“jbjd” BANNED in BOSTON

February 3, 2010

I have been posting my thoughts in the comments section to articles appearing in the Boston Globe (on Boston.com) 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.  https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/remember-the-alamo/

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.)

vs.

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.


OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES

January 6, 2010

© 2012 jbjd

I have been saying for years now; in those states which allow on the ballot only the names of candidates who are qualified for the job; party officials certified to state election officials that Barack Obama’s name should be placed on the ballot notwithstanding no documentary evidence  in the public record had established those qualifications.

I wrote “Out of the Mouths of Babes”  in January 2010; it has remained one of the most popular posts on the “jbjd” blog.  It describes my exchange with 9th graders in a U.S. History I class, during a lecture in which I detailed the interplay between the Constitutional requirements for President found in Article II, section 1; and real life, as played out with respect to the 2008 general election. I found their insights, untainted either by political correctness or experience; were ‘right on time’; and not just because their conclusions matched mine.

 

UPDATED 04.17.10: In the cite linked to President Washington’s papers (below), the date of his swearing in is correctly given as April 1789.  I incorrectly wrote he was sworn in, in March. (Here is another historical reference to that event.  http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html )

UPDATED 01.06.10: In a parenthetical comment below, I mistakenly said the first selection of Presidential Electors occurred in November 1788. However, the states first Appointed Electors in January 1789; and these Electors voted for George Washington for President in February. I correctly stated, Mr. Washington was inaugurated in March. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/presidential/electoral.html
**************************************************************************************************

Students attending this inner city high school not only are racially and ethnically diverse but also hail from several other native countries. For the most part, the students supported the Presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. Some of them even met the future Commander in Chief when he came to town during the primary campaign, their encounters captured forever in photographs proudly displayed in the lobby of the building. Pictures of Michelle appear there, too, under a banner proclaiming her, “Our Queen.”

At the last minute, I was asked to teach American History to 3 (three) classes of 9th graders deep in this heart of Obama territory.

Freshmen are a separate breed. Cocky and in your face, they virtually dare you to successfully re-direct their terrific energy to academic pursuit. But nothing equals the thrill of watching them learn, once you get their attention.

Here is how I got their attention.

I wrote my name on the board, billing myself as a “Guest Lecturer.” This was the provocative title for my presentation: “You Will Never Vote for President of the United States.”

The reaction from my students was boisterous and anticipated. ‘Oh yeah? I’m gonna vote for President as soon as I turn 18.’ And, ‘I thought you were allowed to vote for President as long as you were a citizen!’ I calmed the crowd by repeating the history lesson I was sure they had already been taught but forgot: the President of the United States is not elected directly by the people but by the Electors. In the general election on the next Tuesday after the first Monday in November, voters only select these Electors; but Appointed Electors don’t vote for President until the 15th of December, the dates set for these events in the Constitution.

For approximately the next 45 minutes, I walked my students through the election process spelled out by the Drafters of our Constitution and re-printed in their history books, barely recognizable as it was carried out in the 2008 general election.

‘What are the 3 Constitutional qualifications to be POTUS?’ The students proudly listed all three without prompting. 1) You have to be 35 years old. 2) You have to live in the United States for 14 years. 3) You have to be a Natural Born Citizen. I wrote these on the board. (I went into a side discussion about that 14-year requirement – I have discussed this issue previously on this blog, as well as other blogs – reasoning, the Drafters wanted to ensure that as much as possible, the President, also fulfilling the role of Commander in Chief, was completely intertwined with being American, attached to both her ideals and to the country. They envisioned such loyalty could only derive from being immersed for a fixed time in the American experience. So, why 14 years? Well, the first Continental Congress convened in 1774, establishing the first time (representatives from) the original 13 (thirteen) colonies came together to ponder mutual concerns viz a viz the British, thus evidencing their psychological mindset as a unified ‘nation.’ (One year later, the “shot heard round the world” was fired between British troops and American rebels at Lexington Green, MA, in 1775; and the Declaration of Independence was written in Philadelphia, PA in 1776.) The drafting of the Constitution occurred in 1787 and, allowing for ratification by the requisite 9 (nine) states, the Drafters anticipated Electors would, for the first time, vote for President in November 1788. (The swearing-in would take place in March of 1789.) Thus, 14 (fourteen) years had passed between the time the mindset of ‘being American’ first coalesced, and election of the first President (1788 minus 1774).)

I charted the modern process of electing the President through the intervention of political parties, stressing the fact political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. I described the mission of the party is to get the name of the person they want fronting for the party or, club, printed onto state general election ballots, an indispensible step to getting the public to forget, they are not voting for the candidate but for the Electors in the general election. Because only the name of the nominee of the political party appears on the ballot next to the party designation. This means, casting a vote for the ‘person’ whose name appears on the ballot next to the D or the R is more correctly characterized as voting for the Electors for that person.

So, who are these Electors we vote for who go on to elect our President? Well, generally speaking, they are chosen by the political party based on their demonstrated loyalty to the party, as evidenced in terms of hours spent supporting party activities such as hosting fundraisers for party backed candidates; or providing financial support to the party. The names of these Elector candidates are then submitted to state election officials by each political party. The number of Electors each party gets to submit is based on the number of Congressional districts in that state, plus 2 more for the number of US Senators. And in states like CA, in the 2008 election, this meant, 55 names. Obviously, printing the names on the ballot all of the candidates for Presidential Elector put forward by the parties is prohibitive. So, in each state, only the name of the party nominee is printed on the ballot, and not the names of the party Electors. (I pointed out; each state enacts the election laws prescribing what names may be printed on its ballots.)

How is the party’s Presidential nominee chosen? Usually, s/he is selected according to the results of party contests called primaries and caucuses held in each state to elect delegates who will vote at the party convention; and, finally, the party convention. Summing up the results for the D candidates for POTUS in the 2008 Presidential preference primaries and caucuses, I reported, on June 3, 2008 when all of the primaries and caucuses were over, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama had failed to reach the requisite number of pledged delegates set by the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation – DNC for short – to guarantee the nomination for their club – of course I inform them, she won more popular votes AND pledged delegates as the result of primary and caucus votes cast directly for her – so the rules called for the difference to be made up at the floor roll call at the Convention held in Denver, CO, in August 2008, by votes cast by party ‘elders’ called Superdelegates, who could vote for anyone they wanted. But for some reason, the Corporation backed Barack Obama well in advance of the Convention, even foregoing the traditional floor vote at the Convention in order to make his nomination a fait accompli. I repeated several times, the DNC Services Corporation is not a government agency but more like a private club, which means, they can make or break their own rules with impunity.

Once the DNC selected Barack Obama as their candidate for President, they had to get state election officials to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot. The DNC (and, in some states, the Chair of the state D party) submitted these Certifications of Nomination to election officials in each state swearing Barack Obama was the duly nominated DNC candidate for President and was Constitutionally qualified for the job.

I pointed out that, the Constitution says Electors will be appointed by the Governors of the states. I reconciled how electing Electors through a popular vote in the general election ends up in an Appointment. That is, the final vote tallies in the general election (for Electors for the candidate whose name appears on the ballot) are Certified by the Governors, who send Certificates of Ascertainment listing the names of the Electors (previously submitted to state election officials by the political parties) and the number of votes cast for them, as well as for the losing candidates for Elector, to the National Archivist, effectively making that Certification of popular votes cast for Electors in the general election, the Constitutional act of Appointment.

More D than R Electors were elected and, therefore, Appointed in the November 2008 general election. And all of the D Electors who voted in December 2008 cast their votes for Barack Obama, the nominee for President of the D party. But this was hardly surprising. Because the only way they got to be Electors for the party in the first place was by promising the party, if Appointed, they would cast their votes for the party nominee. However, I emphasized that nothing in the Constitution requires Electors to vote for the nominee of the political party, which only made sense since, as I said, the Drafters never mentioned political parties in the Constitution.

Congress ratified the vote of the Electors in January and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore in Barack Obama as President of the United States days after that. All prescribed precisely by the Constitution.

At this point, the students think the lecture is done. But I am just getting to the best part.

‘Wait a minute,’ I challenged, looking back at the board. ‘At the beginning of this lecture, we listed these 3 qualifications for President spelled out in the Constitution, right? You have to be 35 years of age; you have to live in the U.S. for 14 years; and you have to be a NBC.’ Yes. ‘Well, throughout this whole election process we just described, when did we mention that anyone vetted the candidates for President to ensure they satisfied this Constitutional eligibility for the job?’ Silence.

Now, I taught the class, no provision found in any law, state or federal; or in the Constitution requires any state official to determine whether the candidate for President is Constitutionally eligible for the job. None. The Constitution says, the Electors have to elect the President but remains silent as to vetting for Constitutional qualifications. The Constitution requires Congress to ratify the Electors’ vote for President but says nothing about verifying beforehand that the the person they elect is Constitutionally qualified for the job. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swears the President into office, under no Constitutional obligation to determine beforehand whether s/he was qualified for office.

And that led me to the states that require in order to get the candidate’s name printed on the ballot; s/he must be eligible for the job.

I described that some states enacted election laws that only allow the names of eligible candidates to be printed on state election ballots. And some of these states, like HI and SC, enacted laws saying the party must swear, in writing, their nominee for President meets all Constitutional qualifications for the job. (I point out; requiring this statement from the party is kind of superfluous because, according to the operating rules of the DNC Services Corporation, the Presidential nominee of the party must be Constitutionally qualified for the job. Then again, given their exhibited propensity to break their own rules…) I also reiterated, while the law says the candidate has to be eligible for the job to appear on the ballot, no corresponding law requires any government official to check.

The students were aware that Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California) was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; several knew the position of Speaker is 3rd in line of Presidential succession. They were unaware that in 2008, the DNC Services Corporation gave Ms. Pelosi the civilian job of Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention. Acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, her chief responsibility was to sign those official DNC Certifications of Nomination swearing Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the job of President of the United States, and send these sworn Certifications to state election officials to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on their general election ballots.

I reported that questions had arisen during the primary campaign as to whether Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. Students were aware of the controversy. I informed them that several people had even concluded, the documentation available in the public record failed to establish that he is a U.S Citizen, let alone that he was Natural Born. Yet, Ms. Pelosi signed those Certifications of Nomination and sent these to state election officials to get them to print his name on the general election ballot.

‘Some of us wondered; given this controversy about the circumstances of Mr. Obama’s birth, on what documentary basis did Ms. Pelosi ascertain he was a Natural Born Citizen before swearing he was Constitutionally eligible for the job? So, we wrote to Ms. Pelosi and asked her. I even arranged to have one of these letters hand-delivered to her office in Washington. Know what she said?’ Every pair of eyes was now on me. ‘Actually, she didn’t say anything. She ignored us.’ A knowing sound of ‘ooooo’ filled the room. ‘What do you think that means?’ The students smiled. ‘That means, she’s busted; she didn’t check whether he is a Natural Born Citizen before she swore he was.’

I shrugged my shoulders. ’Could be. But people wanted to know for sure. So, now they wrote to Alice Germond, the Secretary to the DNC Services Corporation, who had co-signed those Certifications. Again, they asked on what documentary basis she had determined Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen before sending those Certifications of Nomination swearing he was, to state election officials to get his name printed on the ballot. But this time they asserted the right to view whatever documentation the party used, under what’s called the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), the federal law that gives the public the right to see the documents our government has on file.’

‘Did she answer the question?’ ‘No; but she didn’t ignore the voters, either. Ms. Germond forwarded the letters addressed to her, to the General Counsel or, lawyer for the DNC Services Corporation, Joseph Sandler. And he did write back.’ The kids were at the edge of their seats. ‘What did he say!’ ‘Well, he explained that the DNC is not a government agency but rather a private club and, as such, is not subject to state or federal document disclosure laws. He advised people to direct their questions about the qualifications of candidates whose names appear on the ballot, to their state election officials. And he still didn’t answer the question.’ Now, a loud gasp rose up around the room. ‘What do you think that means?’ Without missing a beat, they blurted out, ‘That means they did check whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen; and he’s not!’

This illustrates another reason I love teaching 9th graders: they are not yet sophisticated enough to abandon their common sense.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT

November 23, 2009

*

Bob Bauer, currently White House Counsel, was formerly the Counsel to DNC Services Corporation and Obama for America, Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign. (BOB BAUER BIOGRAPHY) In January 2009, he defended Mr. Obama in Hollister v. Soetoro, a lawsuit aimed at exposing his client was Constitutionally unqualified for POTUS. HOLLISTER v. SOETORO (Mr. Hollister was represented by Attorney Phil Berg.) Mr. Bauer submitted his usual Motion to Dismiss – this was not the first lawsuit aimed at reaching his client’s eligibility – but this time, seeking to take advantage of the opportunity provided by this lawsuit to end the barrage of eligibility based challenges both inside and outside of the courtroom, he added something new: a footnote asking the judge to take judicial notice of certain facts, which notice he would recycle to construct the fiction, his client was Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

“Judicial notice” is a term found in the Federal Rules of Evidence. It applies to getting facts into the court record and, once those facts have been added to the record, assigns what weight this evidence will receive. (For a full explanation of judicial notice, see the Federal Rules of Evidence at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm.)

Simply put, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Mr. Bauer wanted the federal court to take judicial notice of these facts.

1. His client, Barack Obama “publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.”

This fact is true. But it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

The only such self-authenticating ‘document’ his client “publicly produced” was that heavily redacted Certification of Live Birth – recall, Mr. Obama re-named this, his “Official Birth Certificate” – posted on “Fight the Smears,” the web site clearly advertising in the footer, this was “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.” But even if the document was authentic AND the information contained therein was true, at best this could only establish his client is a “native” citizen, but not Natural Born. Mr. Obama admitted right on that site, this COLB only established he is a “native citizen” and not Natural Born. (See, MODEL COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN APPLICABLE STATES, on this page.)

Question: Since Bob Bauer was motivated to stave off attacks against his client by trying to construct Mr. Obama’s Constitutional qualifications for POTUS, why did he try to get the court to take judicial notice that his client publicly produced a certified document showing he was born in HI, when even assuming the fact he produced such a document also meant, he was actually born in HI; that fact could only establish he was a “native” citizen but not Natural Born as required by the Constitution?
Answer: Because if the court had taken judicial notice of these facts which implied his client was born in HI; Mr. Bauer could have perverted such notice into the meme, the federal court has now ruled, his client was born in HI; and, further, Mr. Bauer would have claimed, being born in HI makes him a NBC, propaganda which he and his clients, DNC Services Corporation, would have plastered throughout the print and electronic media. This campaign of propaganda emanating from the man who wrote the book – literally – on federal election law likely would have neutralized the mounting challenges to his client’s Constitutional qualification for POTUS.

Anyway, while referring to this ‘public production’ of a document showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit the ‘original’ COLB to the court.

Question: Given that Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice his client produced that COLB, for what reason did he fail to produce for the court, the actual document?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.

2. Mr. Bauer wrote, “See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper).”

These facts are true, too. But they also fail to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

Mr. Bauer omits the name “Annenberg” from the proper title of the organization; and fails to reveal to the court, this group is sponsored by his client’s former employer, Chicago Annenberg Challenge, information the court is unlikely to know, absent his revelation; and which financial relationship a reasonable person would expect him to reveal as material to the court’s consideration. He also fails to name the “Honolulu newspaper” he claims printed that “contemporaneous birth announcement.” (The court could not know, APFC failed to name this publication which they “not[ed],” too, unless Mr. Bauer revealed this material information.) Recall, this ‘announcement’ is actually an unattributed image posted anonymously on the td blog, which APFC admits it copied from that site to post on theirs. RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

Not surprisingly, while seeking judicial notice APFC noted this contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit an ‘original’ of that document to the court, either.

Plus, notwithstanding Mr. Bauer has now asked the court to take judicial notice [Annenberg Political] Fact Check said the document Mr. Obama publicly produced is “genuine,” again, he failed to produce that “genuine” document for the court.

Question: Why did Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice APFC said, the COLB his client publicly produced was “genuine”; but fail to introduce into evidence, the actual COLB?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.

3. Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice, “Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” ”

This fact is true. Again, it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

Hawaiian officials allegedly made this statement in late October 2008. Notice, the statement attributed to these officials does not include the words, ‘This “original birth certificate” we have on file indicates, Mr. Obama was born in HI.’ Indeed, Mr. Bauer does not allege these officials said, ‘He was born in HI.’ http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/certified/

Lucky for us, the federal court took no such notice. Getting lay people to understand the fact that nothing in the public record establishes BO is a NBC, has been challenging enough, without having to explain the difference between these judicially noted “facts” and the lies Mr. Bauer and the members of the Corporation he represents would insist these facts actually mean.

Luckier for Mr. Bauer, neither Judge James Robertson nor Mr. Berg inquired as to where is this “genuine” document of HI birth he claims his client “publicly produced”; or the “contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper”; or the “original birth certificate” HI officials claim to have on file. (How do you suppose Mr. Bauer would have responded to such request from the bench or opposing counsel, for production of that “original birth certificate” those HI officials said is “on record”?) Because Mr. Bauer is a member of the D.C. Bar and according to the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, these examples of lack of “Candor to Tribunal”; or lack of “Truthfulness in Statement to Others”; or failure to display “Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel” could cost Mr. Bauer his license to practice law. See, DC RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

Which leads us to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession who, acting in a non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, swore in August 2008 Mr. Bauer’s client was Constitutionally qualified for POTUS in the official DNC Services Corporation Certifications of Nomination that were submitted to election officials in dozens of states to get his name printed on the general election ballot.

Question: Instead of asking for judicial notice of representations made by APFC, notice which at best could only establish his client was a “native” of HI but not “Natural Born”; why didn’t Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice of Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, let alone submit even 1 (one) of those Certifications into the court record?
Answer: Because he knew Nancy Pelosi’s sworn Certifications of Nomination submitted to state election officials are bogus, too.

Question: But given that Bob Bauer was willing to risk his license to practice law by tricking the court into taking judicial notice of misleading facts that, at best, could only establish Barack Obama was a “native” born citizen, anyway, and which notice he would have to message in order to dupe Americans into believing this meant, his client was also Constitutionally qualified for POTUS; why was he unwilling to risk his license on Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, which explicitly stated, his client was Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, judicial notice of which fact the court likely would have granted, and which notice more likely could have persuaded the public of the fact, his client was Natural Born?
Answer: Because at that time, Nancy Pelosi was his client, too, and under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, he could not exonerate one client facing a civil lawsuit by incriminating another in criminal election fraud.

For your information, here are CONTACTS AT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR.


BOB BAUER, RUMORED-TO-BE NEXT WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, TO FEDERAL COURT: F*** YOU!

October 27, 2009

I had intended to issue these revised Complaints of Election Fraud against various members of the Democratic Party and Requests for Investigation by State Attorneys General, anyway; but when I read in FOX News that Robert Bauer, Esquire, General Counsel to the DNC and personal attorney to Barack Obama could replace White House Counsel Greg Craig by the end of the year, I decided to post these updated complaints in an homage to him. BAUER TO BE NAMED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL?

Judging by the historical collaboration between Mr. Bauer and the POTUS, achieving a better match between attorney and client appears unlikely.

This line in the article, which FOX attributes to Wikipedia, jumped out at me: “Bauer is highly regarded in Democratic circles as a tenacious and brilliant lawyer ….” If true, this statement exemplifies everything that is contemptible about Mr. Bauer and his Democratic clientele, including Mr. Obama: they conflate hubris with intellect.

How else to explain Mr. Bauer gets points for helping his clients – The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention; The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate; and Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia and Chair of the DNC (his AG is the recipient of several of these complaints) – elect a President merely saying, he is Constitutionally qualified for the job?

Or this, from the Complaints to the A’sG, describing how he asked a federal judge to take judicial notice of a mirage.

In January 2009, Mr. Obama was the named Defendant in a case filed in federal district court, ostensibly seeking to determine whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice required a military Plaintiff to obey orders from a Commander in Chief he was not certain was a NBC. (Pleadings for Hollister v. Soetoro, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR, can be found on line at https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/.) Mr. Obama submitted a Motion to Dismiss predicated on Plaintiff’s failure to establish the Court’s jurisdiction; and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (The Defendant was represented by Attorney Robert F. Bauer of PERKINS COIE LLP, who signed the pleadings submitted to the court on his client’s behalf.) Additionally, Mr. Obama asked the court to take judicial notice of the following ‘fact’: he had publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. (Presumably, he used the phrase “publicly produced” referring to the fact, he posted that photocopied COLB on his FTS web site.) Yet he did not provide the court with the ‘original’ COLB so the Clerk could mark up the document as evidence and place it in the case record (where it would be subject to scrutiny by the Plaintiff or the judge’s in-camera inspection). Instead, he tried to authenticate that internet COLB just by asking the court to take “notice” that Annenberg Political Fact Check (“APFC”) “conclude[d] that the birth certificate is genuine.” https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/ (APFC is one of many such organizations wholly funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also paid his salary as Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999.) (And recall he wrote on FTS, this COLB only establishes he is a “native citizen,” anyway.)

Given the fact that 2008 DNC Convention Chair Pelosi is also the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, making her 3rd in line of Presidential succession, with all of the gravitas incorporated therein, it defies credulity that Mr. Obama would seek judicial notice of the lesser fact he is a native citing APFC says he is; but not offer into evidence the DNC Official Certification of Nomination Ms. Pelosi submitted to election officials in the state of HI, swearing Barack Obama is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” or any one of the dozens of her signed Certifications, which persuaded election officials throughout the country to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on the Presidential ballots in the 2008 general election.

Eschewing reliance on Ms. Pelosi’s Certification, incredibly, Mr. Obama asked the court to take judicial notice of this information: APFC “note[d] a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper.” In fact, APFC had only posted on their web site an image of an unattributed ‘newspaper announcement,’ which phantom image they admitted they had usurped from the “td” blog, where it was posted anonymously. (Note: the “td” TexasDarlin blog site was closed by its owner in August 2009.) With no further investigation into that ‘announcement,’ APFC declared, “The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.” http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html) Like APFC, Defendant Obama omitted the name of this publication. And he failed to enter into the court record any physical evidence of a newspaper announcement, making his claims there was such an announcement, as with his claims the internet COLB was real, impossible to verify, too.

It’s true. Mr. Bauer actually asked a federal judge to take judicial notice that APFC ‘noted’ an imaginary newspaper birth announcement; and that Barack Obama “publicly produced” a “birth certificate” that can only be observed through a computer screen. And he had the audacity to hope the court would grant his wish. Thank goodness, the only relief The Honorable Judge James Robertson granted was the Motion to Dismiss. Because know what Mr. Bauer would have done if Judge Robertson had been as “impressed” with his tenacity as Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kaine, et al.? He would have twisted judicial notice that APFC made a ‘note’ on their web site and that Mr. Obama posted something on the internet; into a ruling by the federal court that his client is a NBC.

In my opinion, more than 1 (one) ‘birther’ attorney has earned sanctions from the federal court.

(editing assistance provided by d2i)
***************************************************************************************************
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTING COMPLAINTS

1. Download complaint from Scribd by clicking on link below complaint.
2. Fill in your real name and address. Your residency in that state entitles you to the services of your AG.
3. AG complaint gets faxed; copies to parties noted on complaint may be sent by any means preferred.
4. Please distribute copies of filed complaints to the press.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SOUTH CAROLINIANS

Even if you have previously filed a complaint, please, re-file. Evidently the fax number to the AG’s office was incorrect; and this means, the copies you distributed are copies of documents not on file. So, please, re-file, and re-distribute copies. (The bad news, you need to duplicate your work. The good news? This revised complaint is dynamite.)

GEORGIA

View this document on Scribd

MARYLAND

View this document on Scribd

SOUTH CAROLINA

View this document on Scribd

TEXAS

View this document on Scribd

VIRGINIA

View this document on Scribd

NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (2 of 2)

August 28, 2009

© 2009 jbjd

(UPDATED:  08.31.10: The link to the 2007 DNC notice that Chairman Dean appointed Nancy Pelosi to Chair the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention has been scrubbed.  Instead, I substituted the announcement of her appointment which appeared in the Denver Post.)

So, to continue, who is responsible for enabling BO to occupy the office of POTUS notwithstanding no evidence that was proffered could prove he is Constitutionally eligible for the job?  Here’s a list of the people eliminated thus far, in the order in which they were eliminated.  (Note:  After digesting the first half of this article, https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/never-less-than-a-treason-1-of-2/, a few readers objected to the scope of my exoneration. That is, they thought I was too generous in letting people off the hook.  Let me reassure everyone, I had already factored into consideration all of their stated objections.  Hopefully, these excerpts from my replies will allay any other concerns.)

1.  Barack Obama

Let me remind you, i) he did not force anyone to vote for him in the general election. ii) He never Certified to state elections officials he was the Official Nominee for POTUS of the DNC and met all Constitutional requirements of the job, to get them to print his name on the general election ballot. iii) Three months before he obtained the D nomination, he took out an ad on the internet called “Fight the Smears” – he spelled out quite plainly, this ad was “Paid for by Barack Obama” – proclaiming for everyone to see, he was only a “native citizen,” thus ‘outing’ himself as being Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

2.  Congress

This includes VP Cheney, acting in his role as President of the Senate.  Even assuming upon asking for a vote on Ratification, he failed to extend to the members an opportunity discernible to us, to register their objections, if any, to the EC process; any one of these 500+ legislators could have raised a “Point of Order” at any time, to get an objection heard.  As I said previously, Congress is off the hook because the Constitution does not require that they investigate whether the person who obtained the requisite votes for POTUS from members of the EC, is Constitutionally eligible for the job.

3. The Electoral College

For as long as general elections have provided the mechanism to appoint the state Electors; even in those states that require the Elector to vote for the nominee of the national party, no faithless Elector has ever faced legal retribution.  The reason I left the EC off the hook is simple:  the Constitution does not require the EC must determine whether the nominee of their political party is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS even if they decided to elect him for the job.http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/

****************************************************************************************************************

We have reached the point where the responsibility for electing an ineligible POTUS must be found somewhere in a process directly related to his nomination.  But before we ferret out the source of that responsibility, memorize this fact:  The raison d’etre for awarding BO the national D party nomination  was to get elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot notwithstanding getting his name on the ballot would have nothing to do with his winning the election.

In July of 2007, Howard Dean, then Chair of the DNC, appointed  Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Chair the 2008 DNC Convention.   This put her in charge of the nomination.   http://www.denverpost.com/dnc/ci_6283384

Now, what do you think it means to “win” the “election”?  Remember, voters who went to the polls on November 4, only cast votes to appoint the (slate of) Electors who would then cast votes for President on December 15.  The person who gets the most votes at that time, wins the election.  And there is no provision in the Constitution, or any Federal law that requires Electors to vote for the person whose name, attached to theirs, received the most popular votes in the general election. In fact, the only Constitutional significance to receiving the most votes cast in a general election is this.  The names of the winning slate of electors thus appointed by the voters, once their appointment by means of this general election is Certified by the Governor of the state in a Certificate of Ascertainment, are then sent to the Archivist of the United States at the Office of the Federal Register, as directed by the Constitution.

Winning” the election simply means, receiving the most votes from the appointed Electors voting in the Electoral College. (Even if a ‘candidate’ concedes the race after November’s  general election, this has no bearing on whether the Electors can elect that loser  on December 15.)

So, why did the EC cast their votes for BO on December 15?  Neither federal law nor any provision of the Constitution says they had to vote for the person who holds the party nomination.  NONE.  Oh, sure, some states have enacted laws that require the Electors to vote for the party nominee.  However, as I previously pointed out, even in those states that have enacted laws requiring Electors to vote for the nominee of the party, no faithless Elector has even been sanctioned for disobeying that law. In fact, the party demands that its Electors swear an oath to support the nominee, before the party informs the state to print his or her name onto the general election ballot.  In other words, those Electors listed on the general election ballot as “for Barack Obama” are really for Barack Obama.  And, ultimately, that’s the reason these D Electors – the party activists, the movers and shakers, the fund raisers  who are chosen as party Electors – cast their votes for him.  Because they said they would. In fact, that’s the only reason they got to be Electors in the first place.

There.  We have established there is no correlation between the votes cast for BO by the Electors in the Electoral College; and the appearance of his name on the general election ballot.

Now, let’s examine the flip side of this process, that is, the primary/caucus campaign that led up to BO’s nomination at the DNC Convention to determine what correlation, if any, there is between the results of that process and his eventual nomination.

First, understand, the way the nomination is supposed to work.  Whichever candidate wins the most delegates from votes cast in the Democratic primary/caucus process will win the party’s nomination at the national Convention.  Well, sort of.  The candidate wins ONLY IF the number of those delegates reaches the threshold required by the party.  If not then, the nominee is chosen based on BOTH the number of votes cast by his or her delegates  on the call of the roll on the floor of the Convention PLUS the number of votes of what are called the “super delegates.”

So, who are these ‘super’ delegates?  Well, they are high profile members of the party, including federal legislators, chosen in advance by members of the DNC.  (Here is a pretty good history of SD’s; ignore the part of the article that refers to whether “pledged” delegates are actually “pledged.” The authors, one a Democratic strategist and the other, an attorney, obviously never heard of vote binding states.)  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18908855

Take a look at how Ms. Pelosi tried to steer the votes of those Democratically appointed SD’s.  On March 16, when BO had just come off his lopsided caucus ‘wins,’ http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/ she told Politico the SD’s “should reflect the will of the voters.”  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9063.html (She never specified whether she meant, the will of the voters as expressed by the final delegate count in their districts; or by the total delegate count; or by the overall popular vote.)  But bombarded by cries of ‘foul’ at appearing to take sides in the battle for the nomination, by April 1, Ms. Pelosi had changed her mind.  Now she decided, these SD’s had the “right to vote their conscience.” http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/pelosi_superdelegates_can_vote.php And it’s a good thing she did.  Because according to the DNC Call, which contains the rules that governed the 2008 Convention she Chaired, even delegates “pledged” to their candidates as the result of votes cast in the primary/caucus election are not actually ‘pledged’ but only, “shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”  http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/c313170ef991f2ce12_iqm6iyofq.pdf (It’s about time they added a line reminding pledged delegates from vote binding states, “If you are from one of the 13 vote binding states then, in your state, voting for someone other than the candidate you pledged to the voters you would represent, is against the law.”)

Okay, back to the scenario facing both BO and HRC at the start of the Convention.  Recall that, neither of them had a sufficient number of delegates pledged to win the nomination at the time they entered the Convention.  So, whoever won more total delegate votes, combining both pledged and super, as the result of the floor vote than the opposition, would be the party nominee.  At least, this has been the tradition within the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember.  But not this time.  Nope; this time, BO was somehow able to take the nomination even though there was never a roll call vote on the floor! How do you suppose that happened?  Of course, without this vote, we can never know what would have been the actual count of delegate votes for either candidate. Furthermore, without a record, we will never know whether pledged delegates from the 13 (thirteen) vote binding states lived up to their obligation to vote for the candidate the voters from back home elected them to support at the Convention.

In fact, nothing in the record BEFORE the Convention indicated that in a full open vote at the Convention, his nomination rather than hers, was a foregone conclusion.  Not a thing.

For example, HRC won the popular vote.  (Did you already know that?) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html (Not at all surprising, since even on election day, polls taken of people who had just cast their votes showed she would have beaten John McCain by 11 percentage points, as opposed to BO’s 7.) http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/12/politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml Plus, even with all of the documented caucus fraud and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee bait and switch with MI votes; best guesses, BO still only managed to ‘find’ less than 35 more pledged delegates as the result of votes cast for him, than for her. http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html. (A federal court ruling in TX has allowed a lawsuit to proceed based on the under-allocation of delegates in heavily Hispanic districts, which could signal the beginning of the end to the D’s ‘complicated’ delegate allocation process in that state.)  http://www.star-telegram.com/texas/story/1558681.html

Okay.  We previously established there is no correlation between the votes cast for BO by the Electors in the Electoral College; and the appearance of his name on the general election ballot. And we have just established there is NO correlation between winning the Democratic primary contest and garnering the Democratic nomination. Then why do you suppose Chairwoman Pelosi imposed measures that were guaranteed to gag the ‘fair reflection’ of the millions of voters who had dispatched delegates to the Convention, in order to guarantee BO the nomination?  Repeat after me:  The raison d’etre for awarding BO the national D party nomination  was to get elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot. And, according to state elections laws, only the candidate duly nominated by the national D party at the party Convention, as Certified to by the party, is entitled to have his or her name printed on state ballots for the general election.  But didn’t we just say, the actual election occurs within the EC, and not at the general election?  Then, why were Nancy Pelosi (and Howard Dean and Harry Reid) determined to get BO’s name on the ballot in the general election?  Because they could never have gotten away with stealing the election at the point of the EC vote, when most people think they are actually casting their votes for President in the general election.

As we’ve already said, in order to get the state to print the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party, onto the state’s general election ballot; appropriate party officials must Certify to state elections officials, the name of the nominee of the party.  But in some states, for example, TX and GA, just Certifying the name of the candidate is not enough to get his or name printed onto the ballot.  The law in those states says to get onto the ballot, the party nominee must also satisfy all of the qualifications of the job.  But, even in those states that mandate the nominee must be eligible, there’s no law that says, the party must Certify the nominee’s qualifications.  Of course, since DNC rules require the nominee must be eligible under the Constitution, http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2), Certifying BO is the nominee is tantamount to verifying, he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Anyway, there’s no law in any state that says any state official has to check.

However, 1 (one) state in the union enacted a law that specifically says, the party must Certify the nominee for POTUS is eligible for the job:  HI.*

*(Correction:  After I posted this article, I learned that SC law also requires specific wording of eligibility to accompany the submission of candidate names that will appear on the ballot.  See https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/up-to-here-in-fraud-from-the-chair-of-the-2008-convention-to-the-chair-of-the-dnc/)

So, in her civilian role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, Nancy Pelosi, possessing all of the gravitas of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives signed the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination relied upon by state elections officials to print the name of Barack Obama on the state general election ballots.  And on the Certification issued to the state of HI, Ms. Pelosi added this line:  he is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”  https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/

But as we now know, there is no evidence she determined beforehand whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.  https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/; https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/

Which leads us to the final question:  In July of 2007, why do you suppose Howard Dean picked Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in the line of Presidential succession, to Chair the 2008 DNC Convention?  Answer:  Perhaps to guarantee no matter the success achieved by other candidates seeking the D nomination, BO would still win the 2008 election. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000019—-000-.html

(Editorial Assistance Provided by d2i)


THEORIZING HOW TO PROVE BO IS NOT A NBC

August 1, 2009

(NOTE TO VIEWERS OF THIS BLOG:  PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY READERS, HIDDEN BELOW THE ARTICLE, ALONG WITH MY RESPONSES TO THEIR REMARKS.  ESPECIALLY DIGEST THE EXCHANGES BETWEEN ME AND azgo.)

In response to a comment on a blog, I contacted one of the attorneys involved in a court case seeking to determine whether BO is a NBC.  I received a reply asking for help.  Here is my response.

*****************************************************************************************************

I am glad you took me up on my offer to help.

I haven’t formalized my ideas, so I will just throw these out for now.

Okay, let’s talk Plaintiffs, first.  (FYI, I am the person who conceived using National Guard soon-to-be-deployed, as Plaintiffs to gain standing in federal court in a Declaratory Judgment case under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act – these Plaintiffs are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until they are federalized – because they could be subject to becoming Defendants in a subsequent prosecution related to whether BO is a NBC…  I am the same person who began posting last summer that a “Certification” is not a “Certificate”; unfortunately, this was right after Berg had already filed his first Complaint, calling the document posted on BO’s “Fight the Smears” site, a “Certificate.”)

Pledged Delegates for HRC who switched to BO; or who were pledged to BO in the first place, and voted for him at the DNC Convention, but would not have voted for him had they known, he is not a NBC, would have standing as Plaintiffs in a civil action for (fraud, unjust enrichment…).  ESPECIALLY DESIRABLE ARE PLEDGED DELEGATES FROM THOSE STATES THAT HAVE ENACTED LAWS REQUIRING DELEGATES PLEDGED AS THE RESULT OF PRIMARY VOTING MUST FOLLOW THEIR CANDIDATES ONTO THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION.  (There are around 13 of these ‘binding vote’ states; I have the list.)  And some of these vote binding states also have laws about ballot access, that require the candidate for POTUS from the major political party must be eligible for the job.  (None of these states requires any government official to check.)  Off the top of my head, I know GA is both a vote binding state AND a state requiring the party candidate to be eligible for the job.

As for strategy… Months ago, when drafting the Declaratory Judgment case I mentioned above, I reasoned, it made no sense to try to support a claim, BO is not a NBC.   Instead, I argued, Plaintiffs had reasonable cause to believe, he might not be a NBC, based in large part on his own words and actions.  But since that time, things have changed, especially with regard to these 4 (four) events.  1) Several people have contacted Nancy Pelosi qua Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention to ask on what basis she Certified BO is a NBC.  She refused to respond.  2) HI officials have spoken in circles in a botched attempt to ‘confirm’ BO is a NBC.  3) BO, personally (before being sworn in) and through his spokespeople, continue to dodge the issue by lying that the Certification is a Certificate and proves he is a NBC.  4) In Berg’s Hollister case, BO Motion to Dismiss contained a footnote asking the court to take judicial notice that Annenberg Political Fact Check said he’s for real; and that an announcement of his birth had been published in a HI newspaper.  (Of course, if the judge had taken judicial notice, we lawyers would have known, this meant nothing; but everyone else would have interpreted this to mean, the court has ruled, he is a NBC.  Thank goodness, the court did no such thing.  However, this confirmed my suspicions, as spelled out in the earlier draft of the military Complaint, that the strongest ‘evidence’ BO could proffer to establish he is a NBC, is that stupid photocopied on-line Certification; which means nothing!) Taken together, this could form a good faith belief in a reasonable person that no evidence exists that would establish, BO is a NBC.  SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRODUCTION TO HIM!  And as for objections to this strategy, argue “unclean hands” (you blocked access to all documentation and now cannot argue, we cannot submit proof); or unjust enrichment (you distributed the COLB to Daily Kos and Annenberg Political Fact Check in order to refute “rumors” about your citizenship status – you said so, on your “Fight the Smears” site – and now, having banked on that COLB, it isn’t fair to raise privilege and confidentiality to block our access to those records that could verify whether your claims are true).

Finally, to overcome claims of sovereign immunity, I would drop all claims against conduct that occurred viz a viz the Congressional ratification of the EC vote; rather, go after NP as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention.  Go after any other actors not as failed Congresspeople but as co-conspirators to the fraud.

I know this is a lot to digest; let me know what you think.  (I am not going to proof this because I want to get it out ASAP.)

jbjd


%d bloggers like this: