allegiance to him, in advance of the August 2008 nominating convention.  Through research, I found that laws in some states require delegates pledged to one candidate versus another through state primary or caucus contests, to follow the candidate voters elected them to represent, through at least the first roll call at the party’s nominating convention.  (I dubbed these “vote binding states.”) (In researching these laws I found the ballot eligibility laws that became the basis for the citizen complaints of election fraud.) I reasoned in these vote binding states, pressuring these delegates to change their votes was soliciting them to break the law!

I researched all 50 states and found 13 (thirteen) such vote binding states, including California.  Then, I drafted state specific letters to the A’sG of those states, in advance of the Convention, complaining of the criminal conduct carried out by Mr. Obama’s representatives, trying to ‘turn’ Ms. Clinton’s pledged delegates in advance of the Convention.  In at least one state (GA), the AG wrote to remind pledged delegates to obey the state’s vote binding law.

•(The only major fraud I have yet to present is the story of how the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, acting in the civilian role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention artfully suppressed votes from Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the Convention, as the final act in the conspiracy to deprive her of the Presidential nomination.)

•(In addition, throughout these 2 years, I exposed several deceptive practices.  For example, I showed the online COLB was merely a paid political advertisement under the U.S. Code; that the ‘contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement’ was only a ghost image pilfered from an anonymous internet poster; and that Dreams from my Father was likely authored by Bill Ayers.)

The fact that postings like these appear on “jbjd” must explain why people in Washington are watching.  Because here’s a sample of the stories I left out.

I have promoted no action with respect to grand juries; or Mandamus; or the quo’s, warranto or tam.  I have published no statements from ‘witnesses’ to a Kenyan birth or a Kenyan birth document, or neighbors in HI.  I have posted no interviews with ex-workers from the HI  Department of Health; or with ex-students from Columbia; or anyone’s ex-lover.  I haven’t blamed the results of the 2008 election on the rigged caucuses; or the acquiescing MSM; or Muslims or the Jews.  All topics that have made other blogs more popular than mine in places ‘outside the Beltway.’

So, you see, they are reading me in D.C. because whether identifying the problem with the 2008 election cycle; or formulating redress; or proposing preventive strategies, I have been writing about them.  The same people who stole the 2008 election.  And they are curious as to what aspect of the massive fraud they perpetrated I am going to detect and expose next.  (For example, I just posted a comprehensive article on the frantic push to forestall new state legislation that could require Electors to only vote for a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job, by passing the National Popular Vote in advance of the 2012 general election.  And while the NPVI will not eliminate Electors, it will certainly circumvent their Constitutional role.)  But even though they are reading; they are not too worried. See, unfortunately for those of us working to preserve the essential nature and legal construct of our Constitutional Republic; these D.C. readers know they are safe from the threat of exposure laid out on my blog just as long as the ‘cure’ I prescribe remains dependent on the work of citizens acting as individuals; and on their individual donations to support my work.  Because for whatever reason, a handful of would be ‘saviors’ have managed to sidetrack millions of citizens into believing, only the agendas they propose can cure the problems they claim ail our Republic.  For the price of a court filing; or a candidate ballot registration fee; or a bus ticket to Washington (instead of, for example, to the state capital building which houses the office of the AG refusing to investigate the charges of election fraud lodged in those citizen complaints).

Judging by my viewing audience, the people in Washington, D.C. know better what will work to fix what’s wrong with the electoral process.

Meanwhile, as I reported in a special fundraising appeal posted in the sidebar on July 27, my computer caught a virus.  As a result, some of my work is now quarantined ‘over there,’ while I was able to sneak in ‘over here’ as my “Guest.”  This means, before I can continue the work of de-constructing our electoral system for our mutual benefit; and answering your questions, and drafting your documents, I need funds to pay for an overhaul of my trusty old computer. But in the 5 (five) days since I posted that appeal, only 2 (two) readers even ‘clicked’ on the PayPal button.  And neither of them actually contributed funds to the blog.

So, why is it that the people in Washington who arguably have a vested interest in my not unraveling the mess they created, flock to this blog?  But the people for whom I created this blog, those citizens frustrated because they did not know how to quantify what went wrong with the electoral process or, how to fix it once they did; refuse to support this blog notwithstanding it provides the product that satisfies those consumer needs?

I understand why readers in D.C. might only come here to look at the goods.  Or why my efforts are largely ignored by the ‘movement gurus’ whose latest greatest gambit they assure you for a price paid to them will return to you the Republic that was ‘stolen’ in the last general election.  But the rest of you, those who, armed with the knowledge you gain from the materials posted here, not only confidently convey what you have learned to your family and friends but also authoritatively petition our government officials to start living up to their oaths of office; need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

(UPDATE  08.15.10:  New “alexa” numbers!)

I posted the article, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3), the series detailing the coup pulled off at the 2008 DNC nominating convention, and saw a huge increase in hits on the blog.  In addition, I was cross-posted on NoQuarter, whose blog boasts a significantly higher alexa score, both international and domestic, than mine.  I checked my “alexa” score this morning.  You can imagine how surprised I was to see the following image:

Yep; not only are my international numbers going down, but also  my domestic viewership has disappeared, completely, including D.C.  I interpret this to mean, I must be doing something right.


HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK’

July 24, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

Two (2) years ago, even before the DNC Services Corporation held their August 2008 Presidential Nominating Convention, I began posting this warning throughout the blogosphere for the benefit of my fellow citizens who were raising concerns as to whether Barack Obama, Presidential Nominee wannabe of the Democratic Party, was Constitutionally qualified for the job:

The only way to prevent any candidate Constitutionally unqualified for office  from presiding over our Constitutional Republic is to keep his name off the general election ballot.

True, as I explained in NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (1 of 2) and (2 of 2), technically, this made no sense.  First of all, while citizens in most states have designed their ballots so that the only names to appear for the top jobs are the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of the political party, in fact, we only elect Presidential Electors in the general election. (That’s why sometimes you will see me refer to that contest as the general (Electors) election.) And the Constitution permits these Electors to vote for anyone they want, even someone who lost the party nomination.  (This only makes sense since the Constitution is silent as to political parties.) (Sure, some states enacted laws saying, the Electors must vote for the nominee of the party but, as I pointed out previously, no ‘faithless’ Elector has ever been disciplined for breaking the law; and no vote of Electors has ever failed to receive Congressional Certification just because a state Elector violated an oath to vote for the nominee of the party.)  Nevertheless, I assured you, enacting and enforcing state election laws to keep Constitutionally ineligible candidates off November’s Presidential (Electors) ballot would prevent Electors from exercising their discretion to elect a Constitutionally unqualified candidate in December because as long as people mistakenly think they vote for President in the general election, Electors would never dare to vote for someone whose name had not appeared on that state’s ballot.

Scratch that.  Because now, they might have to.  That is, if John R. Koza’s National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”) is adopted by the requisite number of states.  And proponents of the NPV are poised to pull off passage by enough states, before 2012.  Because most Americans remain clueless as to exactly how we elected our President in 2008.  Especially when it comes to the role of our Presidential Electors.  If this means you, do those of us who are concerned about maintaining the Constitutional integrity of our Republic a favor, and re-visit  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html or,  review these 3 (three) short videos that will illuminate the role of the Electors as likely envisioned by the Drafters of the U.S. Constitution.) (Please keep in mind, none of these videos is a .gov production.)

(When you think you have the hang of Electors, see if you can wade through this great discussion on “The Green Papers” web site.  Specifically, this exchange reaffirms the seminal role of the Congress in validating any process prescribed by the several state legislatures with respect to Electors, inasmuch as Congress may or may not Certify the votes of all of the Electors based on a rejection of the vote of the Electors in any one state. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Vox/?20031114-0)

All right, so what is the NPVI, anyway?

The National Popular Vote initiative is a lobbying campaign funded by John Koza, an engineering professor at Stanford University, that aims to make the Electoral College irrelevant without going through the arduous process of amending the Constitution.

States are asked to enact laws pledging their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins the state. The pledge takes effect only when states holding at least 270 electoral votes — a decisive margin in the Electoral College — agree to participate. That would ensure that the winner of the popular vote would take the election.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123820597603563361.html

Like I said, in order to understand how the changes to the function of the Electors proposed by the NPVI will adversely affect the integrity of the Presidential election, you first need to understand the role of Electors in that election.

Okay, so the NPVI proposes some sort of legal compact among several states which will govern the conduct of their Electors in relation to the national popular vote.  Here is the text of that compact, posted on the website of National Popular Vote.com.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php

The literature is already filled with well crafted opposition.  For example, there’s the practical problem of recounts.

David Lublin, a professor of government at American University, raises yet another concern: Chaotic recounts. Precise vote tallies don’t matter much with the Electoral College; winning a state with 51% is as good as winning with 80%. But in a national popular vote, losing candidates might be tempted to go to the mat in state after state, demanding recounts or challenging how voting was run.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123820597603563361.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123820597603563361.html

Here’s a short clip entitled, “5 Reasons to Keep the Electoral College,” featuring UCLA Law Professor Daniel Lowenstein, in which he characterizes retaining Electors is valuable in that it “orients elections around the states” and reminds Americans “states are the component parts of our federal system.”

(Note:  This is part of a much longer exchange at the Commonwealth Club which I highly recommend watching for a great synopsis of all of the issues involved except for the ones I raise below).  There is an easy to access table of contents which divides the debate into shorter clips.  Panelists include Professor Lowenstein (against); Professor Koza, Stanford Engineering, Father of NPVI; and Professor Clyde Spillenger, UCLA Law, who speaks about the origins of the system of Electors.) http://fora.tv/2008/10/24/The_Electoral_College_and_National_Popular_Vote

I have several objections to implementing the changes proposed by this NPV compact.  Not surprisingly, most of these objections directly relate to the ongoing efforts on this blog to ‘out’ and redress the fraud that tainted the 2008 general election cycle; and to prevent this fraud from ever happening again.  See whether you share my objections.

(Note:  While you read, please keep in mind, this article was not intended to provide an exhaustive legal analysis of the pros and cons of the NPVI.  Rather, I wanted to register my opposition to this legislation and to present reasoned arguments that support this opposition with the hope not only that you would agree with my opinions but also that, agreeing with my opinions, you would take the steps necessary to impede or, in some cases, to reverse the passage of this legislation in your state.) (Plus, I want to get on the record the one objection that hasn’t appeared (yet) in the literature I have thus far reviewed.)

Here are some of the reasons I oppose the NPVI.

1.  We are a union of individual states, and not of individuals. Therefore, I object to the NPVI’s implicit use of this pretense that we are a Democracy and not a Constitutional Republic in its advocacy campaign.

The genius inherent in the system of Electors as it was originally conceived is that it provides a means by which individual states, notwithstanding their geographic size or population, achieve relatively equal per unit weight to each other, in choosing the head of the Executive branch of the federal government.  Sure, dividing the population of a less populous state versus a more populous state so as to determine how many people it takes to equal one Elector, shows that less citizens are required per Elector in those smaller states; but   on the other hand, larger states have more Electors!

2.  Compelling states to adopt the vote tallies that resulted from the use of voting systems they have previously rejected violates the principles of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv Therefore, I object to any law that could compel any one state to adopt the flawed voting apparatus of another state.

For example, suppose states enter into this NPV compact.  Then, after extensive and expensive investigation, these states become convinced that electronic voting machines produce inaccurate results and, endeavoring to protect the integrity of the votes of their citizens, adopt a 100% paper ballot vote.  Other more populous states in the compact vote using these rejected machines.  Under the ‘opt out’ clause* in the compact, states would be compelled to defer to the voting protocol they had previously rejected.  Effectively, this imposes national standards on the traditional state function of carrying out elections.

*Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term. Id.

3.  Compelling states to adopt the vote tallies for a particular candidate whose name was omitted from their ballots for failure to establish qualification for office according to the laws enacted in those states; violates the principles of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Id. Therefore, I object to any law that could compel any one state to adopt the eligibility neutral ballots of another state.

CA and NY have no ballot eligibility requirement.  AL, GA, HI, MD, MO, SC, and VA do.  Assuming these 2 (two) large states vote overwhelmingly for one candidate cut from the ballots of those other 7 (seven) states, at least theoretically, Electors in those 7 (seven) states could be compelled to vote for a President who election officials in those states found unqualified to appear on the ballot.  Again, this sounds more like a national election, imposing national standards on the state function of carrying out elections.  (This same result could occur where states have similar ballot eligibility laws but different levels of enforcement.)  (Note:  The opt out clause necessarily quashes those existing laws which entitle citizens in certain states to challenge the ballot eligibility of the nominee of the party, chosen at a summer nominating convention that is within the 6-month bar to state withdrawal from the compact.) Id.

BUT MY MAIN OBJECTION TO ADOPTING THE NPVI IS THIS:  IT WILL BLOCK STATES FROM ENACTING LAWS THAT WOULD REQUIRE ELECTORS TO CAST THEIR VOTES FOR PRESIDENT ONLY FOR THOSE CANDIDATES THEY HAVE ASCERTAINED ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED FOR OFFICE, AND THE VIOLATION OF WHICH LAWS WILL BE MET WITH STEEP CRIMINAL SANCTIONS. As we here at “jbjd” have learned from experience, such laws respecting the conduct of Electors are necessary to prevent a repeat of events of the 2008 election in which Electors for the Democratic State Parties elected as President a man no documentary evidence available in the public record had established was even a citizen, let alone natural born.

Right now, no state has enacted a law requiring Electors to vote only for a President who is Constitutionally qualified for the job.  But look at how many states enacted laws before the 2008 election, requiring Electors in those states – remember, Electors are party faithfuls including big money contributors chosen by the party – to vote for the party nominee as a matter of law.  http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G00/Electors.html Ha, even states like AL, HI, and MD, which require candidate eligibility to get on the ballot, throw Presidential eligibility to the wind when it comes to the  fealty of their Electors to the political party!  Id. (Recall that none of these states requiring ballot eligibility has a corresponding law requiring any public official to check.) Even in SC, where the ballot eligibility law requires specific eligibility language to accompany the candidate’s ballot registration; when it comes to the law of Electors, they only have to promise to vote for the party.  And what if an Elector violates that oath?  Criminal prosecution! Id.

So who is John Koza and why is he determined to fundamentally alter the Constitutional role of Presidential Electors without bothering to amend the Constitution?   (In a 2006 NYT article entitled “Innovator Devises Way Around Electoral College,” Rick Lyman described Mr. Koza’s efforts as “an end run on the Constitution.”  Mr. Koza replied, “When people complain that it’s an end run, I just tell them, ‘Hey, an end run is a legal play in football.’ ’’)

John R. Koza received his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Michigan in 1972.  He was co-founder, Chairman, and CEO of Scientific Games Inc. from 1973 through 1987.  He is the holder of 25 patents in fields ranging from genetic programming to video games, and a venture capitalist. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2008/07/21/105711245/?postversion=2008072111 He founded NPVI in 2005.  Id.

He is also a long-time fairy godfather to both the DNC Services Corporation and various committees organized under the D Corporation banner, as well as individual Democratic candidates and their PAC’s (Political Action Committees).  Spend a minute or two perusing FEC records for the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has bestowed to the D’s over the years.    (Click on this link and in the name search field, fill in (Last) Koza (First) John R. http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml Mr. Koza also served as a Democratic Elector in CA in 1992 and 2000.  http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-07-24/news/17301996_1_electoral-college-electoral-votes-popular-vote

And where did Dr. Koza get all of this money to fund his pet projects?   Well, as the head of Scientific Games, he co-invented the rub-off instant lottery ticket used by state lotteries. http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/041124.html That’s right; he invented the scratch ticket.  And as the NYT article points out, “Working with state lotteries as chief executive of Scientific Games in Atlanta, he had learned how interstate compacts work. Multistate lotteries like Powerball are based on such compacts.”  Id.

In sum, for the past 2 (two) years, we here at “jbjd,” operating on a ‘wing and a prayer,’ have been meticulously de-constructing and documenting the fraud that tainted the 2008 election cycle throughout the states in order that having identified and published this fraud, citizens could work with state and federal officials not only to redress that fraud but also to shore up legislation and enforcement mechanisms, efforts which could effectively prevent such fraud from occurring again.  On the other hand, since 2006, John Koza, using the windfall he received from inventing the lottery scratch ticket, has been selling his pet project, NPVI, to state legislatures throughout the country, promoting this system that not only fails to address these past problems with the electoral process which we have identified but also effectively ensures, these problems likely will never be exposed or remedied, again.

(Thankfully, Professor Lowenstein has identified what I agree is a fatal Constitutional flaw in the NPV plan, which certainly would forestall implementation of such a plan at least until after the 2012 elections.  Phew!  Id.)

With all this in mind, here is my new mantra about maintaining the President’s Constitutional qualifications for office throughout the electoral process:

If the requisite number of states pass the National Popular Vote law before the 2012 Presidential election; even keeping the name of an unqualified candidate off the ballot no longer guarantees he will not get the job, unless the courts forestall implementation.


WERE YOU LYING THEN or ARE YOU LYING NOW?

July 17, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” 5 USC §3331

Watch and listen carefully while John Dingell (D-MI), the Dean of the House administers this legally mandated Oath of Office on January 6, 2009, the opening day of the 1st session of the 111th Congress; to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, just re-elected by her peers to be Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, marking the second year in a row she was 3rd in line of Presidential succession.  (The only votes she got came from fellow Democrats.)

“…without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion…”

Following, Speaker Pelosi administers the Oath to the other 433* members of the House.

*The seat of Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), set to become the Chief of Staff of the incoming President, Barack Obama, was vacant.  Id.

Now, watch the Oath in action on November 6, 2007, when Dennis Kucinich, (D-OH), taking to heart the words which make up that oath, rose up on the floor of the House during the 110th Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney, charging Mr. Cheney had violated this same Oath of Office by deceptively promoting the weapons capabilities of Iraq so as to propel the U.S. into war against that sovereign nation.  (Note: As President of the Senate, Mr. Cheney  had sworn that same Oath “to bear full faith and allegiance” to the Constitution.)

On June 10, 2008 during the 2nd session of the 110th Congress, Mr. Kucinich stood up once again to introduce Articles of Impeachment, this time against President George W. Bush, charging he had deliberately lied to Congress by overstating the nuclear capability of Iran so as to propel the U.S. into war against that sovereign nation.

Little of the subterfuge which Mr. Kucinich charged both the President and Vice-President had  perpetrated on the American people (through their representatives in Congress)  was new.  And neither Resolution of Impeachment resulted in a Senate trial.  But significantly, his act gave life to the principle of governmental checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution, that document he had sworn an oath to “support and defend” “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Tragically, by Certifying votes of the Electors on January 8, 2009, two days after taking the Oath of Office; and by failing to exercise their Constitutional authority as to Impeachment since the January 20 Inauguration, Mr. Kucinich and other incumbent Representatives, along with their freshmen colleagues in the House have failed both individually and as a deliberative body to honor that Oath.  And that failure derives not just on the basis  they did not take affirmative steps to address the charges raised in the petitions submitted to them by their constituents that President (elect) Barack Obama appeared to be Constitutionally unqualified for the job; but also from the reasons they expressed to justify why taking such steps was not required.

Evidence is posted throughout the internet of the millions of correspondence and telephone calls sent to Congressional offices beginning before the November 2008 general election and continuing long after the President was sworn into office, pleading for help getting to the heart of the eligibility matter.  But whether originating with organized groups or individuals, the content was essentially the same:  Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, the requisite birth status for President under Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. And the responses from federal elected officials, which is also easily accessible, were essentially the same:  yes, he is; he posted a scanned copy of his COLB on his campaign website in June 2008 proving he was born in Hawaii. (The only claim relative to Barack Obama’s citizenship which has been posted on that site since June 2008, was that this electronic image establishes he is a native but never that he is natural born, as required under the Constitution.) (Even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, maintaining it was his idea as the Obama Campaign Communications Director to post this COLB on “Fight the Smears” in the first place; only claims it establishes his client was born in Hawaii.  PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS)  (Letters to constituents generated by both the House and Senate, with accreditation, can be seen at IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS is “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS IS un-AMERICAN, TOO)

None of these legislators has cited as a reason to guarantee to constituents s/he knew Mr. Obama was Constitutionally qualified for office; the fact that Speaker Pelosi, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention had signed the Corporations’ Official Certification of his Nomination swearing he was Constitutionally qualified for the job.  Why not?  Members of the Democratic Party had submitted this same Certification to state election officials to get them to print Mr. Obama’s name next to the “D” on the general election ballot even in those several states with laws that only allow the names on the ballot of those candidates who are qualified for the job. (See, for example, Citizens of South Carolina Complaint of Election Fraud to AG McMaster, in sidebar.)

(Members of the House are not alone in eschewing the use of the Speaker’s Certification of Mr. Obama’s Nomination as proof he is Constitutionally qualified for the office.  Even when provided with an opportunity to obtain judicial notice his client was ‘for real’ White House Counsel Bob Bauer, then Counsel to Mr. Obama’s Campaign (and the DNC Services Corporation), only asked the federal court to find Mr. Obama had ‘publicly released his “birth certificate,”‘ and not that Speaker Pelosi had sworn to state election officials he was legitimate or that her Certification alone was proof enough for those officials to print his name on the ballot.  COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE for FEDERAL COURT)

Did Representatives of the 1st session of the 111th Congress, including Speaker Pelosi, believe those words they swore when taking the Oath of Office back in January 2009, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion? Did they believe at that time an electronic image of a redacted document posted on the campaign website of a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President at the behest of the Communications Director of the candidate’s campaign, which image is only accessible with the aid of a computer screen; is tantamount to evidence that the  nominee wannabe is Constitutionally qualified for the job?  Or did they knowingly offer ‘bones’ just to fob off their desperate constituents, thus violating both the spirit and the letter of the laws that put them in office?

We might generously assume the 62 freshman legislators were so green when they took office that they didn’t know the difference between a paid political advertisement and a proffer of proof, notwithstanding 15 of them are lawyers.  But can they have reached the second half of the 2nd session of the 111th Congress and still think these two are the same?  Have they ignored ongoing correspondence from constituents documenting that members of the Democratic Party, including their Speaker, who signed these Certifications of Nomination in August 2008, have refused to identify  any documents that were the basis for their determination Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen?  Even in those several states in which the nominee for President of the major political party has to be qualified for that office before election officials are  legally authorized to print his name on the ballot?

Our Representatives told us in January 2009 according to ‘evidence’ they relied on, they believed Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified for office.  Notwithstanding we have since torn that evidence apart, they have not exercised their authority to seek more.  In other words, they still believe the record establishes, he is a natural born citizen.  Assuming, that is, they still believe in their Oath of Office.  Because they still haven’t introduced Articles of Impeachment.

WERE THEY LYING THEN OR ARE THEY LYING NOW?

I want you to understand the solemnity this particular question holds.

The first time I heard that question, I was the state’s complaining witness in a criminal trial.  That is, I was the victim of the crime.  I managed to escape my attacker; he fled moments before police arrived.  The next day, he called to threaten me into silence.  I hung up the phone and called police. Two officers arrived immediately.  They said not to worry, clumsily trying to reassure me, he would be caught any minute.  ‘We’re not the only jurisdiction looking for him.’ Even drowning in trauma, I ‘got’ what that meant.  ‘Why are police in another jurisdiction looking for him?’  The men, unable to conceal they had let the proverbial cat out of the bag, only stared sheepishly at each other. ‘TELL ME WHAT HE DID!’

He had killed someone before he attacked me.  And that wasn’t all.  At the time, he was on parole from a multiple year sentence stemming from convictions on several counts of armed robbery.

Police in my jurisdiction caught him 3 1/2 months after my attack.  Having violated the terms of his parole, he would have to serve out the 6 or 7 years remaining on those prior convictions.  But apparently anxious to avoid prosecution for the attack against me, he voluntarily gave sworn statements to both police and prosecutors, concocting a whole narrative which could exonerate him in this crime.

Prosecutors in the other jurisdiction, charging 1st degree murder, were given first dibs.  They figured, if they got a conviction on that charge, he would be sentenced to life without parole; and my case would never have to go to court.  Only, he got a hung jury. In just a few years from now, he would be back out on the streets.  I agreed to testify but, always mindful of his threats, hoped for a plea.

We went to trial 1 1/2 years after the attack.

I was sequestered until closing arguments, meaning I wasn’t allowed inside the courtroom during the trial except during my testimony.  The District Attorney provided me with status reports during intermittent breaks in the proceedings. Then, it was my turn to testify.

I had told the Victim/Witness Advocate, I hoped more women were seated on the jury, explaining I thought they would be more sympathetic.  She said more men would be better because women tend to make themselves feel safe by rationalizing, ‘She must have done something to place herself in harm, which I would never do.’  Men would know this man was capable of doing harm.  The jury was mixed.

I took the stand to recount the attack  only yards away from this man who had threatened my life if I talked.  He cleaned up quite well.  Indeed, given the fact his prior convictions and even his present place of residence were unknown to the jury, he made a good first impression.

My testimony  proceeded for some time without interruption.  Several jurors – men and women – were crying.  Finally, I was reliving the moment I managed to separate myself from my attacker.  This was surreal; I stopped talking.  Now, the DA took over.  Q:  “What happened next?”  jbjd:  “I screamed (deep breath) and I screamed (breath) and I screamed.”  Silence.  Then, like a soap opera, the Judge leaned forward, declaring in hushed tones, ‘And now, the Court will recess for lunch.’

I completed my testimony after lunch, and the Defense Attorney briefly cross-examined.  As I was about to leave the courtroom I learned, the Defendant would exercise his option to take the stand.

The DA came out after finishing his cross-examination.  The Defendant, trying to manipulate my testimony, had played it all wrong.  The DA smiled.  ‘While he was lying under oath, I realized, he must have forgotten about his earlier statements, which were in one those boxes I brought into court.  So, as I began my cross-examination, I put a box up on the table.  I took the testimony he gave today which contradicted his earlier statements, and restated his words in the form of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.  Then, after each answer,  I turned around, reached into the box, and whipped out one of the earlier statements.  ‘But I have here a sworn affidavit signed by you which contradicts what you just testified here under oath.’  “Were you lying then or are you lying now?”   That’s when I began to feel safe again, knowing no matter how charming and handsome, he had lost all credibility with the jury.  They were certain to convict and, no doubt, the judge would impose a multiple year sentence, to be served ‘on and after’ the terms of his present incarceration.

In other words, for me, this question, ‘were you lying then or are you lying now,’ has somber connotations.  Accordingly, I did not choose it casually for the title of this article; nor do I ask it lightly.  But it is the only question that can be asked of and remains unanswered by all 435 members of Congress petitioned by their constituents to inquire formally into whether Barack Obama satisfies the Constitutional qualifications of the office of President.  Including Madam Speaker, who refuses to respond to voters’ questions as to what was the documentary basis for swearing in that signed Certification of his Nomination that he is a natural born citizen.  (See Citizens of Virginia Complaint of Election Fraud to AG Cuccinelli, in sidebar.) Because even though for 2 (two) years now, these federal legislators have been telling their constituents, they believe, he has satisfied a showing he is Constitutionally qualified for office; in fact, based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence constituents have assembled even without their help; he has not.

On November 2, 2010, all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for election.  Based on the failure of all our Representatives, now incumbents, to demonstrate they appreciate the solemn public trust inherent in their positions, as evidenced by their ongoing decision to ignore constituent petitions for an inquiry into the President’s Constitutional qualifications for office; why would we want any one of them back on the job?

Each member of the House of Representatives will constructively forfeit the privilege of reelection by failing to introduce a Resolution of Impeachment before the November 2010 election.  That is the only mechanism through which we can examine Mr. Obama’s role in the criminal conspiracy of fraud that got state election officials to print on the ballot the name of the candidate who overwhelming circumstantial evidence establishes is Constitutionally unqualified for the job.  And, assuming the focused investigation and trial by the Senate validates our findings then, under the Constitution, Impeachment is the only way to remove him from office.

Several jurors began crying.

%d bloggers like this: