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.

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. 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. Because under Texas law, the candidate must be eligible for office to appear on the ballot.

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. 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.

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.

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.


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. 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.


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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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. 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. 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. 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. Mr. Koza also served as a Democratic Elector in CA in 1992 and 2000.

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. 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.


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.


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.


July 8, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

Newspapers in South Carolina are printing the fact Ms. Carol Fowler, Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party (“SCDP”) – she is also the wife of Don Fowler, the former Chair of the DNC Services Corporation – just announced she will not seek re-election to that post in 2011; but they still are not printing the real news:

Ms. Fowler’s resignation represents the departure of the last of the 2 (two) key officers in the state Democratic party – Ms. Fowler and Kathy Hensley, Treasurer – implicated in falsely certifying to the SC Election Commission, candidate Obama was qualified for the office of POTUS in both the 2008 Presidential preference primary and Presidential (Electors) election, which Certification of eligibility is required under SC election law before election officials may print the candidate’s name on the state ballot.

Of course, no documentary evidence exists in the public record to support he is Constitutionally eligible for the job, which fact could explain why both Ms. Hensley and Ms. Fowler refused to respond to voters who asked on what documentary basis either woman had ascertained such ballot eligibility.  Given this record of obfuscation, what D in his or her right mind would dare to step up to the SCDP plate in 2011 and swear Mr. Obama is a NBC?  (And keep in mind, in order to skirt admitting to the charges of election fraud already filed with AG McMaster; SCDP cannot now produce documentation they claim is the basis for Certifying the candidate is qualified for office in 2011; unless this documentation existed in 2007, when Kathy Hensley first swore BO was qualified to get on the SC Presidential preference primary ballot.)  See, for example, CAROL FOWLER is CRYING “FOWL” in SOUTH CAROLINA (and I can’t stop smiling!); IF IT LOOKS LIKE a DUCK…; and OPEN LETTER to THE HONORABLE HENRY McMASTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL of SOUTH CAROLINA.

No, instead of real news, we get this.

From the Sun News:

The Sun News reports, State Democratic leader to call it quits come spring

Party chairwoman Carol Fowler told The State she won’t seek a third term in the spring of 2011. Fowler said her decision not to seek re-election is not due to Greene, the party’s surprise U.S. Senate nominee, who is facing a federal obscenity charge.

From The State:

S.C. Democrats planning changes

Party’s leader won’t seek new term; rules might be amended in wake of U.S. Senate nomination

The S.C. Democratic Party will have a new leader next spring following the Alvin Greene political debacle.

Unlike some parties in other states, the S.C. Democratic Party does not endorse primary candidates, meaning the party could not go on the offensive against Greene nor could it aid Rawl.

“I am very squeamish about having the party take official acts to endorse or attack a candidate in a primary,” Fowler said. “We’ve always been more open than that, and I’ve been reluctant to start down the path where party insiders choose the nominee.”

Still, the state party is in talks to mend its rules because of Greene’s win.

“It has been suggested that we require candidates have a (criminal background check) done on themselves when they come to file,” Fowler said, “but no decision has been made.”

After Greene filed, Fowler and her staff researched Greene on the Internet because they had never heard of him . They did not turn up information about his obscenity charge, she said.

From the Post and Courier:

Fowler won’t seek 3rd term

Some Democrats, including state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, say the party has learned from the Greene nomination.(jbjd note:  Ms. Cobb-Hunter is black; according to her state government biography, she was a licensed social worker.

“This has been a teachable moment,” Cobb-Hunter said. “In hindsight, of course, some vetting should have been done. Is the Democratic Party responsible? Of course, we are. We fell down on the job.”

Cobb-Hunter said Greene’s opponent, Rawl, also shares in the blame for failing to run an aggressive enough campaign to raise his name identification with voters. And Democratic primary voters share some blame too, Cobb-Hunter said, for blindly choosing a candidate without knowing much about either Greene or Rawl.

“We have a lot of people who are not paying attention to politics, who are uninformed about candidates and who don’t do a lot of homework on their own to see what people are about,” she said. “People didn’t know either one of these guys. This was not just a case of black folks voting for Alvin Greene because his name sounds black. I’ve talked to white people who voted for him as well.”

(“jbjd” readers, what do you think this state representative means by pointing out, black folks who voted for Mr. Greene could not have done so just because they thought his name sounded black since white people voted for him, too?  Is she saying, since white folks voted for this candidate, this means, his name is not obviously black (because recognizing he is black, whites would not have voted for him)?  Or that the fact he is black could not have accounted for all of his black votes since whites also voted for him (and whites who vote for black candidates don’t do so just because they are black)?  Did it ever occur to her, both blacks and whites voted for Mr. Greene just because he is black?  Or worse,  that she is only validating the free choice of black voters, ill-conceived as she finds their choice to be, by pointing out, at least they are not the only dumb voters in her state?)

Interestingly, the coverage of the Greene affair I find most newsworthy – this preceded Ms. Fowler’s recently announced prospective resignation – was this piece published last month in the New York Times.

Back on June 17, the New York Times reported that the Executive Committee of the SCDP rejected the appeal filed by Mr. Greene’s opponent, Vic Rawl, who charged  voting irregularities had tainted the process and could only be cured by a new primary election.

State Party in S. Carolina Rejects Bid for New Vote

State Senator Robert Ford, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for governor, called Mr. Rawl’s protest “just pure nonsense.”

“People didn’t know Alvin Greene from Adam’s housecat, and they didn’t know Vic Rawl from Adam’s housecat,” Mr. Ford said in a telephone interview. “They are picking on an innocent veteran who doesn’t have any clout to look out for himself.”

Mr. Greene and Mr. Ford were the only black statewide candidates in the primary.

Since his victory, Mr. Greene has been reluctant to speak to reporters.

But Mr. Ford, who said he met Mr. Greene while filing to run, offered insight into the motivation behind his bid for the nomination. He said Mr. Greene told him he had looked to the office of Senator Jim DeMint, the Republican incumbent, for help in dealing with his disability, but had received no response.

Mr. Ford said Mr. Greene had told him: “Senator, I’m not interested in campaigning. I’m just trying to send a message to DeMint: I don’t like to be mistreated.”

Hmmph.  A citizen inspired to activism after being mistreated by a public official. Great concept.  I wish Mr. Greene’s idea would catch on, and that SC  voters, black and white, who have tolerated continued attempts by the SCDP to undermine their electoral franchise, and who have petitioned AG Henry McMaster for redress and been ignored; would finally arise as one fed up electorate on the steps of the state capital in Columbia and proclaim, “We don’t like to be mistreated,” too!

And bring the press.


May 10, 2010

Cambridge Dictionaries On-line defines “henchman” as “someone who does unpleasant or illegal things for a powerful person.”  “Like other dictators, he tried to distance himself from the dirty deeds carried out by his henchmen.”

This article is about the dirty deeds carried out by Barack Obama’s henchmen and women leading up to the 2008 election in order to place him in the Oval Office and keep him there, until now.

The title “All the President’s (Hench)men” is a takeoff on “All the President’s Men,” the movie based on the book by Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward describing the rise and fall from grace of President Nixon.  Here’s how IMDb (Internet Movie Database) summarizes the plot:

Factual account of investigative journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post whose reporting of the Watergate break-in eventually led to the resignation of Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States. The film focuses on the period from the break-in on June 17, 1972 to Nixon’s re-election in November later than (sic) year. Their perseverance – and the support of their editors – revealed that the break-in at the Watergate office complex was only one small part of a much larger network of intelligence gathering activities, many of which were illegal. The story also focuses on the role of Woodward’s now legendary secret source dubbed Deep Throat (since identified as FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt) and the encouragement he provided when the journalists hit roadblocks in their investigation.

Given the passions aroused when this subject comes up, I ‘get’ that people who believe Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for POTUS might find using the term “dirty deeds” to describe the conduct of his henchmen throughout the ongoing illegal enterprise that not only made him President but also sustains his Presidency; does injustice to their multiple acts of treachery.  But describing their illicit conduct in any other way wrongly gives these scoundrels more credit than is due for pulling off an election fraud of historical magnitude which in large part has only succeeded through sheer dumb luck.

In nine minutes, here is a pretty good edit of snippets from the movie.

You can see how the events of then and now naturally lend themselves to the verbal juxtaposition in these respective titles.

In the present case, the underlying crime is election fraud.  That is, in order to facilitate the election of Barack Obama as President in 2008, people affiliated with the DNC Services Corporation conspired to bamboozle election officials in states throughout the country into believing they had already ascertained the candidate was Constitutionally qualified for the job, in order to get these officials to print his name next to the “D” on state ballots.  Because laws passed in some states only allow the names of qualified candidates to be printed on the ballot.  And while we only elect Electors in the general election, for the time being, I cannot imagine Electors would elect anyone whose name had not first appeared on the general election ballot.

Just like during Watergate, dozens of the President’s henchmen have been implicated in this unlawful conspiracy. So many, in fact, people have proposed it would take a book here, too, in order to keep straight the names of all of these characters and the individual part they played in this more recent crime.

It’s on my “To Do” list.

In the meantime, I have put together this mini cheat sheet examining the roles of just 6 (six) co-conspirators to the fraud in the 2008 election, including selective links to the extensive documentation assembled on this blog spelling out in much greater detail the back story to the dastardly deeds accredited to them.

View this document on Scribd

CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (2 of 2)

March 31, 2010


In Clowns to the Left of Me; Jokers to the Right (1 of 2), we examined TDP v. RPT, learning that under Texas law, if the ineligibility of a candidate for public office is “conclusively established” then, the state Chair of that party is authorized to declare the candidate is ineligible.  Further, if the candidate’s name was previously submitted to the SoS to be placed on the ballot, the state Chair can now compel the SoS to remove that ineligible name.  (And if the Chair of another state party has a problem with this, s/he can sue to enjoin both the opposing Chair and the SoS from effecting this ‘disqualification.’)

The section of the law referenced in TDP v. RPT – Texas Election Code §145.003(f) – allows a party chair to declare a candidate ineligible.  But it does something else.  Here is the text of that provision and provision (g):

(f)  A candidate may be declared ineligible only if:

(1)  the information on the candidate’s application for a place on the ballot indicates that the candidate is ineligible for the office;  or

(2)  facts indicating that the candidate is ineligible are conclusively established by another public record.

(g)  When presented with an application for a place on the ballot or another public record containing information pertinent to a candidate’s eligibility, the appropriate authority shall promptly review the record.  If the authority determines that the record establishes ineligibility as provided by Subsection (f), the authority shall declare the candidate ineligible. (Emphasis added.)

Did you catch that?  If the authority – that would be, the party Chair – determines the candidate’s ineligibility is conclusively established by another public record, s/he shall declare the candidate ineligible.  Not may declare; or has discretion to declare; but has no other choice but to declare, the candidate is ineligible for the job.

Presumably, Chairwoman Benkiser determined the public record conclusively established Mr. DeLay was ineligible, based on those documents he submitted to her evidencing his current legal residency in Virginia.  So, as required by this law, she declared him, ineligible.

Does this provision mean, if Chairman Richie never “determines that the record establishes ineligibility,” he will never be obliged to declare, Barack Obama is ineligible? Absolutely not.

Recall from the first installment of “Clowns…,” who was responsible for petitioning the court to order the RPT (and the Texas SoS) to leave the name of Tom DeLay on the 2006 Congressional (mid-term) ballot in the first place.  That’s right; Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP.*  I have no idea what prompted his involvement in this fight.  Surely, Mr. Richie knew Mr. DeLay had won the R primary; he could assume the RPT had submitted Mr. DeLay’s name to the SoS for placement on the ballot.  Presumably, he had heard Mr. DeLay announce soon after winning the primary, he had decided not to run for re-election.  Mr. Richie could anticipate the RPT would try to remove his name from the ballot and replace it with a more suitable candidate.  But RPT Chair Benkiser did not declare Mr. DeLay ineligible and seek to have the SoS remove his name from the ballot until receiving his VA documents, in May.  And that’s when Mr. Richie made his move.  How do you suppose he knew what Ms. Benkiser was up to?  Did she notify the TDP of her intentions?  Did the SoS receive the RPT de-certification and contact the TDP?  (If you Texans are curious, you can use the open records law to ask the SoS to produce any and all correspondence in whatever form, to and from both the RPT and the TDP between March 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006 inclusive, related to the eligibility of Tom DeLay to appear on the ballot.  (For template, see the link to the records request previously submitted to Mr. Richie for any and all documents that were the basis of his Certification of Barack Obama’s eligibility. , under 6.))

Regardless how the TDP found out the RPT wanted to change the ballot; the point is this.  The TDP anticipated or knew the RPT intended to find Mr. DeLay ‘prospectively ineligible,’ and affirmatively set out to prevent both the RPT and the state from taking his name off the ballot.  And why wouldn’t they?  Obviously, running an ineligible candidate for the R team, means an almost certain win for the D’s! Which leads to this question.

If someone wanted to prevent the TDP from putting the name Barack Obama on the ballot in the 2012 Texas primary or general election, why not take a lesson from them?  (Note, in Texas, the party is responsible for submitting the names of candidates qualified to enter the primary.  (

I have spelled out in the citizen complaints of election fraud to AG Abbott the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that supports the charge, Boyd Richie swore to state election officials Presidential wannabe Barack Obama was eligible for the job without ascertaining beforehand he is a Natural Born Citizen.  Using much of that same evidence, I can argue persuasively to the court that official public documents conclusively establish Barack Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President.  (In a later post, I will present the formalized legal argument in support of the claim, under Texas law, the record conclusively establishes Mr. Obama’s ineligibility.)

Assuming the court can be persuaded the record conclusively establishes Mr. Obama’s ineligibility, Texas election law leaves Chairman Richie with no other choice but to declare him ineligible. But what if after all this, Mr. Richie still refuses to declare him ineligible?

Well, remember, there’s always §161.009, which subjects the party chair to the legal cause of action called mandamus. (I mentioned this on drkate’s Revolution Radio, Part III.)  Mandamus allows the court – the judicial branch of government – to order members of the executive branch of government – and, in Texas, political party Chairs – to perform their ministerial functions, as spelled out in law – legislative  branch – which law, in this case, says Mr. Richie must declare Mr. Obama ineligible.

I cannot be the only person who has figured this out.

Indeed, given the facts that copies of the citizen complaints of election fraud to AG Abbott have been mailed to the RPT (and the RNC); that the laws in TX require a party Chair to declare a candidate ineligible when such ineligibility is conclusively established in the record, and subject party Chairs to Mandamus; and that the TDP has already successfully petitioned the court to keep the RPT and the SoS from taking the name of Congressional candidate Tom DeLay off the ballot; why hasn’t the RPT expended similar efforts to prevent the TDP and SoS from putting the name of Presidential candidate Barack Obama, on?

I don’t know; do you?

And, to use a colloquialism, why hasn’t the RNC or any aspiring R Presidential candidates put their dog in the hunt?  After all, if Barack Obama is ineligible to get his name printed on the ballot in one applicable state, then…

Perhaps because both the RPT and the RNC are embroiled in more pressing matters than fighting to preserve and protect the integrity of election ballots in Texas.

Ms. Benkiser stepped down as Chair of the RPT in September 2009 to work as a Senior Adviser on Governor Perry’s re-election campaign, and was replaced by Cathie Adams. Before this, Ms. Adams successfully campaigned to become an RNC Committeewoman.  She was endorsed by conservative stalwart, Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum National President.  “Cathie Adams is a leader in the battle for God, Family and Country. She is extremely capable and I am confident that she would excel as Republican National Committeewoman.”

One of Ms. Adams’ first priorities was to spearhead a campaign on behalf of conservative members of the party, to get the RNC to pass a resolution renaming the DNC, the Democratic Socialist Party.  In the spring of 2009, nearly 3 (three) years since TDP v. RPT was decided; several months after President Obama took the oath of office; Ms. Adams and RNC Chairman Michael Steele were interviewed by Neil Cavuto from FOX.  Obviously straining to keep a straight face, Mr. Cavuto asked whether the Committeewoman’s crusade to rename the DNC detracted from real efforts at problem solving.

Ya think?


* Here are the attorneys representing the parties, and the interested parties (other candidates, for example, not directly involved in the case but whose interests the court wanted to hear by granting their requests to introduce briefs in amici curiae, or friends of the court.) Chad Wilson Dunn (argued), Brazil & Dunn, Martin Jonathan Siegel (argued), Watts Law Firm, Houston, TX, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Law Firm, Corpus Christi, TX, Richard A. Grigg, Law Offices of Dicky Grigg, Cristen D. Feldman, Crews & Elliott, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.  (That’s Boyd Richie as Chair of the TDP.)

James Bopp, Jr. (argued), Raeanna Sue Moore, Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, for Benkiser.  (Defendants-Appellants.)

R. Ted Cruz, Office of Sol. Gen., TX, Austin, TX, Amici Curiae for Williams.

Andrius R. Kontrimas, Jenkins & Gilchrist, Houston, TX, Amicus Curiae for Wallace for Congress.

Susan L. Hays, Curran Tomko Tarski, Dallas, TX, Amicus Curiae for 68th Texas Legislature.


Freedom costs.


February 25, 2010

If you have been unable up until now, to wrap your brain around the election fraud that occurred in the 2008 Presidential (Electors) Election in applicable* states like Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, among others; well, this picture showing how that fraud was carried out in Texas is worth a thousand words.

As you follow this roadmap to fraud, keep in mind:  if Barack Obama failed to satisfy the eligibility requirements to get officials to print his name on the ballot in the state of Texas then…

*Applicable states for the purpose of charging election fraud in the 2008 election are those states whose laws only allow the names of qualified candidates to appear on the ballot.


Layout & Design: and


(c)  All Rights Reserved

View this document on Scribd


Freedom costs.


*Applicable states for the purpose of charging election fraud in the 2008 election are those states whose laws only allow the names of qualified candidates to appear on the ballot.


February 22, 2010

Howard Zinn died suddenly of a heart attack while swimming in the pool in Santa Monica on January 27; he was 87.  I Googled “Zinn Tribute Death”; 1,790,000 results popped up.  Add my homage to the list; with a twist.

First, assuming some of you would be unfamiliar with Professor Zinn’s work outside of the fact he authored, A People’s History of the United States; I looked for an obituary that encompassed at least what I knew to be the highlights of his life-long activism.  The Washington Post printed an obituary on January 28; they were doing a pretty good job until this:  “Survivors include his wife of 50 years, Roslyn Zinn of Auburndale, Mass….” I knew that Roz, as he called his beloved wife and editor, had died in 2008.  (In the interest of full disclosure, I will tell you that WaPo finally got around to printing a brief correction, 3 (three) days after that glaring mistake.

Despite my recent travails with the Boston Globe – see, “jbjd” BANNED in BOSTON – I found their obituary much better; at least they mentioned Howard’s involvement with the labor strife at Boston University, which occupied so much of his time and energy in his last years there as a tenured Professor.  (For those of you who don’t know, Martin Luther King, Jr. received his Ph.D. in Philosophy at BU, and years later an honorary D.Div. Dr. King honed his preaching skills in Marsh Chapel, located adjacent to the School of Divinity, at the mid-point of the sprawling urban campus.)

Here is a portion of that Boston Globe obituary:

As he wrote in his autobiography, You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train (1994), “From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than ‘objectivity’; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble.”

Certainly, it was a recipe for rancor between Dr. Zinn and John Silber, former president of Boston University. Dr. Zinn, a leading critic of Silber, twice helped lead faculty votes to oust the BU president, who in turn once accused Dr. Zinn of arson (a charge he quickly retracted) and cited him as a prime example of teachers “who poison the well of academe.”

Dr. Zinn was a cochairman of the strike committee when BU professors walked out in 1979. After the strike was settled, he and four colleagues were charged with violating their contract when they refused to cross a picket line of striking secretaries. The charges against “the BU Five” were soon dropped.

(Note from jbjd:  The Globe misidentified the strikers on the picket line Howard would not cross, as “secretaries.”  They belonged to District 65, Clerical and Technical Workers Union, the first clerical workers to organize at a private university, a full decade before Harvard.  The 900-member bargaining unit included several positions in addition to Secretary, representative workers from all of which positions staffed the picket lines.)

The best recollection of those heady times comes from Professor Zinn.  In “Remembering Murray Levin,” a touching eulogy to his long-time friend and BU colleague, Professor Zinn provides a vivid account of campus strife.

Silber was ruthless in dealing with opposition. For student demonstrators, he was quick to call the police. Faculty faced the kind of punishment overbearing administrators can deal out: if untenured, they had little hope of getting tenure, whatever their record in scholarship and teaching; if tenured, raises in salary were withheld.

Murray, long tenured, with a distinguished record in teaching and publications, saw his salary held down again and again. But he never wavered in his outspoken opposition to what was becoming more and more of a police state at Boston University: censorship of student newspapers, intimidation of activist students, the taking of photos of faculty and students who walked on picket lines. The Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts issued a report on Boston University, saying it had never before received so many complaints of violations of free speech about any other institution in the state.

The campus conflict came to a head over the refusal of the Silber Administration to recognize the newly formed American Association of University Professors (AAUP) faculty union, the District 65 union representing secretaries and clerical workers, the union of library workers. While resisting decent salaries for secretaries, Silber was raising his own salary year after year by huge increments, until he was getting more than the presidents of Harvard, MIT, Yale, Princeton—indeed, he became the highest paid university president in the country. And his captive Board of Trustees, which faculty came to see as a politburo doing the dictator’s bidding, was giving Silber special bonuses and real estate deals.

In a National Labor Review Board (NLRB) election, the faculty voted to unionize. But after a contract was negotiated, Silber reneged and, in an unprecedented action, the faculty went out on strike. Picket lines went up immediately in front of all the major buildings on campus. Murray Levin was a stalwart of the union. Our radical corner of the political science department consisted of Murray, myself, and Frances Fox Piven—and we all became heavily involved in strike activities. The secretaries, their union still unrecognized, within days went out on strike, and the streets around Boston University now saw a rare sight in academe—faculty and secretaries walking the picket lines together in solidarity.

I confess, I had a selfish reason for wanting to see the labor unrest at BU mentioned in Howard’s obituary:   I met him during that time, when he became my first college professor.  This was a ‘lecture’ class in Political Science, so designated because the primary manner of teaching had him standing at (or leaning on) a lectern at the front of the auditorium, speaking to students (and several non-students) crammed into stationary rows of seats arranged in increasingly higher levels moving further away from him, anxious to be ‘swept up’ in the ‘cause.’  Grades were based on written assignments and class participation.  We routinely numbered well over 100 students, more than were actually enrolled and could expect to receive a grade.  Not surprisingly, much of the class discussion related in some way to the labor turmoil on campus.

I had begun working at BU shortly after the NLRB Certified the election that brought District 65 onto the campus but before recognition and negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement.  Like most of my co-workers, I had no background with organized labor.  But in the spring of 1979, when union organizers – some from campus, some from the parent union who had come from out of town – advised, the only way to compel management to join us at the bargaining table was to walk off the job, I went.  I found temporary work by day and staffed the picket lines by night, holding my sign, “Clerical Workers are Tough.”  But after a couple of days of communal defiance, the euphoria of taking a stand subsided.  Now we grasped the imminent threats of losing our jobs.  We would have benefited from some hand holding from the more seasoned organizers.  Only they were nowhere to be found, busy giving interviews to the press, and meeting among themselves.  The next morning, I found them.  ‘The ‘union’ is issuing position statements in the Globe; yet no one has asked my opinion of anything. What’s the difference between management deciding what is best for me; or the union?  If you don’t schedule a general meeting this afternoon, I will cross the lines tomorrow.’  The next morning, I went back to work.  Within a few hours, I received a call from one of the organizers:  a general membership meeting would be held that afternoon.

I repeated this story in class, correctly anticipating I would incur the wrath of some of my classmates, just as my conduct had outraged (and surprised) some of my co-workers.  But I feared this disclosure could alienate my esteemed teacher.  On the contrary; Professor Zinn, who would refuse to cross our picket lines, defended my decision.

Walking alone across campus, I saw Professor Zinn engaged in animated conversation with a man I recognized as Professor Murray Levin.  Howard was already a legend by this time; I had no pedigree.  Speaking up in class was one thing; here, I had no classmates to act as buffer.  But my presence on the path clearly had been detected; going around the two men would have made me even more conspicuous.  Now, I would have to say something.  So, living in my head, I practiced a polite “hello,” determined I could at least get that out, and then keep on walking.  All would have gone according to plan except that as I was making my exit, Professor Zinn exclaimed, “Wait!,” reaching out his arm to draw me into their conversation.  He turned to Professor Levin.  “Murray, I want you to meet my star pupil.”  I could have predicted at that time, I would never forget those words, or how special I felt when he spoke them, for as long as I live.

(Talks with management stalled during our first contract negotiations in the fall of 1979.  I was a member of the Contract Committee; my first project had been to survey the rank and file so as to determine their positions on the issues BEFORE we drafted the proposal.  We were set to meet to take what could be our first strike vote, which would also be the first strike of clerical workers at any private university.  (Technically, that spring walkout was in response to an Unfair Labor Practice, that is, BU management refused to recognize the NLRB-Certified clerical workers union; this would be an economic strike, over our collective bargaining agreement.)  The meeting was to take place at Marsh Chapel, which had always served as a neutral site for labor gatherings.  But just as we began assembling in the plaza abutting the Chapel, word came down, in an apparent attempt to stave off a strike vote, Dr. Silber had not only denied permission to meet there but also threatened to have anyone inside arrested for trespassing.  We knew he meant what he said.  Hundreds of employees from both ends of campus could be seen, walking toward the plaza; several members of the press had shown up, prepared to capture this historic event.  I commandeered a scout.  ‘See if the auditorium in the basement of CLA is open.’   It was.  Now, I proposed we should surreptitiously file into the auditorium, grabbing members of the press along the way.  I figured, by the time Dr. Silber found out where we had gone, with reporters and cameras; he would not do anything about it.)

(We checked in at the door to pick up our ballots for the strike vote.  But when the motion was made to vote to strike, I stood to make an objection.  ‘How can we take a strike vote without voting on whether we accept the proposal on the table, first?’  Union officers and national organizers, sitting on the stage, agreed.  Chaos ensued; union members were trying to tear their official ballots in half, prepared to vote twice.  Now, I shouted, ‘Stop!  You cannot use a defaced ballot!’  The room became silent.  ‘The first vote, that is, the vote on whether to accept the proposal on the table, does not have to be secret.  This can be a hand or voice vote; if the proposal is not accepted, the vote on whether to strike can be done with the secret ballots.’  A representative from the National union shouted from the stage.  “We can always count on you, ‘jbjd.’”)  (We rejected management’s proposal and voted to strike.)

Now, after Howard’s death, reading these lines from his eulogy to his dear friend, Murray, I confirmed the reason my teacher had held me in such high esteem 30 (thirty) years ago.

It would be hard to characterize his politics in simple terms; “socialist,” “radical,” “progressive?” In the thirty-five years I knew him, including twenty-four years as his close friend and colleague at Boston University, there was never any occasion to describe him in any of those ways.

Murray Levin… refused to accept the orthodoxy of American liberalism—its pretensions to democracy, justice, equality. …Despite his huge teaching load (which included advanced courses on American political ideas and Marxist philosophy), as well as his political involvement, Murray never stopped writing. He wrote several iconoclastic books on Edward Kennedy—refusing to go along with the reverence of so many liberals in Massachusetts for the Kennedy clan. His book Political Hysteria in America: the Democratic Capacity for Repression was in many ways an ideological companion to Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man in its puncturing of the myth of American tolerance.

See, Howard equally rejected political ideologues cloaked in banners that identified their wearers as grounded on the left; or on the right.  And despite all of his literary accomplishments, in his world of civil disobedience, words apparently held less import to him, than deeds.  And nothing, it seems, meant more, than combining words with corresponding consistent deeds to promote social change.

Here’s how he explained this ‘modus operandi’ for change, in the essay, “Changing Minds, One at a Time,” which appeared in the March 2005 issue of Progressive Magazine.

That question leads me to a larger one, which I suspect most of us have pondered: What does it take to bring a turnaround in social consciousness…

It seems to me that we need not engage in some fancy psychological experiment to learn the answer, but rather to look at ourselves and to talk to our friends. We then see, though it is unsettling, that we were not born critical of existing society. There was a moment in our lives (or a month, or a year) when certain facts appeared before us, startled us, and then caused us to question beliefs that were strongly fixed in our consciousness–embedded there by years of family prejudices, orthodox schooling, imbibing of newspapers, radio, and television.

This would seem to lead to a simple conclusion: that we all have an enormous responsibility to bring to the attention of others information they do not have, which has the potential of causing them to rethink long-held ideas. It is so simple a thought that it is easily overlooked as we search, desperate in the face of war and apparently immovable power in ruthless hands, for some magical formula, some secret strategy to bring peace and justice to the land and to the world.

“What can I do?” The question is thrust at me again and again as if I possessed some mysterious solution unknown to others. The odd thing is that the question may be posed by someone sitting in an audience of a thousand people, whose very presence there is an instance of information being imparted which, if passed on, could have dramatic consequences. The answer then is as obvious and profound as the Buddhist mantra that says: “Look for the truth exactly on the spot where you stand.”

But there is still a large pool of Americans, beyond the hard-core minority who will not be dissuaded by any facts (and it would be a waste of energy to make them the object of our attention), who are open to change. …It is a challenge not just for the teachers of the young to give them information they will not get in the standard textbooks, but for everyone else who has an opportunity to speak to friends and neighbors and work associates, to write letters to newspapers, to call in on talk shows.

The false promises of the rich and powerful about “spreading liberty” can be fulfilled, not by them, but by the concerted effort of us all, as the truth comes out, and our numbers grow.

Notice that, nowhere in his essay, “Changing Minds…” did Professor Zinn use the word R-I-D-I-C-U-L-E.  Not once did he suggest, even if informed engagement fails, ridicule is an appropriate tack to impose on different thinkers.

You will understand then, given Professor Zinn’s overarching emphasis on working for social change through teaching and education, whether reading and writing books or, “speak[ing] to friends and neighbors and work associates…”; and his rejection of ridicule as a tool for such change; I was struck by the outpouring of post-mortem accolades from thousands of so-called Progressives on internet sites like Daily Kos; Democratic Underground; Politijab; and the Huffington Post.  Ha!  These are the same people who resort to ridicule (this includes name calling) and smears to chill the expression of opposition to Barack Obama, their favored candidate in the 2008 general election.  (To be consistent, given his anti-Obama sentiments, instead of praising Howard Zinn, these Progressives should rightly excoriate him, too.  See, for example, his “Obama at One” essay, published in The Nation two weeks before his death. He opens with this line:  “I’ve been searching hard for a highlight. The only thing that comes close is some of Obama’s rhetoric; I don’t see any kind of a highlight in his actions and policies.”)

Let me be clear:  I presume posters on those Progressive blogs share a good faith belief in the sincerity of their tributes to Howard Zinn.  But I also believe they are thumbing their noses at the principle of ‘educating for change’ that guided his life work.

Which brings me to that ‘twist’ I mentioned earlier.

In living loving tribute to the memory of this gifted teacher, I issue this challenge to all of you so-called Progressives from sites like Daily Kos, Politijab, Democratic Underground, and Huffington Post who join me in mourning the passing of the late great Howard Zinn:


If you have been making fun of those people who question whether Barack Obama is eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, stop.  Professor Zinn said, take seriously your “enormous responsibility to bring to the attention of others information they do not have, which has the potential of causing them to rethink long-held ideas.”  Now, I know his admonitions cannot be carried out literally in this case, since no information available to you in the public record can establish, Barack Obama is eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  (Of course, conversely, nothing exists from which his critics can confirm, he is not.)  But that’s no reason to call anyone names.

However, simply not engaging in conduct that is intended to chill speech is insufficient to pay tribute to the man. I challenge you to go further.

Some of us suspect that members of the DNC Services Corporation who Certified to state election officials Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified to be President in order to get these officials to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot; failed to ascertain beforehand, he was eligible for the job.  And plenty of evidence that is available in the public record supports the conclusion, they did not.  (Please note, even assuming these D’s swore he was Constitutionally qualified without first determining this was true; this does not mean, he is ineligible for the job.)

See, the laws in some states require candidates whose names appear on the ballot must be eligible for the job.  In those states, members of the DNC Services Corporation or of state Democratic clubs, Certified to state election officials, Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible to be President, getting these officials to print his name next to the D on state general election ballots.  But no state requires any public official to check.  So, citizens who had enacted these laws in their states decided to check, on their own.  They asked those Democrats who had submitted these Certifications to their state election officials, on what documentary basis did you ascertain Mr. Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the job?  But the D’s wouldn’t answer.  Next, citizens turned for help to their Attorneys General who, under state constitutions, are the chief law enforcement officers in the states.   Specifically, they charged that members of the D party had certified Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified to be President just to get his name printed on the state ballot, but hadn’t actually ascertained he was eligible for the job.  They submitted well pleaded complaints, detailing the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that supports their charges, including the fact D officials refuse to identify the documentary basis for Obama’s Constitutional Certification.

But in what can at best be characterized as a flagrant abuse of discretionary authority, these state government officials, Republican and Democrat alike, refuse even to acknowledge receipt of the complaints, let alone to investigate these reported crimes.  In this regard, the dismissive conduct of these elected officials toward citizens of the state mimics that of Certifying members of the D Corporation (and, in the case of TX, the state D club).  (See, CLUBS RULE)

Surely you agree, Howard Zinn would not suffer such a display of hubris from either public officials or party representatives without a fight!  And, admiring his sense of fair play – as you obviously do – neither should you.

Accept this challenge to do something about this.  Here’s how.

Contact these A’sG in applicable states – so far, GA, HI, MD, SC, TX, and VA – on behalf of those citizens who have petitioned their government to investigate charges of election fraud and let them know: ignoring the people in this way is unacceptable.  And, if you are from an applicable state, become one of these citizens.  (Complaints are posted in the sidebar of the blog; varying numbers have been downloaded and filed in each of the 6 identified states.)  (I assume other states have similar ballot eligibility requirements; look up the laws in your state and get back to me.  If yours is an applicable state, I will draft another complaint. If you’re not sure, come to the blog with your research, and ask.)

Keep in mind, working together is how the disparate unions at  BU – Faculty; Clerical and Technical Workers; Librarians; and Buildings and Grounds – managed to gain recognition and obtain collective bargaining agreements.

Finally, please, stop calling those of us who are addressing the issues related to Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President, racists.  That’s just plain stupid.  (To see what my son looked like at age 3, click on this link to my story on Curtis Cooper.  They look so much alike, my son thought I had posted a picture of him.  REST IN NOBLE PEACE, CURTIS COOPER )

P.S. Searching the internet, you can find plenty of material describing Professor Zinn’s general disdain for Barack Obama.  I liked this interview with Amy Goodman from Democracy Now!, in May 2009 entitled, “I Wish Obama Would Listen to MLK.”  (The tape is set to cue at the 35:00 mark.)

(I was unable to embed this video but it is well worth watching.  Also, the transcript can be found below the video, at that same link.)

Read the transcript here.

Again, my reasons were partly selfish.  The 15-year-old girl he mentions at around the 40-minute mark, the girl who refused to give up her seat on the bus 9 (nine) months before Rosa Parks, is Claudette Colvin.  I mention her whenever I have the opportunity; I was pleased but not surprised, the ‘People’s Historian’ Howard Zinn would know about her, too.

P.P.S.  For further reading about Claudette Colvin, see this story that appeared in the New York Times in November 2009.


February 3, 2010

I have been posting my thoughts in the comments section to articles appearing in the Boston Globe (on for well over a year and had never been ‘disappeared.’  Until now.

Here is the evidence of my omission.  (See frame 3 (three).)

Here is the verboten text.

Mr. Obama may be out of a job soon.  Wait for the fallout from dozens of citizen complaints of election fraud to state Attorneys General.  (These complaints were filed in applicable states – we have identified 6 (six) states so far, GA, HI, MD, SC, TX, and VA – which states allow only the names of eligible candidates to appear on the ballot.)  Citizens in these states have charged that members of both the state and national Democratic Party submitted Certifications of Nomination to state election officials swearing Mr. Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job of POTUS to get them to print his name on the ballot without ascertaining beforehand whether he is a Natural Born Citizen.  And, when questioned, so far, the challenged D’s, including The Honorable Nancy Pelosi (acting in her non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention); DNC Secretary Alice Germond; and (former) DNC Services Corporation Howard Dean refused to produce any documentation that was the basis for their determination.  Boyd Richie, Chair of the TX D state party, also refused to produce the documentation.  But turns out, under TX law, he may have no choice but to give the voters what they want; and AG Greg Abbott may have no alternative but to make him.

Boston Globe staff writers Susan Milligan and Bryan Bender, whose byline appears on the article entitled, “Obama turns to economy; urges Congress to unite,” found all of these comments/commentators welcome to stay.  (All mistakes appear in originals; where feasible, original formats were retained.)

kmmsw wrote:

The reason there was questions over Sarah Palin’s infant son at the time – what 40 year old woman doesn’t tell her family, her friends, her office staff, etc that she is pregnant until 2 weeks before giving birth. And there is little difference in the way an early pregnant one looks and someone would gave birth a couple of months prior.

1/28/2010 11:43 AM EST

hotbarb2614 wrote:

To all you idiots on this website. Get use to it President Obama will be president till 2016. I’m 63 years old and I’m tired of you people bitching and moaning. Yeah you have all the answers, you know were all the money went. Then tell me this What did Bush and Chenney do with all the money they left us in debt with, where is it? The president has manage to stop the bleeding and not a one of you appreciate it. Well if you don’t like it here, then move. Better yet leave the country.I’ve got news for you the Republicans won’t be at the top for a long time to come. To bad everything is a joke to them, thats all they did was laugh last night.I’m glad they think people losing there jobs and there housesis funny.

1/28/2010 10:42 PM EST

Adnug wrote:

Osama claiming that he cut American’s taxes is a flat out lie. I ask this forum has anyone seen there paycheck increase or property tax decrease in size because of a tax cut since he took office?……I didn’t think so!

1/28/2010 12:20 PM EST

footsyball wrote:

Why is it the GOP has sudden amnesia when it comes to the collapsed economy? …Always looking out for themselves and their greedy pockets. Were there any thank yous for the bailouts? …Had the gov’t not orchestrated bailouts, we’d be in a far worse position today. The GOP really needs to budge and get their heads on straight. And to all of you who spit your spite and want the president to fail, you are just immature blinder-wearing idiots.

1/28/2010 11:00 AM EST

BTownExpress wrote:

What a pathetic human being! Is he really so arrogant and unbalanced as to believe that everyone else is the problem? It certainly appeared as though he was pointing at everyone in the country- except him! … This single term Senator with no applicable experience is the biggest loser to fill the office! There is absolutely nothing satisfying about a supposed eloquent speaker who progressively lies about his lies- NOTHING!

1/28/2010 11:03 AM EST

Maxwell2 wrote:

Obama,Reid & Pelosi = Axis of evil.

1/28/2010 12:31 AM EST

rightminded wrote:

Botox Pelosi and her big flipper-hands that robotically clap after everything Barry says, MUST GO.

1/28/2010 9:21 AM EST

Thrumble wrote:

As an aside, Reid and Pelosi should be loaded into a damn cannon and fired into the sun. They’re either completely selfish or utterly stupid, I can’t tell which. Probably a bit of both.

1/29/2010 9:31 AM EST

aicohn wrote:

The guy has lost his mind and is unfit to hold office. … He’s incoherent & has no business having access to the nuke codes.

1/28/2010 12:43 AM EST

peek-a-boo wrote:

Obama’s speech would be easier to watch if one didn’t have to see that idiot Pelosi behinid him fawning on his every word. I really thing she’s in love with him as she looks at him as though he were some kind of God.

1/28/2010 7:17 AM EST

nicry wrote:

I want to thank comrade obama for being a clueless ,arrogant left wing radical….

1/28/2010 7:32 AM EST

Hansonbrother wrote:

“TRB1 wrote:
I suspect Obama was an affirmative action admit”


The modern American Republican, everybody. Take a bow

You want to know what’s wrong with our country, I mean at the very core of the country? People like this. Scared little weasels who vent their frustration at people who are smarter than them, who’ve achieved more than them, who’ve pulled themselves up from worse circumstances than them, by posting racist idiocy on an anonymous message board.

One guy goes from no where to editor of the Harvard Law Review. And some guy in his mom’s basement, wearing a Cheeto-stained t-shirt says “I suspect Obama was an affirmative action admit”

what a useless pig

1/28/2010 11:43 AM EST

charlieka wrote:

Cully wrote “Many Brown defenders and apologists point out that you do not need to be a natural-born U.S. citizen to take your place on the Senate floor and, of course, they are right. But you do need to be a citizen. Scott Brown, for reasons unknown, refuses to produce any documentation to the general public to resolve the status of his citizenship. Doing so should take less than an hour. Even if he kept the original copy in one of his other homes, UPS ships anywhere in the world overnight.”
Bottom line if were Brown I WOULD ALSO NOT PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS since we have a seated president who/WHOM still has NOT proven his origin. AND YES I will stand by that statement .I say to OBAMA and all YOU OBAMA LOVERS PUT UP OR SHUT UP. PERIOD… I still have no president…Currently looking for one…If you find him, let me know.

1/28/2010 12:53 PM EST

1340 wrote:

Why hasn’t Scott Brown been sworn in yet? I’ll tell you why. Paul Kirk is being used by the democratic party as a vote for legislation they are passing. Kirk is supposed to be home. He is no longer a substitute senator for our state. His status changed the moment we elected our new senator. Today Kirk was used to vote for lifting the debt ceiling.So much for “no legislation will be passed until Scott Brown is sworn in”. They lied!!!

The democrats, specifically Harry Reid has received the certification from our secretary of State Galvin and is now stalling. He and John Kerry know exactly what they are doing. It’s intentional. They are waiting for the go ahead on a vote for healthcare. They will use Kirk to vote for the legislation that the citizens of Massachusetts said NO to.

Kirk is a puppet for the democrats and they are using him that way and the democrats are showing their disdain and contempt for the people of Massachusetts.
They are showing disdain for our state constitution.

Are we going to let them get away with it?

Scott Brown should be in Washington DC stopping this bunch. Instead he’s left here doing nothing but waiting. That’s not what we elected him to do.

I have already emailed Harry Reid but it will take more than one person. It will take thousands of Massachusetts citizens. Stop them from showing disdain and disrespect toward our state.

Contact Harry Reid and John Kerry via email/ and or phone and tell them to SWEAR IN SCOTT BROWN NOW!!!! Enough of the deceit and stalling. Enough of using an imposter to represent our state.

1/28/2010 10:41 PM EST

zacklyright wrote:

The early call on the 2012 Presidential election:Philanthropist Hillary Clinton / Sen. James Webb (VA; US Navy, Ret.)


Gov. Mitt Romney / Gen. David Petraeus (US Army, Ret.)

1/28/2010 6:05 PM EST

eriqueGonzales wrote:

As someone born in Ecuador with friends and relatives in Latin America, I’m terrified watching how people in the United States are being manipulated just like people in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador to put a Marxist in power.

The similarities between Rafael Correa’s campaign for president of Ecuador and that of Obama for U.S. president are amazing. Correa had no experience but was young, charismatic and had good speaking skills. Correa’s slogans were the same as Obama’s: CHANGE, YES WE CAN, etc.

Informed Ecuadorians were not able to convince their clueless compatriots that Correa was a fake and not the young and wonderful savior the media was portraying. They could not compete in ads with the millions Correa had (mostly from unknown sources).

Once he took over, Correa dissolved Congress and took control of the legislative and judicial powers. In other words, he became a dictator. Ecuadorians are poorer than ever. The CHANGE has been toward Marxism and greater poverty for all.

It’s now obvious that Correa works with Chávez and terrorists AGAINST Ecuadorians and the United States.

Most informed Ecuadorians, when they realized the similarities between Correa and Obama, felt confident that Americans could not be fooled as Ecuadorians had.

However, it seems many Americans are as clueless as the poorest and most ignorant people in Ecuador or Bolivia.

1/28/2010 9:49 AM EST

eriqueGonzales wrote:

Castro and Obama share many of the same values and principles for the country’s economy:

1. Redistribute the country’s wealth – Marxism 101

2. Grow the size of the government – Create new departments dedicated to supporting Item 1

3. Blame greedy American corporations for the pains of the US and the rest of the world

4 Increase taxes on those already paying the largest percentage and total amount. The top 1% already pay 39% of all taxes.

5 Nationalize healthcare

6 Campaign on a principle based on appealing to the lower income 50% of the US to despise the rich and convince 45% of the other half that their life is miserable so that once convinced of their doom and gloom, they will support the doomsayer and will want bigger government

7. Convince the public, that America is perceived as evil, thus, hated by the rest of the world.

8. Abandon America’s principle of helping the world rid itself of dictatorships, thus, put our weapons down, throw our arms up, and retreat in shame from Iraq.

9. Support dictatorships throughout the world and elevate them to be recognized by the US as worthy leaders that need to be heard without preconditions – legitimize them

10. Grow the support base by expanding the lowest income class in the country by increasing and broadening entitlements; however, add to that the importation of poverty into the United States by giving Amnesty to well over 20 million illegal aliens in the country. Furthermore, promote this policy in order to attract even more illegal immigration prior to the granting of the amnesty in order to achieve the highest number of “new, uneducated, government-dependent poor class”, I call the “new poor”.

11. Dictate to Americans that they should be ashamed for using 25% of the world’s energy while only having 3% of the population and that A/C thermostats in should be set at higher than 72 degrees.

12. Give up America’s sovereignty for the “good of the world” and to save the planet from “global warming” by supporting new treaties on international boundaries, not drilling in ANWR or offshore, but standing by while Castro plans to drill off the Florida coast.

13. Campaigning on a message of “change”, because it sounds good.

The list can go on and on, as Castro and Obama share many principles for the formula for a failed state, but one in which the party of the “new poor” remains in power through the growth of government. As this party provides more and more entitlements for its citizens and big government prevails, the country becomes less and less productive. Eventually, America’s economy is no better off than Cuba’s. Therefore, Fidel, go ahead and send Obama that box of Cohibas, for he is a Marxist just like you.

1/28/2010 11:26 AM EST

Chris0721 wrote:

Obama you’re so full of BS! …You’re an idiot Obama! … You don’t have the guts to admit that your “stimulus plan” didn’t work. … ” You’re a coward who can’t face the truth, Obama! At least many Americans who voted for you are finally starting to wake up with a severe case of buyer’s remorse.

1/28/2010 7:44 AM EST

ibsteve2u wrote:

There are only three kinds of people who vote for the modern Republican: Sadists, masochists, and fools.

1/28/2010 7:45 AM EST

stupidpeople wrote:

To anyone commenting that the Supreme court rebuke was great you can now shut your trap about Bush walking on the Constitution because you just supported a sitting President threatening another branch of the gov’t. This is typical Obama style to attack someone he disagrees with even when it is hypocritical. For a constitutional scholar he is pretty dumb when it comes to separation of powers and I believe the 9 justices and all their associates have a better understanding of the law than Obo and the left wing loons

1/28/2010 8:00 AM EST

dopeandnochange wrote:

stupidpeople wrote:
To anyone commenting that the Supreme court rebuke was great you can now shut your trap about Bush walking on the Constitution because you just supported a sitting President threatening another branch of the gov’t.

Of course the question now stupidpeople is whether moonbats like Olbermann, Matthews or others will recognize that?

Probably not because they are Odumba’s leading mercenaries, drunk from the kool aid that they consume on a nightly basis.

1/28/2010 8:04 AM EST

Here are just some of the gravatars calling attention to their respective comments, so these would not be missed.

My comment was accompanied by a grey silhouette.

As you can see, comments allowed to remain posted were not censored for length (many were longer than mine); or the use of profanity and name-calling (I eschew the use of both, as people who have been reading my comments in the blogosphere for almost 2 (two) years can attest); or criticism of BO’s policies (I failed to mention any); or even questions as to his status as a NBC (I only pointed out that when questioned, members of the D party refused to provide the documentary basis on which they had determined  BO met Constitutional qualifications for the job; and suggested legal means existed to pierce through such obfuscation).

So, what had I done wrong?

Years ago, I helped to organize clerical workers at a private university.  Many of our graduate students came from the developing countries, and were junior members of their government or armed forces.  Many of their countries of origin were hotbeds of civil war and revolution.  I recall a conversation between one such graduate student and me, during a period of labor unrest on campus.  At one point, his eyes opened wide and he exclaimed, ‘You don’t look it but, you are really quite radical!’  I immediately protested.  ‘No, I’m not!’  He smiled.  ‘What do you suppose I mean by the word ‘radical’?’  I described the strikers who take out keys and scratch cars crossing their picket lines.  ‘No,’ he shook his head, knowingly, ‘those people are crazy.  YOU are the real radical, because of your thoughts.  And you are far more dangerous, because people listen to you.’

With that long-ago conversation in mind; and, judging by the comments posted above as well as the hundreds of other comments allowed to remain at the party, I figure my hosts unceremoniously kicked me out solely because what I was thinking not only displeased them but also was communicated in such a way that, they anticipated, other people would listen.

%d bloggers like this: