MICHELLE GOLDBERG HAMMERS ANOTHER NAIL in the MSM COFFIN
© 2011 jbjd
Granted, Michelle Goldberg has her own web site; has written a couple of books which, according to her, were well researched and appear to be selling well (id.); and writes a column for the Daily Beast. But assuming she means what she says in her recent diatribe, "Why Birthers Won't Die," that is, taking on face value that she is not writing just for provocation or brainwashing then, I cannot emphasize enough: when it comes to issues related to establishing Barack Obama's Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, Ms. Goldberg has demonstrated she has absolutely no idea what she is talking about.
It's not just the fact she repeats the fallacy, the hard copy of the electronic image President Obama calls a birth certificate and recently 'released' to the press, is actually a long form birth certificate, that makes any information coming from her suspect. (I will write another article focusing on the lunacy of anyone's continued bona fide belief, photocopying any electronic image adds to its authenticity.) Obama's Director of Communications, Daniel Pfeiffer, posted this image on the WhiteHouse.gov blog. Ms. Goldberg even links her readers to that image effectively reasserting its authenticity. But Pfeiffer's job is to shape the President's message and not to communicate news, which is the job of the Press Secretary (notwithstanding Robert Gibbs, Director of Communication of Obama's Presidential campaign and former Press Secretary for President Obama often conflated those 2 positions). Unlike Ms. Goldberg, Mr. Pfeiffer was doing a good job, by shaping the message.
Or that, she uses Mr. Corsi's refusal to buy into this lie (that a bona fide birth certificate has been released) as a weapon against his motives and intellect. In spades.
Much of Where's the Birth Certificate? rehashes old, debunked stories meant to cast doubt on Obama's birth in Hawaii. But the book also claims that even if Obama was born in the United States, he still might not be a "natural-born citizen" because of his father's foreign citizenship, which would make him ineligible for the presidency. To make this argument, Corsi dredges up a constitutional theory popular in white supremacist and anti-immigrant circles, making an invidious distinction between those granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment and those who were citizens under the Constitution as originally written.
What? Only those identified with "white supremacist and anti-immigrant circles" espouse that a bona fide difference exists between the terms "natural born citizen" in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution; and the term "citizen" as used in the 14th Amendment? (Of course, I reject claims by Corsi or anyone else that citizens of non-citizen parents are not natural born citizens; and this only makes sense, since I maintain that no 'legal' definition of NBC exists absent a ruling by a federal appellate court, in a case on point.)
Worse, adding insult to injury, Ms. Goldberg justifies her political stereotyping using flawed reasoning, thereby additionally exposing her Constitutional ignorance.
But Corsi's ideas about the 14th Amendment, if taken seriously, wouldn't just affect the children of immigrants—they could disqualify all black people from the presidency. "Obama defenders who want to define him as a natural-born citizen because he is native-born and a citizen under the 14th Amendment are engaged in an effort to redefine Article 2, Section 1, away from its original natural law meaning," Corsi writes. The original meaning, of course, did not encompass black people. That's why we needed the 14th Amendment in the first place.
Let me point to the absurdity of just one segment of this drivel: Ms. Goldberg's mistaken focus on Corsi's phrase, "effort to redefine Article 2, Section 1, away from its original natural law meaning," to mean that, Mr. Corsi rejects Obama's Presidency based on his race. She reasons, it is this focus on race which motivates Corsi to object to any attempt to steer the conversation toward 14th Amendment inclusion of blacks as eligible to become President, and away from the original intent, which clearly excluded blacks. But whether he is racist; she doesn't know her Constitution and, based on her ignorance, obviously misconstrued the 'plain meaning' of Corsi's words.
The phrase "natural born citizen" is listed in Article II, section 1, as a condition of Presidential eligibility. And, the word "citizen" is listed in Article I, sections 2 and 3, as the eligibility requirements for Representative and Senator, respectively, put there almost 100 years before the 14th Amendment.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
Get it? The Drafters used the word "citizen" in 2 (two) different contexts of eligibility for office, one to be President; and the other to be a member of Congress. (Technically, the wording for President applies to eligibility; whereas the term for Congress applies to actual holding of the position. This makes sense since members of Congress are elected directly – perhaps the Drafters did not trust the average citizen to choose the right person for the job – whereas Presidents are chosen by Electors who, it would appear safe to predict at the time, could not be anticipated to elect a President they were not certain was eligible for the job .) Since the Drafters used these 2 (two) different phrases, the tenets of statutory construction require that, we must assume, therefore, the Drafters meant 2 (two) different things. "When Congress includes a specific term in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it should not be implied where it is excluded." Arizona Elec. Power Co-op. v. United States, 816 F.2d 1366, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987); see also West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Arcata Community Recycling Ctr., 846 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 856 (1988). http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s104.htm
See, contrary to Ms. Goldberg's wishful projection; Corsi wasn't at all waxing nostalgic, harkening back with longing to a time in our history when no blacks were counted as citizens and thus, could not be elected President (or Representative or Senator). Rather, his use of the phrase "original natural law meaning" referenced the requirement of eligibility for President in Article II – natural born citizen – as opposed to, say, the original requirement in Article I for holding the office of U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator – citizen – which excludes the modifier, natural born. Both of which applications of the term "citizen" he undoubtedly would agree should presently be read to include all citizens now Constitutionally defined as such, through the 14th Amendment. Even those whose skin color is black.
In other words, even assuming a preference for color; Corsi just wants people to stop conflating "citizen" with "natural born citizen." Get it?
But that excerpt points to my biggest objections to Ms. Goldberg's hit piece on Mr. Corsi: her disingenuous diatribe against the man for what she paints as a racially motivated focus on the 14th Amendment. Those of you who have dissected the information on this blog probably already 'get' that she reverses cause versus effect. In fact, the eligibility argument only arose because Obama raised it by calling himself a "native" citizen and not "natural born." Indeed, he set up this false dichotomy, way back in 2007, when he – or perhaps more accurately, his campaign's Director of Communications, Robert Gibbs – wrote "Fight the Smears," the propaganda piece I have argued they would never have made public had he stolen the D nomination before the D Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention. And in that same electronic advertising campaign, he posted the red herring argument about the 14th Amendment, couching it in racial terms, perhaps to misdirect the attention of astute citizens who otherwise might have noticed, he had conflated the 2 (two) Constitutional terms; and suspected a likely reason to be, he was trying to mask his ineligibility.
Want to see the evidence that supports my hypothesis, Ms. Goldberg? IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS "un-AMERICAN" THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO; or TOO IGNORANT TO LEAD Of course, I am only a blogger. (Then again, so was Dan Pfeiffer, in the context of posting that electronic image of the 'document' entitled, "Certificate of Live Birth" on the White House blog.)
Granted, maybe I am holding Ms. Goldberg to too high a journalistic standard. After all, in the context of writing for the DB; she wears the hat of "columnist," arguably absolving her from the profession's constraints of both accurate and impartial reporting.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I am reporting that, evidently, Mr. Corsi's book endorsed the work originating here on "jbjd" focused on filing citizen complaints of election fraud with state A'sG in those states with existing laws requiring candidate eligibility for office in order to access the ballot. However, I have not read his book.)
17 Comments	| Uncategorized	| Tagged: 14th amendment, Barack Obama, daniel pfeiffer, DNC, eligibility, Fight the Smears, jerome corsi, michelle goldberg, Natural Born Citizen, Robert Gibbs, the daily beast, where's the birth certificate	| Permalink
Posted by jbjd
(FORMER) CHAIR of CA D PARTY CONFIRMS "jbjd" CORRECT: 2009 PRESSER WAS a DOG-and-PONY SHOW
©2011 jbjd
Why, in April 2011, is Bill Press, a D among D's – after all, how many D's rise to the top of the CA state party? – still touting that July 2009 WH presser when he pretended to ask then WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and Mr. Gibbs pretended to answer, this question: Why do people still not believe President Obama is a NBC? (And how was Mr. Press able to recall the date of that session off the top of his head, anyway?)
Watch this.
Did you catch when Mr. Press claimed Barack Obama first released his HI birth certificate in 2007 – "In 2007, the President produced his birth certificate…" – but then checked himself and said this – "…asked the state of HI to, they did; they put it up on line; that's what they do in HI, end of story."
Notice that, in this present exchange, Mr. Buchanan asks Mr. Press for the reason that the WH press corps is not asking Mr. Obama why he chooses not to release his birth certificate; but that Mr. Press responds by saying, 'I did, a year-and-a-half ago; Google it!' Actually, in 2009, Mr. Press did not ask why the President does not release his birth certificate. Because releasing this document was not the point of that dog-and-pony show. Rather, the point of that charade was to reinforce the meme, such document had already been released and was posted on line. In fact, Press only asked Gibbs this question:
Is there anything you can say that will make the Birthers go away?
thus cueing Gibbs to repeat that the electronic image of the COLB mock-up appearing on the paid political ad called "Fight the Smears" really is Obama's birth certificate, which he – Gibbs – told Obama to post to silence questions as to whether he was "born in this country." Id.
(It's all here; read this. PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS)
But know what really jumped out at me? Even after Press caught himself, now crediting HI with producing the COLB rather than Obama; and ambiguously using the pronoun "they" to mean either HI or Obama's campaign; he still acknowledges, this document that was obtained in 2007 was posted on line. (Does he mean to falsely imply that, once the document was obtained (however it was either 'obtained' or 'fabricated') it was immediately posted?) So, here's the question I would ask Mr. Press.
Given your acknowledgement that this document was obtained in 2007 and subsequently posted on line; and given the fact that the attribution in the footer of the FTS web site containing the electronic image of this document, evidences this was copyrighted in 2007; and given that Mr. Gibbs claims he asked Obama to release this document; then why did the D's wait until June 2008 to release it? (This is a rhetorical question. As I have answered previously, this tripe called "Fight The Smears" would never have seen the light of day if Obama and his co-conspirators hadn't bungled the theft of the D Presidential nomination so that even after the primary/caucus season ended, no clear winner emerged. If they had been better crooks then, with the over-weighted caucus votes and accompanying shenanigans, they could have wrapped up the nomination before people started asking questions about whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.)
P.S. And when Gibbs said back in July 2009, 'I asked Obama to post his birth certificate a year and a half ago'; this really jumped out at "Miri." (I told you, the Comments here at "jbjd" can be as intriguing as the Posts!)
22 Comments	| Uncategorized	| Tagged: Barack Obama, Bill Press, Birth Certificate, eligibility, Fight the Smears, Pat Buchanan, Robert Gibbs	| Permalink
A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4)
(Note to Readers: The "COUP" Series is now complete. See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4), (3 of 4), and EPILOGUE.)
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)
28 Comments	| Uncategorized	| Tagged: Barack Obama, Bob Bauer, Caucuses, COLB, Constitution, DNC Convention, Election Fraud, Florida and Michigan, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Natural Born Citizen, Nomination, Pledged Delegates, Primaries, Robert Gibbs, Robot Rule, Rules and Bylaws Committee, Superdelegates, Vote Binding States, White House Counsel	| Permalink
NOW, LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!
The President is scheduled to visit Texas on August 9, 2010. But Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party ("TDP") knew by July 31 he would be unable to attend a fundraising soiree with Mr. Obama at Austin's Four Seasons Hotel due to other non-specified commitments. In fact, he could not only not sit down to dinner with the Commander in Chief, but he was even too busy for an Air Force One touchdown meet-'n-greet.
"Texas Democratic candidates distance themselves from Obama"
…State Democratic Chairman Boyd Richie said the party is focused on ousting Perry and other Republican incumbents in Texas, adding that "D.C. politics" and the 2012 presidential election aren't on the radar. "Texans are patriotic people and proud to support our president, but at the end of the day, we've been winning Texas elections on Texas issues, and that will again be the case this November," Richie said.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/07/31/2375281/texas-democratic-candidates-distance.html#ixzz0vdSzg9CP
Best of the Blogs, a site which describes itself as an on-line community for progressive bloggers, calls it more directly like it is.
"Democrats Run From Obama"
…But the other statewide candidates are running away from President Obama like he had a combination of ebola and swine flu, and they could catch it just by being caught in the same county as the president. They may be running on the Democratic ticket, but they'd just as soon the voters of Texas forgot that when they go to the polls in November.
http://bestoftheblogs.com/Home/31852
But I think these reports of Mr. Richie dissing the POTUS based on his unpopularity, either in Texas or throughout the whole United States, miss the point.
Mr. Richie only became Chair of the TDP in June of 2006. http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1052 And look at what Mr. Obama has put him through in that brief time.
One-and-a-half years after becoming Chair of the TDP, Mr. Richie swore to election officials the candidate satisfied the requirements of the Office of President of the United States in order to get them to print his name on that state's Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.191.htm#191.003 Because under Texas law, the candidate must be eligible for office to appear on the ballot. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm#192.031
In March 2008, Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary. Voting remained so close in subsequent contests that DNC Chair Howard Dean suggested Texas superdelegates could wait until July 1, a date by which all of the primary and caucus contests would be over, to weigh in on which nomination they would support at the August 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-superdelegates_24pol.ART.State.Edition1.46d87b8.html But Mr. Richie and his wife, Betty, both superdelegates, jumped the gun, announcing on May 29 that in 3 (three) months they had decided to vote in favor of Mr. Obama's nomination. http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/5867/
Just days later, the Richies had to realize they had made a terrible mistake.
In the beginning of June, with rumors swirling that Barack Obama, the Democratic Presidential nominee wannabe failed to satisfy the Constitutional eligibility requirement of natural born citizen; the candidate launched a new electronic advertising campaign with the slogan "Fight the Smears." On the web site of that same name, Robert Gibbs, then Communications Director for the candidate's political campaign, posted an image of a mock-up of a 'document' labeled "Certification of Live Birth," accompanied by copy proclaiming this image proved his client was at least "native" born. Presumably, being a long time politico familiar with the rigors of federal laws with respect to political campaign advertising, Chairman Richie, even before reading the attribution in the FTS footer, could recognize this was campaign advertising. Being a lawyer, Attorney Richie was surely able to discern the legal distinction contained in an admission the candidate is a "native" citizen from the threshold Constitutional requirement of "natural born."
Yet despite knowing he'd been 'had,' 3 (three) months later, after Mr. Obama was handed the nomination, Attorney Richie, a member in good standing of the Texas state bar, again swore to state election officials the nominee was Constitutionally qualified for the job in order to get Mr. Obama's name printed on the general (Electors) election ballot. And for almost the next year, he managed to get away with this lie. Until the fall of 2009, when citizens began contacting AG Abbott with complaints charging that he had committed election fraud in order to get the state to print Mr. Obama's name on its ballot and then, that he had violated the Texas Open Records law by refusing to provide requested documentation which was the basis for that eligibility certification. https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/open-letter-ag-abbott-tx/
Of course, Mr. Richie had no documentation which was the basis for Mr. Obama's eligibility certification.
Given these circumstances, who could blame Mr. Richie now for refusing to give Mr. Obama the time of day? On the other hand, Dave Montgomery, the reporter for the Star-Telegram, hints the President's unpopularity explains Mr. Richie's snub. Someone should contact Mr. Montgomery to report the more likely reason why. dmontgomery@star-telegram.com
1 Comment	| Uncategorized	| Tagged: Attorney General Greg Abbott, Barack Obama, Boyd Richie, Citizen Complaint of Election Fraud, COLB, Constitution, DNC Services Corporation, eligibility, Robert Gibbs, Star-Telegram, Texas Democratic Party, Texas Open Records Law	| Permalink
WERE YOU LYING THEN or ARE YOU LYING NOW?
"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.
28 Comments	| Uncategorized	| Tagged: Articles of Impeachment, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Bob Bauer, Certification of Nomination, Citizen Complaint of Election Fraud, Constitution, Dennis Kucinich, DNC Services Corporation, Natural Born Citizen, Presidential succession, Robert Gibbs, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives	| Permalink
PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS
UPDATE: 07.07.12
Bill Press, assuming the guise of a legitimate reporter, has gotten away with perpetrating that sham long enough. It's time someone who knows better – like you – called him out for merely putting his mouth where his money is.
I only began noticing Bill Press on account of this fabricated exchange he initiated with WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at a White House press briefing on July 27, 2009. (I have seen no videos that showed Mr. Press signaling he had a question; but undoubtedly, Mr. Gibbs did call on him to ask a question and, he undoubtedly did ask the question.) (As the video below clearly shows, notwithstanding Mr. Press asked the question and received an extended answer; for some reason, he kept his reporter's notepad wedged firmly under his arm throughout the exchange.)
BP: Robert, I hate to bring this up but somebody has to.
RB: Uh oh.
BP: Is there anything you can say that will make the Birthers go away?
RG: No.
BP: Are you gonna try?
RG: No. I mean, the God's honest truth is no. I mean, Bill, let's understand this. And I almost hate to indulge in such as august setting as the White House – and I mean this in seriousness – the White House briefing room discussing the made-up fictional nonsense of whether or not the President was born in this country. A year-and-a-half ago, I asked that the birth certificate be put on the internet. Because Lord knows, if you got a birth certificate, and you put it on the internet, what else could be the story? Here's the deal, Bill. If I had some DNA, it wouldn't assuage those that don't believe he was born here. But I have news for them and for all of us. The President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state of the greatest country on the face of the earth. He's a citizen. But I have no doubt that Lester will ask me soon and that I will receive e-mail…
But no, nothing will assuage them. But there are 10,000 more important issues for people in this country to discuss rather than whether or not the President is a citizen when it's been proven ad nauseum.
(At this point, Helen Thomas calls out a question, out of turn.)
HT: Why do you think it keeps coming up?
RG: Because for $15, you can get an internet address and say whatever you want.
You can watch that exchange here (beginning at 28:57). (Note: clicking on the closed caption button below the image on YouTube opens a window that displays written text at the bottom on the screen, as well as the identity of the questioner. The WH web site also provides the transcript, but it does not attribute the questions. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-7-27-09/)
You may have heard of Bill Press; but there is a lot more to the man than meets the eye. Here is the biography posted on the web site of one of his employers, Tribune Media Services.
Bill Press is host of the nationally-syndicated "Bill Press Show" on talk radio. His show is heard in all 50 states on Sirius Satellite Radio, from 6 to 9 a.m. EST. The "Bill Press Show" is also syndicated nationwide by Jones Radio Networks in over 40 major media markets, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Reno, Phoenix, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Chicago, Buffalo and Washington, D.C. His weekly liberal commentary is syndicated by Tribune Media Services.
Press is a well-known political commentator and frequently appears on radio and television. He was co-host of MSNBC's "Buchanan and Press," a debate show hosted with Pat Buchanan. Prior to joining MSNBC, Press spent six years with CNN hosting "Crossfire" and the "Spin Room" with Tucker Carlson.
Press began his career as a political commentator in Los Angeles on KABC-TV from 1980 to 1989, when he ran for statewide political office. Press offered nightly political commentary on the 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. newscasts. In January 1991, Press joined KCOP-TV in Los Angeles as a political commentator for the station's 10 p.m. newscast. He traveled extensively, even conducting an exclusive Belgrade interview with Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.
From 1987-1989, on KABC Radio in Los Angeles, Press co-hosted "The Dueling Bills," a daily two-hour debate, with co-host Bill Pearl, on current events. He hosted "Bill Press: True American" on KFI-AM and was a regular weekend talk-show host on KFI-AM from 1991-1996.
Press is the author of three books: "Spin This!", "Bush Must Go" and "How The Republicans Stole Religion." His fourth book, "Trainwreck," will be published by John Wiley & Sons in spring 2008. Press has received numerous awards for his work, including four Emmys and a Golden Mike Award. In 1992, the Associated Press named him Best Commentator of the Year.
Press received a B.A. in philosophy from Niagara University and S.T.B. in theology from the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/bio/bill-press/
(UPDATE: 07.07.12: Of course, as you can see; this Tribune bio contains no reference to Press' 3-year stint as Chair of the CA D party. But here's a bio which includes that information. ECPT, Chicago's Progressive Talk.)
Whoa! Former Chair of the California Democratic Party? Four Emmys and a Golden Mike Award? AP's Best Commentator of the Year? Impressive, right?
So, now that you know Bill Press is an award winning news commentator and interviewer, and Democratic power broker and insider; and given your extensive knowledge about the myth of the 'birth-certificate-cum-COLB,' when he asked Robert Gibbs, "Is there anything you can say to make the Birthers go away"; and Mr. Gibbs replied, "A year-and-a-half ago, I asked that the birth certificate be put on the internet. Because Lord knows, if you got a birth certificate, and you put it on the internet, what else could be the story," I will bet you would have thought more likely Mr. Press would have followed up with incisive questions/comments like these, which are based on information posted extensively on this blog, including here. https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/judge-declare-bo-ineligible/comment-page-1/#comment-2148 .
(Chuckling.) ARE YOU TELLING THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES THE ONLY 'DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE' THAT THEIR PRESIDENT IS EVEN A CITIZEN, LET ALONE NATURAL BORN; IS THE COLB WHICH YOU ARE NOW TELLING US, IN YOUR ROLE AS COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR THE CANDIDATE'S BID FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION OF YOUR PARTY YOU ORDERED POSTED IN JUNE 2008 ON THE NEWLY LAUNCHED ON-LINE ELECTRONIC ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN PLATFORM CALLED, "FIGHT THE SMEARS," TO COMBAT WHAT ADVERTISING COPY ON THE SITE DESCRIBED WAS MOUNTING PUBLIC CONCERNS YOUR CANDIDATE WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB? (Laughing.) THE ATTRIBUTION IN THE FOOTER OF THAT AD CLEARLY SPELLS OUT WHO'S PAYING FOR THE IMAGE, AS LEGALLY REQUIRED UNDER THE U.S. CODE! FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOUR CLIENT WANTED THE NOMINATION, HE PAID FOR THE AD. ("PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.") WHEN HE HAD THE NOMINATION, HIS CAMPAIGN PAID FOR THE AD. ("PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA.") WHEN HE WAS ELECTED POTUS, THE DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PAID FOR THE AD. ("PAID FOR BY ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA, A PROJECT OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE SERVICES CORPORATION.") (Smirking.) IN FACT, THE ONLY HARD COPY OF THAT COLB WHICH MIGHT HAVE EXISTED, WOULD BE THE MOCK-UP OF THAT PRINT AD ON "FIGHT THE SMEARS."
But he didn't say anything like that. Or anything at all. Nope; he only 'asked' the initial question and then let Mr. Gibbs do all the talking. Why do you suppose that was?
Maybe because exposing the truth about that PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISING platform called "FIGHT THE SMEARS"; would discredit the money-making meme that fuels Mr. Press' financial empire. In short, he artificially shores up Barack Obama's standing by attacking his detractors as Birthers. In fact, just hours before his sedate personal appearance at Mr. Gibbs' briefing, Mr. Press had published a scathing diatribe in The Hill, condemning CNN, his old employer; for allowing Lou Dobbs, whom he misidentifies as a Birther, to destroy the integrity of the brand.
When I worked there, as co-host of "Crossfire," CNN was known as "America's most trusted news network."
And rightfully so. Alone among the cables, you could count on CNN to deliver the news right down the middle. Yes, there were commentators on the right and the left, but the anchors played it straight and stories with no legitimacy never made it to air.
Sadly, that's no longer the case. Lou Dobbs has changed all that. And Jon Klein, CNN's president, is letting him get away with it.
When he came back to the network, after a failed Internet business venture, Dobbs was something new for CNN: an anchor who freely gave his own opinions. That made a lot of people, including me, uncomfortable — but at least Dobbs was pontificating on legitimate issues, like immigration and the economic crisis.
For the last couple of weeks, however, Dobbs has gone off the deep end. He's become a big "birther," raising questions about whether President Obama was really born in Hawaii and might therefore be an illegal president.
That whole issue, whipped up by crazies like Alan Keyes, is utter nonsense. …
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/52143-lou-dobbs-destroys-cnns-credibility?page=3
But Mr. Press got that wrong, too. In fact, Mr. Dobbs had clarified on several occasions, on the air, he believes Mr. Obama is a "native citizen"; he and the hundreds of thousands of citizens who have contacted him, just want to see the man's actual birth certificate! (Note: In this video, Lou Dobbs conflates "native" born with the requirement in Article II, section 1 of "natural born." His confusion is perhaps understandable, given Mr. Gibbs' brilliant misdirection. That is, copy included in the on-line advertising campaign "Fight the Smears" clearly states, the image of the COLB proves Mr. Obama is a "native" of HI. And Mr. Gibbs included in the ad the text of the 14th Amendment which only applies to citizens who are not natural born. IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN IGNORING un-PLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO)
Mr. Press revealed his biases long before he began calling people with opposing views, "crazies."
By the end of March 2008, both BO and HRC were as likely as the other to win the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Yet, many in the press were urging her to quit the race. It got so bad that BO's press acolytes, by publicly exposing in this way they lacked neutrality and, therefore, credibility, were killing their continued ability to shape the nomination. Enter Bill Press, writing for the Huffington Post.
No, Hillary Clinton should not quit this race. And neither should Barack Obama. They're both great candidates. Either one of them will make a great president. So let the primaries continue and let the voters decide. If Obama ends up the nominee, I'll do handstands on the White House lawn. But only if he wins it, fair and square.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-press/should-obama-drop-out-of_b_94038.html
Well, given his insider's view of the running of the party; Mr. Press knows, BO didn't win the nomination "fair and square." And between his political acumen and his broadcasting kudos, he certainly knows the difference between campaign advertising; and news.
Please, let Mr. Press know, you expect him to do better both as a broadcast and print journalist; and as a citizen. For your convenience, here are telephone and personal appearance contact information. (You can access an email form at http://www.billpressshow.com/contact-us/ )
If Mr. Press continues to tout only the party line, maybe political expenditure attributions should be printed in the footer of web sites on which his work appears, too!
19 Comments	| Uncategorized	| Tagged: Barack Obama, Bill Press, Birther, CNN, COLB, Fight the Smears, Huffington Post, Lou Dobbs, Robert Gibbs	| Permalink
ALL the PRESIDENT'S (HENCH)MEN
Cambridge Dictionaries On-line defines "henchman" as "someone who does unpleasant or illegal things for a powerful person." "Like other dictators, he tried to distance himself from the dirty deeds carried out by his henchmen."
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/topics/supporters-members-and-defenders/definition-of-henchman
This article is about the dirty deeds carried out by Barack Obama's henchmen and women leading up to the 2008 election in order to place him in the Oval Office and keep him there, until now.
The title "All the President's (Hench)men" is a takeoff on "All the President's Men," the movie based on the book by Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward describing the rise and fall from grace of President Nixon. Here's how IMDb (Internet Movie Database) summarizes the plot:
Factual account of investigative journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post whose reporting of the Watergate break-in eventually led to the resignation of Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States. The film focuses on the period from the break-in on June 17, 1972 to Nixon's re-election in November later than (sic) year. Their perseverance – and the support of their editors – revealed that the break-in at the Watergate office complex was only one small part of a much larger network of intelligence gathering activities, many of which were illegal. The story also focuses on the role of Woodward's now legendary secret source dubbed Deep Throat (since identified as FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt) and the encouragement he provided when the journalists hit roadblocks in their investigation.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/plotsummary
Given the passions aroused when this subject comes up, I 'get' that people who believe Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for POTUS might find using the term "dirty deeds" to describe the conduct of his henchmen throughout the ongoing illegal enterprise that not only made him President but also sustains his Presidency; does injustice to their multiple acts of treachery. But describing their illicit conduct in any other way wrongly gives these scoundrels more credit than is due for pulling off an election fraud of historical magnitude which in large part has only succeeded through sheer dumb luck.
In nine minutes, here is a pretty good edit of snippets from the movie.
You can see how the events of then and now naturally lend themselves to the verbal juxtaposition in these respective titles.
In the present case, the underlying crime is election fraud. That is, in order to facilitate the election of Barack Obama as President in 2008, people affiliated with the DNC Services Corporation conspired to bamboozle election officials in states throughout the country into believing they had already ascertained the candidate was Constitutionally qualified for the job, in order to get these officials to print his name next to the "D" on state ballots. Because laws passed in some states only allow the names of qualified candidates to be printed on the ballot. And while we only elect Electors in the general election, for the time being, I cannot imagine Electors would elect anyone whose name had not first appeared on the general election ballot.
Just like during Watergate, dozens of the President's henchmen have been implicated in this unlawful conspiracy. So many, in fact, people have proposed it would take a book here, too, in order to keep straight the names of all of these characters and the individual part they played in this more recent crime.
It's on my "To Do" list.
In the meantime, I have put together this mini cheat sheet examining the roles of just 6 (six) co-conspirators to the fraud in the 2008 election, including selective links to the extensive documentation assembled on this blog spelling out in much greater detail the back story to the dastardly deeds accredited to them.
23 Comments	| Uncategorized	| Tagged: All the President's Men, DNC Services Corporation, Election Fraud, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Bauer, Robert Gibbs	| Permalink