TOO IGNORANT TO LEAD

February 20, 2011

©2011 jbjd

A brief article entitled, “Flake says:  “Get off this Kick”” appeared on the blog, Seeing Red AZ, whose byline reads, “political views from a red state.”  This blurb about Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was taken from a longer article that appeared in The Hill, citing an interview conducted by CNN, who asked the candidate for U.S. Senate to comment on the results of a recent Public Policy Polling poll showing a majority of R primary voters do not believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.  His reply?  People need to “accept reality.”  (The article on The Hill goes on to say, “Flake said the notion that Obama isn’t a U.S. citizen needs to be put to rest.”  Now, I cannot tell whether this line I quoted came from Flake or, The Hill, or CNN but, I have to tell you, having become an expert purser of Obama-speak, hearing the word “notion” in relation to anything about the man signals to me, ‘be on the alert for incoming lies.’)

Anyway, I saw the article on SRA because I was getting hits on my blog from that site and checked it out.  Well, I should have guessed, azgo had posted a great comment that included a link to “jbjd.”  He agreed I could re-print it here (with my editorial revisions).

Memo to Rep. Flake:  ‘Fight the Smears’ is Paid Political Advertising

The “Fight the Smears” web page with the image of a birth document is a paid political advertisement and conforms with TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > of the U.S. Code, § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations. This section deals with campaign funding, reporting, and other parameters.  Nothing in this law requires the advertising content to be true. And that only makes sense.  Because as the Supreme Court has ruled, when it comes to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, political advertising is legal even if the advertiser does not tell the truth. “…the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented.”  Edenfield v. Fane (91-1594), 507 U.S. 761 (1993).

The Obama campaign threw up an eye-catching wizardry of a political advertisement they named, “Fight the Smears,” on which they displayed graphics for visual impact, and ad copy with terms of art like ‘native born’ and ‘citizenship conferred by the 14th Amendment’ cleverly conflating these terms with the one they never mentioned, “natural born.” But this is the term emblazoned in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.  And, consistent with section 441d, they solicited the public to ‘donate now’ and tell others, all so as to spread their truth about the candidate. Even though it was all a lie.

In truth, the state of Hawaii has never claimed responsibility as the “issuing authority” – this term of art is defined right there in the Code – of that online image of a COLB on the advertising platform entitled FTS.  They never confirmed this was a genuine “identification document,” consistent with the Code.  Even the ad failed to claim, this ‘document’ came from the HI Department of Health, Vital Records.  Or to include any identifying information that would allow anyone to trace back the mock-up to its hinted origins.  And all of the venues reporting that, having seen the image, they could confirm its authenticity – L.A. Times, Daily Kos, Annenberg Political FactCheck, Politifact – also stated publicly, they had received this image directly from the Obama campaign.

In other words, when it comes to providing documentary evidence as to where Obama was born, the only thing available in the public record, that online image of the birth document, means absolutely nothing…

…except that many Americans, including not just the media but worse, our state and national public officials can be duped into believing an image is real which was only created as the focal point of an on-line political advertising campaign to combat rumors a Presidential candidate is Constitutionally ineligible for the job!

https://jbjd.org/2011/01/03/de-coder-rings-1of2/

(View a screen capture of the 14th Amendment on FTS at IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO)

Not surprisingly, in 2007, gearing up for the political campaign of Barack Obama, the circumstances of whose birth, if uncovered, they believed would derail his bid to lead the free world; APFC posted this homage to the First Amendment license to print paid political lies.

Seems to me, a sitting U.S. Representative who is a candidate for U.S. Senate should be at least as well informed about the difference between protected false speech in paid political advertising, and the truth; as ordinary citizens who collaborated via email in their spare time to put together this post on a blog.


DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2)

January 3, 2011

©2011 jbjd

Introduction

Businesses marketing their goods on television in the ’50s often included fun gimmicks in their advertising campaigns so as to disguise to impressionable consumers that what they were watching, whether broadcast as a feature program or as a word from the sponsor,  were essentially commercial vehicles designed to sell products.  For example, the children’s serial, “Captain Midnight and the Secret Squadron” promoted the sale of Ovaltine® through the introduction of secret de-coder rings, which could help the viewer to decipher the puzzle offered up weekly by Captain Midnight.  To obtain this de-coder ring, you just had to join the Secret Squadron.  And to do that, “First, get a jar of the official Secret Squadron drink, delicious chocolate flavored Ovaltine®, the food drink for rocket power.  Then cut out the wax paper disc that covers the Ovaltine® jar.  And send that disc with your name and your address to Captain Midnight.”

(For an interesting history in the chronology of the product and the companies that owned it, see http://www.google.com/search?q=ovaltine+history&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=ovaltine+history&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ahq&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=HbQfTaDWD8H68AaM8ZHdDQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CHMQ5wIwCg&fp=bdddfab3d4d782f2.)

The bad news is, “DE-CODER RINGS” won’t be sending out any such costume baubles.  But the good news is, it provides you, instead, with a ‘gimmick’ that is genuinely priceless.  Because it will enable you to decipher the true nature of those familiar images which are part of the brilliantly conceived and phenomenally successful sales and advertising campaign that gave us Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, under various iterations including (in chronological order) “Barack Obama”; “Obama for America”; and “Organizing for America, a product of the Democratic National Committee” (“DNC”).  Plus, you won’t have to send me your personal information before obtaining this Rosetta Stone.  Nope; you just have to read some selected provisions of the U.S. Code.

So, what is the U.S. Code, anyway?  Here’s the definition on the web site of the Government Printing Office (“GPO”):  “The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.”  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/ In other words, the U.S. Code is the systematic compilation of all of the federal civil and criminal laws of the land.

DE-CODER RINGS is presented in two (2)  parts.  Part (1 of 2) addresses what the Code has to say about the legal nature of electronic political advertising campaigns like the one copyrighted and commonly known as “Fight the Smears,” and begins a discussion of the legality of posting on these political advertising sites images such as the Certification of Live Birth (“COLB”) which appears on various named internet sites carrying that ad campaign.  Part (2 of 2) completes the discussion of the criminal implications of producing and distributing the electronic image of that COLB and then compares and contrasts the legal implications of presenting such an electronic image, with the laws that would apply to any future production and/or transfer of hard copy images of either an officially released COLB or an actual Birth Certificate.

As you read DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2), notice that the key to unlocking the legitimacy of political advertising, whether in the form of electronic images or hard copy, cannot be found by micro-analyzing the minutia of its visual presentation, but in realizing that the production and transfer of either electronic images or hard copy documents by anyone, whether in conjunction with a political ad campaign is likely governed by and, therefore, inextricably linked to maintaining compliance with provisions of the U.S. Code.

Discussion of the Federal Laws Governing Paid Political Advertising

In June 2008, Barack Obama, then still struggling to bamboozle Democratic voters (and the rest of the country) into buying into the meme that with the primary/caucus contests ended, there was no way Hillary Clinton could possibly still win the D Presidential nomination; publicly launched “Fight the Smears” (“FTS”), the web site his supporters had prepared several months earlier.  Admittedly, part of the reason he and his marketing team were flailing miserably is that rumors had surfaced questioning whether he was even Constitutionally eligible to become the President.  So, on June 12, FTS was publicly launched, putting his name – literally – on this electronic platform containing an image imprinted with the title, “Certification of Live Birth,”  which image both the candidate and others associated with his quest for the nomination claimed was his “Certificate of Live Birth.”

(Here is an interesting side note.  When I posted COUP (1 of 3) way back in August 2010, I posited that while only publicly unveiled in June 2008, FTS had been conceived and concocted well in advance.

For months now, rumors had been swirling that Obama was not Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a “natural born” citizen, one of three requirements listed in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Then Communications Director Robert Gibbs (now WH Press Secretary) had come up with a seemingly brilliant on-line advertising campaign under the banner, “Fight the Smears,” designed to counter these mounting speculations.  The focal point of the ad campaign was an image of a mock-up “Certification of Live Birth,”  listing Obama’s place of birth as “Hawaii.”  (It was even appropriately redacted so as to give the appearance of protecting the candidate’s privacy.)  Ad copy accompanying the image reassured the public, this proves he is a “native” citizen.  At the bottom of the page, in the footer, appeared the sort of attribution required by the U.S. Code for all political advertising expenditures:  “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.”

Designing a political ad campaign such as “Fight the Smears” ‘to be used only in case of emergency’ was one thing; but actually rolling it out was another.  Because its success gambled on the truth of this one contemptuous statement:  American voters are too stupid to know that there’s a difference between “natural born”  and “native”; and that “Fight the Smears” is nothing more than a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, anyway.  Understandably, the Obama team held back on the nuclear “Fight the Smears” option for as long as it could.

By obtaining the computer source code for that FTS page, loyal “jbjd” reader “azgo” proved I was right.  (“I use Firefox as my search window, I press down on the icon on the left side of the address bar at the top of the window. A box appears with a “More information…” button, then I click and get the “Page Info” window as you see below.”)   Pay special attention to lines 8 and 9.)

Advertising copy on the FTS campaign launch asserted once and for all, this electronic image of the COLB would “fight” the “smears” that the man who would be President of the United States was not a Natural Born Citizen by “prov[ing]” he is “native” born.  (I know, this made no sense on its face, as the Constitutional language in that one provision pertaining to eligibility – Article II, section 1 – does not state that being a “native” “citizen” confers eligibility but only being a “citizen” who it describes is “natural born.”)  I have been characterizing FTS as paid political advertising that was only designed to persuade consumers to buy (into) the product (candidate) Barack Obama.  As evidence of this claim the web site is nothing more than political advertising, I pointed out the ever-changing accreditations in the footer of the site, which changing credits correspond to Obama’s altered political status – nominee wannabe -> nominee -> President-elect/President – as required by the U.S. Code.

Let’s further examine the legality of what we already know about the contents of FTS, in light of that Code.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I, dealing with federal campaign funds.

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

  • § 431. Definitions
  • § 432. Organization of political committees
  • § 433. Registration of political committees
  • § 434. Reporting requirements
  • § 437. Reports on convention financing
  • § 437c. Federal Election Commission
  • § 437d. Powers of Commission
  • § 437f. Advisory opinions
  • § 437g. Enforcement
  • § 437h. Judicial review
  • § 438. Administrative provisions
  • § 438a. Maintenance of website of election reports
  • § 439. Statements filed with State officers; “appropriate State” defined; duties of State officers; waiver of duplicate filing requirement for States with electronic access
  • § 439a. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes
  • § 439c. Authorization of appropriations
  • § 441a. Limitations on contributions and expenditures
  • § 441a-1. Modification of certain limits for House candidates in response to personal fund expenditures of opponents
  • § 441b. Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations
  • § 441c. Contributions by government contractors
  • § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations
  • § 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
  • § 441f. Contributions in name of another prohibited
  • § 441g. Limitation on contribution of currency
  • § 441h. Fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority
  • § 441i. Soft money of political parties
  • § 441k. Prohibition of contributions by minors
  • § 442. Authority to procure technical support and other services and incur travel expenses; payment of such expenses

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_14_20_I.html

But trust me, by applying just the following select sections of the Code involving political advertising funding credits, to “FTS,” you will begin to develop an understanding as to the interplay between law and practice.

  • § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations
(a) Identification of funding and authorizing sources

Whenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 434 (f)(3) of this title), such communication—
(1) if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or [1]
(2) if paid for by other persons but authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and authorized by such authorized political committee; [1]
(3) if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

“azgo” volunteered this U.S. Code reference prototype to simplify your analysis.  (Just a word of caution.  By citing to particular provisions found in the Code, I am not claiming that these exclusively govern political campaign advertising.  I merely intend to illustrate the point that, an explanation underlying the advertising copy visible on the screen, can be found in the Code.) The quoted accreditations appeared in the footer of the FTS web page, evolving along with the corresponding political status of Barack Obama, in parentheses.  The provision of the Code satisfied by that wording follows.

  1. “Paid for by Barack Obama” (D Presidential nominee wannabe) = complies with § 441d. (a) (1).
  2. “Paid for by Obama for America” (nominee) = complies with § 441d. (a) (2).
  3. “Paid for by Organizing for America, A Project of the Democratic National Committee, 430 South Capital Street SE,Washington, D.C., 20003.  THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE” (Emphasis added by jbjd) (President-elect and President) = complies with § 441d. (a) (3).

Okay, get that?  Based on this rudimentary analysis of the disclosure of its funding sources, the electronic political advertising platform called FTS meets the legal requirements spelled out in this section of the U.S. Code.  Yep; nothing in this section of the law requires that what is said in these publications or solicitations must be true.  It just says, you have to disclose who is paying for the words.

So, does this mean, the Code condones the “production,” “transfer,” or “possession” of any document incorporated into such political advertising, including a mock-up or image thereof of any documents advertisers variously claim is either an official “Certification” or  “Certificate” “of Live Birth”?  Hardly.  Only, that’s not dealt with in Title 2 of the Code but in Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part I, Crimes, Chapter 47, Fraud and False Statements, §1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information.

This aspect of the legality of conduct related to political speech will be covered in DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2).

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

Freedom costs.

U.S. Code, Title 2, Congress; Chapter 14, Federal Election Campaigns; Subchapter I, –
Disclosure of Federal Campaign Funds;
 

§ 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations(a) Identification of funding and authorizing sourcesWhenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 434 (f)(3) of this title), such communication—(1)  if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or (2)  if paid for by other persons but authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and authorized by such authorized political committee; [1](3)  if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.”


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000441—d000-.html

The following credit communications on “’Fight the Smears” web page evolved from the time the candidate was a competing candidate to the present credit communication paid by the national political party.

1. Credit Communication: Barack Obama 2008

 

Paid for by Barack Obama 2008. All Rights Reserved


The communication credit from the candidate’s original campaign web site.
– Complies with U.S. Code § 441d. (a) (1).

2. Credit Communication: OBAMA FOR AMERICA 2008

PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA 2008.  All Rights Reserved


The credit communication evolved to a new name when the candidate became the presidential nominee of the national party.
– Complies with U.S. Code § 441d. (a) (2).

2. Credit Communication: ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA

PAID FOR BY ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA,
A PROJECT OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE – – 430 SOUTH CAPITAL STREET SE,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003. THIS COMMUNICATION
IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR
CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE.


The credit communication evolved to a new name when he became the presidential nominee of the Democratic party.
– Complies with U.S. Code § 441d. (a) (3).

The ‘Fight the Smears’ web page with the birth document image, statements and solicitations has been and is presently a paid public political advertisement which conforms to Chapter 14, Federal Election Campaigns, § 441d.

(Note: The publications and distribution of statements and solicitations of this law are not required to be a geuine identification document or false identification document.  In other words, this law does not require the information on the web page to be factual.)

Therefore it is safe to say;

THE ‘FIGHT THE SMEARS’ WEB PAGE IS A LAWFUL PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT.


GOV. NEIL ABERCROMBIE (D-HI) TAKES ON LT. GOV. BRIAN SCHATZ for CRIMINAL ELECTION FRAUD

December 29, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

Judging from the outpouring of articles and comments on those other blogs whose focus has included whether Barack Obama is a NBC, the overwhelming consensus is that the latest statements from Hawaii’s newly-elected Governor Neil Abercrombie concerning the President’s Constitutional eligibility to hold that office merely add to the subterfuge forestalling exposure of the fraud that tainted the election cycle of 2008.   But donning my ‘glass half full’ spectacles, I considered the utterances relating to his old pal Barry in a completely different light.

Rather, Governor Abercrombie’s recent pronouncements indicate to me, he believes no documents were available in the public record which could have provided a basis for the oath taken in 2008 by his Lieutenant Governor Brian Schatz, then Chair of the HI Democratic Party, to HI election officials guaranteeing then candidate Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the office of POTUS, which sworn statement was required under HRS  §11-113 before these officials could authorize his name to be printed on HI state ballots.  (See Memorandum of Complaint of Election Fraud against Brian E. Schatz, Chair, Democratic Party of Hawaii and Request for Investigation by Attorney General of Hawaii, in sidebar.)

Indeed, judging by his public displays of emotion when the subject is raised, I would say, having realized for the first time that his running mate is a crook, he also realizes by implication, people could consider him crooked, too; and the First Gentleman of HI is steamed! This would explain why the man has been desperately trying to get on the record as having played no part in the sordid affairs of his partner-in-crime, hoping that when the ‘fecal matter’ finally ‘hits the fan,’ his hands will remain clean.

If I am right that he is motivated by penal self-interest, this could be the basis for orchestrating a media saturation just weeks after being sworn in as Hawaii’s 7th Governor making unambiguously clear to numerous news outlets including the New York Times, the AP, and HawaiiNewsNow, citing a similar story in the LA Times, that he is legally prohibited from accessing Obama’s records in the custody of state agencies.   On the contrary, he promised to use his office as Governor to consult with the AG to seek out any legal means by which he could release Mr. Obama’s personal birth information. (Actually, I heard this admission as a ‘twofer.’  That is, on the one hand, confirming that even the Governor cannot access such records, he is reminding voters and law enforcement alike, he is not now (nor was he ever) in a position to rectify (or forestall) Mr. Schatz’s apparent misdeed. Simultaneously, he is pointing the finger directly at Mr. Schatz, begging the obvious question: ‘Since I cannot access these records, how on earth did you?’)

Having to work so closely with the man who likely committed criminal election fraud to fool state election officials into printing Obama’s name on the 2008 ballot, Abercrombie so far has demonstrated he can adeptly straddle the line between accuser and defender.  For example, in an apparent attempt to mitigate against the penalties Mr. Schatz could incur as the result of future prosecution, Abercrombie hinted at demonic possession as a possible defense strategy, citing events may have been influenced by forces from the “dark side.”

Now, I know that other Birthers are also hypothesizing various ‘coincidence’ theories in the timing of what they would characterize is the Governor’s whitewash campaign, for example, possible links to events related to the 2012 election cycle.  But I find Abercrombie’s pronouncements make complete sense merely in relation to his assuming the new office.  Keep in mind, until now, he was only a U.S. Representative, whose sole legal responsibility viz-a-viz Obama’s election was to ratify the procedural vote of the Electors.  Now, as Governor, according to the state constitution, he “shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws.”  State laws, that is.  Including HRS  §11-113.  Could just be that he takes this job seriously.

And  there’s something else I suspect motivating his campaign to ‘come clean.’

In addition to being confronted with the real life consequences of that legal axiom, “the buck stops here,” I imagine the septuagenarian is motivated to “do the right thing” by a panic all too familiar to men and women of a certain age, that is, that a defining event, in this case, implication in criminal election fraud, will become his legacy.

After all, what could be worse for anyone who has dedicated a lifetime to public service, than having one’s legacy in the end be likened to that of, say, Clark Clifford, eternally remembered for his involvement in the international banking scandal known as BCCI?

P.S.  I will tell you what I do find coincidental.  The complaints of election fraud filed by citizens of HI against then Chairman Schatz were addressed to AG Mark Bennett.  One week before Abercrombie and Schatz were sworn in, Mr. Bennett, having spent 7 (seven) years in the office of the AG, announced he was leaving to enter private practice.  http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13584825


A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4)

August 10, 2010

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4), (3 of 4), and EPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

Introduction

The Democratic National Committee Services Corporation, disguised as the DNC, installed Barack Obama into the Office of President of the United States of America by committing massive election fraud that played out uniquely during each of these 3 (three) phases of the 2008 Presidential election cycle in relation to the company’s August 2008 Presidential Nominating Convention: 1) pre-Convention; 2) Convention; and 3) post-Convention. The fraud committed both before and after the Convention has been dissected in several articles previously posted here on the “jbjd” blog.

This  four-part series entitled, “A Coup, Through and Through” analyzes the fraud pulled off at the Convention.

Keep in mind, not all fraud is created equal. While the record establishes the D’s committed fraud throughout the general election cycle, my work has remained focused almost exclusively only on that fraudulent conduct which both 1) violated laws explicitly or implicitly proscribing such conduct; and 2) arguably altered the outcome of the 2008 Presidential (Electors) election.

Part 1: Prologue to Fraud

Before Barack Obama could be installed in the Oval Office, interested parties both within and outside of the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation had to ensure he would win the DNC Presidential nomination so that his name could appear next to the D on the general election ballot.  Because, as I have previously opined, while Electors voting in December may elect anyone they want; I could not imagine they would dare to elect a President whose name hadn’t even appeared on the November ballot. NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (1 of 2) and (2 of 2). (Note:  I recently learned the D’s have been pressing state legislatures to pass the National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”).  If this thing gets through, I believe even a candidate who fails to qualify to get on the ballot in one or more states can still be elected.) (See, HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTED INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK’.)

But given the several problems they knew were inherent to his candidacy, any one of which, if exposed, could prove fatal to his political aspirations, winning the nomination would require that they clinch the nomination as far as possible in advance of the DNC convention. In this way, they could limit the scope of the public examination of the candidate apt to occur in a protracted battle for the nomination.

They were willing to do whatever it took to accumulate enough pledged delegates during the primary and caucus contests to reach the magic number that long before the convention would ensure at that time, he would be handed the nomination. Manufacture chaos at the caucuses and capitalize on the confusion created? Check. Collude with A.C.O.R.N.? Check. Censor critics with charges of racism? Check. Cultivate a compliant press willing to conceal stories unflattering to either the candidate’s character or, their own complicit conduct on the road to his nomination? Check and check.

When the numbers for Hillary Clinton, his toughest competition in the race for the nomination, placed these two in a virtual dead heat with 3 (three) more months until the primary and caucus contests ended and 5 (five) months until the convention, co-opt the free will of the voters by spreading the meme she has already lost the nomination? Check. Co-opt the free will of the candidate by calling her a sore loser if she doesn’t drop out of the race now and throw her support(ers) to him, for the good of the party? Check.

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

But even factoring in the votes of those super delegates already expressing support for Obama, with less than 3 (three) months to go before the convention he still had not achieved the superiority in delegates that would secure his nomination. And the delay had taken its costly and anticipated toll.

Despite their best efforts to control the narrative, one of those ‘problems fatal to his political aspirations,’ known as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had leaked out. And from the time the public learned of the long close relationship between the candidate and his avowed “spiritual adviser,” he had already lost more than 10 (ten) points in the polls.

To understand what they did next, you need to know the difference between being designated a Clinton pledged delegate and an Obama pledged delegate.

Attorney Bob Bauer, then counsel to the DNC and now WH Counsel, explains the delegate selection process to the federal court in DiMaio v. DNC, a case not material to the fraud laid out here.

The DNC is the governing body of the Democratic Party of the United States and is responsible for promulgating delegate selection rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention…The nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States is chosen by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention held in each presidential election year. The National Convention is organized and run by an arm of the DNC. The delegates from each state are chosen through a process adopted by the state’s Democratic Party. For each presidential election starting in 1976, the DNC has established formal Delegate Selection Rules to govern the selection, in each state, of its delegates to the National Convention. These rules require each State Democratic Party to develop a written delegate selection plan and to submit that plan to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (“DNC RBC”) for review and approval. The delegate selection process in each state involves two basic functions: (1) the allocation of delegate positions among presidential candidates, i.e., how many delegates from that state will go to the Convention pledged to each candidate; and (2) the selection of the actual individuals to fill those positions, i.e., the selection of the people who will attend the Convention as delegates and alternates. Generally, state parties use either a primary or a caucus/convention system. In a primary system, the state party uses the state-government run or a party-run primary election to allocate delegate positions, and then a party-run meeting (caucus) to fill those positions. In a caucus system, the state party uses a series of party-run meetings — caucuses — both to allocate delegate positions and to select the persons to fill those positions. A caucus/convention system does not involve use of the state’s electoral machinery. Of the 56 states and territories that sent delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, 20 used party run caucus/convention systems.

http://www-lvs13.net.ohio-state.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Dimaio-Brief-9-19-08.pdf

In short, the numbers of votes a candidate receives in a party primary or caucus contest translates into so many pledged delegates awarded, based on the vote:delegate ratio concocted in advance by the party. When the contest is over, the state party meets to select which party faithful, pledging fealty to one candidate or the other, will fill the slot of pledged delegate for his or her preferred candidate and then cast a vote for that candidate at the national nominating convention.

On May 31, the DNC RBC met to finalize their response to the dilemma presented by FL and MI. Legislatures in both states had moved up their primaries in contradiction to the calendar set by the DNC. As punishment, the DNC indicated it would not seat delegates from either state at the convention. (Accused of “pandering” to Iowa, Obama had pulled his name off the ballot in MI. Clinton did not. She won heavily in both states but, the DNC and their allies in the press not only did not count those pledged delegate numbers in her totals, they did not even credit her with receiving the number of popular votes.) DNC Chairman Howard Dean had said in March, he expected delegates were “eventually going to be seated in Florida and Michigan as soon as we get an agreement between the candidates on how to do that.”  In the meantime, each state party had allocated pledged delegates based on the actual popular vote for the candidates whose names appeared on the ballot, including those delegates who filled the slots represented by the ‘name’ “Uncommitted,” a category that received 40% of the MI vote.

The Committee,  whose members were hand-picked by Chairman Dean, heard from both of the states involved, and from representatives of both of the candidates, and then made their decision.  In FL, where both candidates appeared on the ballot, the Committee awarded delegates in accordance with the popular vote, but gave each delegate only half a vote at the convention. But desperate to bolster Obama’s sagging numbers, his allies on the Committee adopted this solution for MI. First, all delegates would be seated at the convention but with only half a vote each. Second, all votes that had been cast for “Uncommitted” were now deemed to have been cast for Obama; and delegates assigned based on votes cast for “Uncommitted” would be reassigned to delegates loyal to him. Third, 4 (four) of those pledged delegates already assigned to Clinton as the result of votes cast for her; would be taken away and re-gifted to him.

In the eyes of many stalwart Democrats, by second-guessing the voters’ intent in this way, the RBC had abandoned the core principle of “fair reflection” enshrined in the DNC Charter. Harold Ickes, an adviser to the Clinton campaign, pulled no punches. “This motion will hijack, hijack, remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton and most importantly reflect the preferences of 600,000 Michigan voters. This body of 30 individuals has decided that they are going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters.”

On June 3, the primary / caucus season ended.  Clinton suspended but did not end her campaign.

Once upon a time – March 28, 2008, to be exact – Chairman Dean announced to the press he thought it would be “nice” if by “July 1,” all of the  superdelegates weighed in with the name of the candidate they would support, implicitly acknowledging even back then that neither candidate would secure the requisite number of pledged delegates throughout the remainder of the primary / caucus contests  to ensure the August nomination.  Top Democrat wants party contest decided by July 1. But on June 4, the day after the primaries ended and just 5 (five) days after the RBC issued its controversial shuffling of the MI delegate deck to sweeten Obama’s hand, the following headlines appeared in the L.A. Times:  “BREAKING NEWS:  Dean, Pelosi, Reid set Friday deadline for superdelegates’ choices, move to force end to Clinton bid

According to the article, DNC Chairman Dean; Nancy Pelosi, (Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, acting in a civilian capacity as Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention); and Senator Harry Reid jointly issued a “carefully worded statement” which was widely interpreted as “a clear step to force an end to the effort by Clinton,” telling superdelegates to make their candidate choices known “tomorrow.”

Tomorrow? Whatever happened to “by July 1”?  Why this sudden (and rather petulant) rush to memorialize Obama’s coronation?  Probably because those pesky problems with his candidacy were about to derail his political aspirations.

For months now, rumors had been swirling that Obama was not Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a “natural born” citizen, one of three requirements listed in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Then Communications Director Robert Gibbs (now WH Press Secretary) had come up with a seemingly brilliant on-line advertising campaign under the banner, “Fight the Smears,” designed to counter these mounting speculations.  The focal point of the ad campaign was an image of a mock-up “Certification of Live Birth,”  listing Obama’s place of birth as “Hawaii.”  (It was even appropriately redacted so as to give the appearance of protecting the candidate’s privacy.)  Ad copy accompanying the image reassured the public, this proves he is a “native” citizen.  At the bottom of the page, in the footer, appeared the sort of attribution required by the U.S. Code for all political advertising expenditures:  “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.”

Designing a political ad campaign such as “Fight the Smears” ‘to be used only in case of emergency’ was one thing; but actually rolling it out was another.  Because its success gambled on the truth of this one contemptuous statement:  American voters are too stupid to know that there’s a difference between “natural born”  and “native”; and that “Fight the Smears” is nothing more than a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, anyway.  Understandably, the Obama team held back on the nuclear “Fight the Smears” option for as long as it could.

Yet hard as everyone tried, Clinton just would not abandon the nomination. And why should she? Examining the traditional rubrics of success – total number of pledged delegates; popular votes; likelihood to beat the Republican in the general election – the two contenders remained within the ‘margin of error.’ Besides, neither Clinton nor Obama had amassed the requisite number of pledged delegates to wrap up the nomination on the first call of the roll on the floor of the convention.

The Obama campaign launched “Fight the Smears” on June 12.

Up until this point, the ‘dirty tricks’ carried out by operatives tied to the D Corporation to lie and cheat their man’s way into the D nomination were only sinister and underhanded.  But, with the exception of the allocation of votes:delegates in Texas, technically, they were within the letter of the law. (LULAC v. Texas Democratic Party.) All that changed in the summer months leading up to the convention, when Obama and his champions and converts, now clawing at straws, conspired to literally steal the nomination.

The state parties had specifically chosen delegates to fill the number of slots reserved for Clinton or Obama as the result of votes cast for her or him in the primary or caucus contest, based on their loyalty to either one candidate or the other. But DNC rules only insist that pledged delegates voting at the national convention “in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/fb3fa279c88bf1094b_qom6bei0o.pdf, p. 23. In other words, under DNC rules, there is no such thing as a “pledged” delegate. (At one time, the DNC did have such a “robot rule,” which required delegates pledged to a candidate to vote for that candidate at the convention. But they eliminated that rule in 1982.)

Which was a good thing for Obama emissaries who now fanned out across the country and harassed her delegates, in person and by wire, to get them to agree to switch their votes to him, before the convention.

Twisting arms to ‘turn’ pledged delegates before the convention was not only not prohibited under DNC rules but also, in 37 (thirty-seven) states, it wasn’t against the law. As for the other 13 (thirteen) states, well, that was quite a different story.

See, voters in 13 states  – AZ, GA, IN, KY, MA, NH, NM, OH, OK, OR, TN, VA, and the delegate mother lode, CA – had enacted this special legislation. ‘In our state, pledged means PLEDGED. This means, delegates pledged to a candidate as the result of votes cast in the political party’s primary or caucus election; must vote for the candidate voters elected them to represent, at the party’s nominating convention.’ (I ‘discovered’ these states in the summer of 2008 and named them “vote binding states.”) In short, extorting Clinton pledged delegates in these 13 vote binding states to commit to switching their votes to Obama before the convention, was against the law.

And they knew what they were doing was illegal.

Because as Mr. Bauer wrote in his submission to the federal court in DiMaio; “[DNC] rules require each State Democratic Party to develop a written delegate selection plan and to submit that plan to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (“DNC RBC”) for review and approval.” Id. (The DNC RBC is the same outfit that on May 31 had shuffled the candidate’s delegate count in a blatantly partisan attempt to improve Obama’s numbers and move him closer to the nomination.) And, contained in those DNC delegate selection rules is provision 2.2: Each State Party Committee shall include the following documentation with the submission of its Plan to the RBC:

(I) a copy of all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf

Being “related to the delegate selection process,” the state law that required pledged delegates to vote at the convention for the candidate voters elected them to represent was included in the delegate selection plan each of these 13 states had submitted to and was subsequently approved by the DNC RBC.  In other words, Obama’s agents who began harassing Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states to switch their votes to him, months before the convention, undoubtedly knew they were breaking the law.

But desperate times called for desperate measures.

(Next:  Part 2:  Lead-up to the Coup)


“GROUNDHOG DAY” in TEXAS

August 8, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats question Texas Sen. Brian Birdwell’s eligibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom costs.


WERE YOU LYING THEN or ARE YOU LYING NOW?

July 17, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WERE THEY LYING THEN OR ARE THEY LYING NOW?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several jurors began crying.

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. https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/roadmap-tx-election-fraud-2008/ , 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.  (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/demorrep.shtml))

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.  http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/161.009.00.htmls (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. http://www.dallasobserver.com/2009-10-29/news/texas-gop-shifts-even-further-right-with-new-chair-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.” http://www.cathieadams4rnc.com/

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.

http://openjurist.org/459/f3d/582/texas-democratic-party-v-j-benkiser

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

Freedom costs.


“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.


REMEMBER the ALAMO?

January 26, 2010

CRITICAL UPDATE on FEBRUARY 14, 2010: After you have read REMEMBER the ALAMO, please read the follow-up post at TEXAS TWO-STEP, which contains reports of communications between Requestors (of public records) and the TDP (Texas Democratic Party); and jbjd and the (misnamed) FOIFT (Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas).

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

Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party is a lone wolf in the Lone Star State.

In every other state and the District of Columbia, Certifications of Nomination signed by The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention, were forwarded to election officials to get them to print the name of Barack Obama next to the “D” on the 2008 general election ballot.*  But not in TX.  Nope; in TX, only Mr.  Richie signed those Certifications.  And for all of the citizens in those states where only the names of qualified candidates may be printed on the ballot, who filed charges of election fraud with their state A’sG charging members of the D party swore to state election officials BO was Constitutionally eligible for the job to get them to print his name on the ballot but failed to ascertain beforehand whether he is a NBC; the fact that NP did not sign the TX Certification but BR did, makes all the difference in the world.

*In order to get BO’s name printed on SC’s Presidential Preference Primary ballot, the SC D state party Treasurer, Kathy Hensley, hand wrote the certification on the memo typed by Carol Fowler, party Chair, assuring the Board of Elections that he was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS. “IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…

Take a look at my model citizen complaint of election fraud to the TX AG, which is also posted in the sidebar on the front of this blog.  (The description of the Certifications Mr. Richie submitted to TX election officials, with links to the documents, appears on pages 2 & 3.)

View this document on Scribd

Now, read “Purpose of Contact” on pages 1 & 2.  See, before citizens of TX and the 5 (five) other states readers have identified so far, filed these complaints, they attempted to find out what documentation was the basis of those certifications of eligibility submitted by members of the D party to state election officials to get them to print BO’s name on the ballot.  But NP, Alice Germond, and Joseph Sandler, all representing the D Services Corporation, would not answer.  JS specifically explained to those citizens who had framed their request  for documents as covered by the ‘freedom of information’ laws, the D Corporation is not a public agency and so, is not subject to public records disclosure laws.  Of course, he was right.  The D Services Corporation is a private club.  Thus, state and federal public records laws were powerless to compel NP,  AG, and others acting on behalf of the Corporation, to produce the requested documentation.   (Of course, as my 9th graders astutely pointed out, since JS went to the trouble to write the letter explaining that his client, the D Corporation, was exempt from public disclosure laws, it made no sense he just didn’t answer the question.  Unless he had something to hide.  “OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES“)

Citizens of TX also asked BR to identify these documents that were the basis of his eligibility determination.  And he also refused to say.  But turns out, in TX, when it comes to defining the meaning of public documents; and avoiding having to disclose such documents, this same ‘get out of jail free’ card that applied to the DNC Corporation, does not apply to Chairman Richie and the state D party.  On the contrary, under TX law, in certain circumstances, documents in the custody of political parties can be ‘discoverable’ as public records.  (Not only that but, the court can compel officers of these parties to hand over these records under a cause of action called ‘mandamus,’ a process which is usually reserved to get government officials to do their jobs.)

Know what this means?

Regardless of the unwillingness of TX AG Greg Abbott to investigate the hundreds of these complaints of election fraud his office has received since September; the citizens of TX can proceed on their own under TX state law to compel Chairman Richie to provide the documents that lead one step closer to establishing once and for all, for the record, despite all of these Certifications of Nomination, U.S. President Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. “THE END GAME

Look, we already know, no documents exist in the public record that would establish BO is a NBC.  White House Counsel Bob Bauer said so.  “COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE for FEDERAL COURT”  And for this reason, and the fact Boyd Richie refused to name any records when asked in the past, we know he committed election fraud in TX.  AG Abbott knows there is a strong circumstantial case for fraud; we laid it all out in those citizen complaints.  And Mr. Richie knows we are on to him, because he was copied on every complaint filed with Mr. Abbott.  (We also sent copies to our U.S. Representatives and Senators.)

It’s long past time our elected officials perform the work that is a function of their public office.  But as long as AG Abbott (and the House of Representatives) refuses to act, we still have to prove our own case.

So, that’s what we’ll do.  And we’ll do it by applying these TX laws.  Thus, instead of just asking Mr. Richie to provide the requested documentation, we will couch such requests in terms of TX election law, and act more entitled.  And if Mr. Richie wants to avoid honoring requests for these public records this time then, according to TX law, he will have to notify AG Abbott of these requests within the 10-day time period allowed for such delay in production, as well as his stated reasons for refusing to produce the requested records.  Then, AG Abbott will have to determine whether citizens of TX are entitled to these records under the law.  AND ALL OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD!

Here are some of the applicable provisions of the TX Election Code.

ELECTION CODE

TITLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

Chapter 1.  General Provisions

Sec. 1.012. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF ELECTION RECORDS. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), an election record that is public information shall be made available to the public during the regular business hours of the record’s custodian.

(b) For the purpose of safeguarding the election records or economizing the custodian’s time, the custodian may adopt reasonable rules limiting public access.

(c) Except as otherwise provided by this code or Chapter 552, Government Code, all election records are public information.

(d) In this code, “election record” includes:

(1) anything distributed or received by government under this code;

(2) anything required by law to be kept by others for information of government under this code; or

(3) a certificate, application, notice, report, or other document or paper issued or received by government under this code.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 5.95(88), eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 393, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

TITLE 9. CANDIDATES

Chapter 141. Candidacy for public office generally

Subchapter B.  Application for place on ballot

Sec. 141.035. APPLICATION AS PUBLIC INFORMATION. An application for a place on the ballot, including an accompanying petition, is public information immediately on its filing.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Sec. 141.036. PRESERVATION OF APPLICATION. The authority with whom an application for a place on the ballot is required to be filed shall preserve each application filed with the authority for two years after the date of the election for which the application is made.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

TITLE 10.  POLITICAL PARTIES

Chapter 161.  General Provisions

§ 161.004. PARTY DOCUMENT AS PUBLIC INFORMATION.  If a document, record, or other paper is expressly required by this title to be filed, prepared, or preserved, it is public information unless this title provides otherwise.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

§ 161.009. PARTY OFFICER SUBJECT TO MANDAMUS. The performance of a duty placed by this code on an officer of a political party is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the party officer were a public officer.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Another great source of information for the mechanism for requesting public records in TX is the web site for the TX Office of AG.  http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/requestors.shtml Please review this before you send the letter below.  Make sure that whatever mechanism you use to transmit this letter, you retain proof of delivery or receipt so as to mark the tolling of the “reasonable” “prompt[]” time allowed under law for Mr. Richie’s response.  (For example, if you send via fax, keep the transmission confirmation.)  As always, feel free to send copies of your letters to anyone else you want.  Just make sure the letters to Mr. Richie and AG Abbott contain your real names and addresses, in TX.

Yes, my ‘two-stepping’ Texans, thanks to your enactment of special laws which subject Chairman Richie and the TX D state party to the same disclosure standards of public documents that apply to government agencies; you are in a position to pursue, catch, and de-claw this wolf, exercising the same dedication of purpose your forefathers and foremothers, Tejano and American alike, met Santa Anna’s onslaught against the Alamo, more than 150 years ago.**  Only this time, you have the opportunity to re-write the narrative on the 2008 general election. No doubt, you brave patriots, too, will be remembered for generations after the end of this conflagration.

Remember the Alamo!

**Santa Anna advanced into Texas with 4,000 men, headed for the Alamo, where almost 200 American and Tejano volunteers huddled, awaiting an attack. The now-infamous battle that occurred on March 6, 1836, resulted in a Mexican victory and the death of every last Alamo defender. Not left unscathed, the Mexicans lost 600 men.

Six weeks later, after a surprise attack on the Mexican forces near the San Jacinto River, Texan army commander Sam Houston rallied his troops with the cry, “Remember the Alamo!” Although the battle was won within minutes, the vengeful Texan army — including Tejanos — continued fighting for hours, killing any Mexican soldier they found. Santa Anna was captured the following day, effectively ending the war.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/qea2.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/alamo/filmmore/fd.html

View this document on Scribd

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.


%d bloggers like this: