“jbjd” BANNED in BOSTON

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.  http://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?

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

BROWN v. COAKLEY: LIES, DAMNED LIES, and STATISTICS

UPDATE FRIDAY, 01.14.10: A just issued Suffolk University poll now puts MA State Senator Scott Brown at 50% v. 47% for MA AG Martha Coakley in their bid to become the next U.S. Senator from the Bay State. The margin of error is + or – 4.38%. http://www.suffolk.edu/39994.html (Note: check out the cross tabs. You will see, this poll groups Independents together with Unenrolled’s, producing a far more accurate prediction as to how independent minded voters, both registered Independents and registered Unenrolled’s, will vote. This contrasts with previous polls mentioned below, which find Ms. Coakley besting Mr. Brown by separating Independents from Unenrolled’s and then excluding the voting preferences of these Unenrolled’s from the totals.)

If you had only accessed the Boston Herald for their report of this Suffolk University poll, you could have ended up as confused as the reporter, Jessica Van Sack. She writes, “Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.” See what she did? She called Joe Kennedy the “Unenrolled” candidate. He is not. Joe Kennedy, while often referred to in the press as an Independent Libertarian, is listed on the MA ballot as representing the Liberty Party.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elespeif/senatorincongressmaelecan.htm
(Just to confuse you even more, when the Suffolk University poll asks voters for which candidate they intend to vote, it correctly refers to Mr. Kennedy as the Liberty candidate. But when it asks voters for favorability ratings, it calls him the Independent candidate.)

Contrary to the designation ascribed to Mr. Kennedy in the Boston Herald report on this just-released poll, there is no Unenrolled Party. In Massachusetts, there is only a category of registered voters not aligned with any party; these voters are registered Unenrolled. Yes, Unenrolled voters tend to be independent minded; but this does not make them members of either the Liberty Party or the Independent Party.

Read the Suffolk University summary. They got it right, even if the Boston Herald did not.
*************************************************************************************************

I think I might have ‘figured out’ ‘what’s up’ with the apparent disparity in 2 (two) of the recent polls for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.

Results of the latest Boston Globe poll put MA AG Martha Coakley up by 15 points in the race for U.S. Senate against State Senator Scott Brown. This hit me as really odd. The PPP poll just out put SB up by 1! So, I investigated further. I saw, the Globe poll ran from January 2-6 and has a margin of error of 4.2 whereas the PPP poll ran from January 7-9 and has a margin of error of 3.6. (Generally, the larger the sample, the smaller the margin of error.)

(The Globe runs liberal and PPP is paid for by the D Corporation, so I discounted the political bias as effecting these skewed results. And they both used likely voters, which tends to make the poll more reliable.)

In other words, in order to figure out what the skewed results in these 2 polls mean, I considered factors such as who paid for the poll; what was the sample used; whether this was a one-shot poll or a rolling poll, taken over a few days (and look at those days); and what was the margin of error.

But questions posted on the blogosphere point to another problem with accurately interpreting these polls as an indicator of voter preference.

Texasdarlin writes,

I am confused by the party affiliations cited in the Globe poll. I’ve seen on various blogs and news sites that the percentage of independents included in the Globe poll was very low (around 18%), but that’s not how I read their tables.
Can anyone double-check this and figure it out? Here is the survey:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2010/senate_race/0108010_poll_senate_race/

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/boston-globeuniv-nh-coakley-up-by-15-really/#comment-112419

And Hot Air writes,

The new Boston Globe poll showing Democrat Martha Coakley beating Republican Scott Brown by 15-points in the race for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, when contrasted with Public Policy Polling showing a dead heat, has people scratching their heads. So what’s up with that?

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/01/10/whats-up-with-the-mass-senate-polls/

I think I figured out what happened to MA Independents in these polls, too.

The Globe poll asks this question (p.3): ‘Are you registered D, I, R, or something else?’ How would you answer if you were registered as “Unenrolled”?

Massachusetts has a category of voter Registration called “Unenrolled.” The biggest difference in these categories is this: Independent voters may vote only in elections but Unenrolled voters may vote in primaries, too. They declare which ballot they want; vote; and leave the voting booth an Unenrolled voter, the same registration status they held when they went in.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elespeif/us_senate_info.htm

When pollsters asked Unenrolled voters who participated in the Boston Globe poll, ‘Are you registered as D, I, R, or something else,’ these voters would have answered, ‘something else,’ right? However, the answer categories to this question are D; I/Unaffiliated; R; and Other. Did you catch that? The “I” in the answer category includes a designation “Unaffiliated,” but the I in the question does not include this word. So, when pollsters polled Unenrolled voters who answered “something else,” these responses likely were recorded in the category that reads, “Other.” This means that, the “I/Unaffiliated” answer category would only count those voters who answered that they were registered “I’s” but it would not count those independent-minded registered Unenrolled voters who answered “something else.”

And more than 50% of registered voters in Massachusetts are Unenrolled.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/Ele/elepdf/st_county_town_enroll_breakdown_08.pdf

Looks like perhaps the Globe undercounted those independent minded voters who are registered as Unenrolled.

On the other hand, the PPP poll specifically categorized Independent/Other as a single grouping. Thus, “Independents” in the PPP poll would include all of those voters registered as both “Independent” and as “Unenrolled.”

OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES

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.

THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE

A few days ago, I received an email announcing that the work of the group meeting under the banner CONTINENTAL CONGRESS OF 2009 had been completed. Laid out with large capital letters in varying sizes, in bold, highlighted, it exhorted me to appreciate the solemnity of the work that came out of this gathering, and challenged me to prove my patriotism by distributing this work to others.

HERE IS WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD. PLEASE REMEMBER THE FINE YOUNG SOLDIERS THAT HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES OVER THE YEARS FOR OUR FREEDOM. DON’T GIVE OUR COUNTRY AWAY HERE AT HOME. THEY HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES….WHAT WILL YOU GIVE????

This was followed by a few quotes – for example, Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” – apparently aimed at eliciting my enlistment in this campaign by inciting a patriotic fervor.

Here is my reply.

Dear barngoddess30 and Others:

You urged me to read about the event you refer to as the “Continental Congress 2009,” in this email filled with language equating the approval of work that came out of that confab; with demonstrating a personal commitment to preserving liberty and honoring fallen troops. On the contrary, it is precisely because I cherish liberty and value the high cost to life to maintain such liberty, that I reject both the stated mission of “cc2009″ and the work it produced. I will not question the motivation of the people who conceived and carried out this gathering. However, I cannot condone such exhortations to “spread the word” of the cc2009 or else call into question my fealty to my country, when the opposite is true. Indeed, putting my ’stamp of approval’ on this endeavor would not only evidence that I know nothing about the real history of the Continental Congress but also that I place self above others in our Republic.

State delegates to the First Continental Congress of the United States, held in 1774 in Philadelphia, PA, were usually chosen by state assemblies (legislatures) which, when not in regular session, were convened by state Governors specifically for the purpose of electing these delegates. Sometimes, the selection of delegates was put to a popular vote. (Much of this process was carried out in secret, including where applicable the election of delegates, as opposing the Crown at that time, was unlawful.) Particular attention was paid to making sure to include both radical and conservative leaders in the state.The decision as to which issues these delegates would submit for discussion at the CCongress and, what were the state’s positions on these issues, were determined beforehand in consultation with the citizens of these states, through various means that included public meetings; distribution of pamphlets; and special votes of the assemblies.

In other words, unlike the attendees at cc2009, individual delegates to the First CCongress did not obtain these positions just by volunteering. They did not meet with each other in the first instance at the Congress to determine what issues were of primary import to the people and then substitute their positions on these issues for that of the people. They certainly did not distribute the results of their work under the guise, since they – the attendees – resided in several different states this work necessarily represented the will of the ‘people.’

Attempting to conflate in the minds of the People, the inception and function of the present day CCongress with its illustrious namesake evidences either an odious display of hubris or a woefully inadequate knowledge and understanding of American History. At least in terms of democratic representation and results, this current iteration of CCongress bears little resemblance to that First CCongress in 1774.

For a good summary of how delegates to the First CCongress were selected, see

http://books.google.com/books?id=lO1YMD0a5OkC&dq=how+were+representatives+of+the+first+continental+congress+chosen&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=oGQyS_uwKcyztgentYmPCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CDwQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

jbjd

All of that human and financial capital expended for CCongress 2009 – two weeks at a hotel, live video feeds, etc. – focused on a handful of issues like gun control; income tax; and the federal reserve system which, when distilled, amount to little more than a reassertion of states’ rights over federal authority. And Robert Schulz, Founder and Chairman of the “We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education,” who conceived and spearheaded the drive for a CCongress 2009, has been actively pursuing strategies to publicize these issues for more than 15 (fifteen) years. With this one exception.

The mission of the CCongress 2009 now expanded to include work on a reinvention of the definition of the phrase natural born citizen drafted into the Constitution. (Printed on the agenda, both Mr. Schulz and Orly Taitz, Esquire were scheduled to address attendees on “History, Meaning, Effect, Significance and Violations of the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution.” The appointed head of the sub-committee charged with carrying out this work is a hydrologist.) Of course, Mr. Schulz knows, no definition of natural born citizen has any practical value absent a federal court holding in a case directly on point. But inserting into his decades old activist agenda of states’ rights versus federal authority, this issue of the Constitutional eligibility (of Barack Obama) to be President; arguably proved to be a marketing, recruiting, and fundraising bonanza.

We people continue to focus on opposing individual problematic outcomes of the legislative and executive branches of federal government – opposition to the work of the judicial branch has overwhelmingly resulted from our ignorance of the law and of sound legal practice – and not on how members of the DNC Services Corporation have thus far avoided scrutiny for Certifying to state election officials that Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible to be President. (A year ago now, his own attorney, Bob Bauer, admitted to a federal court no evidence exists in the public record that his client is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Then, on what basis did members of the D Corporation swear to state election officials several months earlier, he was!) For as long as we side-step the issue of Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, focusing our energies (and money) on such novelty distractions as the CCongress of 2009, instead of figuring out how to compel state Attorneys General in applicable states, to enforce existing election laws; we provide neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch of government with any incentive to clean up its act.

We are so stupid.

U.S. SENATOR BEN NELSON (D-NE) to the CITIZENS of NEBRASKA: “You’re not the boss of me!”

United States Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) receives his $174,000 annual salary through payroll checks drawn from the U.S. Treasury but he actually works for the Corporation. The DNC Services Corporation. So, while the U.S. Constitution authorizes his office in the Legislative branch of the federal government, Mr. Nelson takes his marching orders directly from the DNC. And even though the Declaration of Independence proclaims that governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed,” given the choice between following the lead of his constituents back home in Nebraska or the dictates of officials of the Corporation, again, Mr. Nelson defers to them. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp

Surely, if the enlightened thinkers who conceived and drafted the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution had intended to transfer any portion of the power of the people into the domain of the major political parties in this way, they would have mentioned political parties somewhere, anywhere in these auspicious documents. But they didn’t. The recent conduct of Senator Nelson points to prima facie evidence why.

Here are the voter registration numbers in the state of Nebraska in 2006, the year Mr. Nelson won his first re-election to the Senate, broken down by political affiliation: Republican Party, 578,888; Democratic Party, 371,110; nonpartisan, 184,150; Nebraska Party, 6,307; and Green Party, 361.
http://www.sos.ne.gov/admin/press_releases/archive/2006/voter_turnout_06.pdf

This means, 51% of Nebraska’s registered voters are Republican; and 33% are Democrat. In the 2006 mid-term election, with 99.9% of precincts reporting, the vote for U.S. Senate in Nebraska was
Nelson (D): 371, 777 64%
Ricketts (R): 211, 111 36%
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E1D61E3FF93AA35752C1A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3

In other words, Republicans voting in that race were underrepresented by 15%; and Democrats were overrepresented by 31%.

But this doesn’t mean that the voters of Nebraska similarly abandoned party lines in the other offices represented on the ballot. Republicans took all other races: Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor, and 3 U.S. Representative (3 (three) seats).
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G06/NE.phtml

Either the overwhelmingly Republican voters of Nebraska really hated fellow Republican Mr. Ricketts or they loved Mr. Nelson.

However, when it comes to expressing support or rejection for this health insurance bill, the numbers in Nebraska become dramatically skewed.

In a poll posted on Weekly Standard on December 16, 2009 taken over the prior 2 (two) days, of 500 “likely voters,” respondents were asked this question:

“As you may know, there is likely to be a vote soon in the US Senate on President Obama’s health care plan. If Senator Ben Nelson votes in favor of this plan, would that make you more likely or les (sic) likely to support Senator Nelson when he runs for re-election?” 26 percent said “more likely;” 61 percent said “less likely;” 7 percent said “unsure;” and 6 percent said “no difference.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/more_trouble_for_nelson.asp

In a poll conducted by the Tarrance Group on December 14 & 15, 67% of Nebraskans opposed the health insurance bill.
In general, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan increases the role of the federal government in health care and increases the cost of the deficit?
Favor/strongly 18%
Favor/somewhat 8%
UNSURE 7%
Oppose/somewhat 7%
Oppose/strongly 60%
If Senator Nelson does vote in this way, would that make you more likely or less likely to support Senator Nelson when he runs for re-election?
Likely/strongly 10%
Likely/somewhat 12%
UNSURE 12%
NO DIFFERENCE 6%
Less likely/somewhat 17%
Less likely/strongly 44%
http://americanfuturefund.com/2009/12/16/breaking-poll-67-of-nebraska-voters-oppose-health-care-plan/

What do all of these vote totals and polls mean? Well, they mean Nebraskans are overwhelmingly Republican notwithstanding they re-elected Ben Nelson, a Democrat, to a second term in the U.S. Senate in 2006. But these same voters have made unequivocally clear, if Mr. Nelson supports the health insurance bill, they will vote for someone else in 2012.

He is supporting the bill, anyway. After all, the people of Nebraska are not the boss of him; he works for the Corporation.

BEWARE of LAND SHARKS

Have you heard? The Democratic National Committee Services Corporation (DNC Services Corporation or, Corporation) is “considering” revising its Presidential nominating rules. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/05/democrats-consider-new-presidential-nominating-process/

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-South Carolina, said that the 2008 nomination contest “yielded a great candidate,” but readily acknowledged the problems that arose.

“We need to improve a little bit in spite of the fact that we got a great candidate out of the process,” Clyburn said Saturday at a meeting of a DNC working group tasked with drafting a new plan. “It was not very comfortable at various points along the way.” (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Ya think?

However, the CNN article explicitly mentions the change being discussed is limited to these topics. 1) The Corporation is looking to revise the calendar of primaries/caucuses so that in the future it will not ‘have to’ penalize any state for leaving the starting gate too soon; and 2) they want to limit the authority of the unpledged delegates – read, superdelegates – to effect the final outcome. (Yes, I meant to write “effect,” as in, make the result what it is.)

Notice, there is no mention of adding a caution to pledged delegates from vote binding states that they must vote according to their state laws and not the Corporation’s requirement to exercise their “good conscience.” (In other words, they must vote for the candidate they were elected by the voters in their home states, to represent, and not the favored candidate of the Corporate bosses.) And no mention of implementing safeguards to ensure the Corporation sticks to the rule requiring the nominee for POTUS “must be qualified under the U.S. Constitution.” http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2).

Both the movie “Jaws” and the television show “Saturday Night Live” debuted in 1975. The hysteria – which Merriem-Webster defines as “behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess” – produced by the movie resulted in a hysterical – as in, excessively funny – skit on SNL, called “Land Shark.”

“Blues Brothers” Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi teamed up as Roy Scheider (playing the Sheriff) and Richard Dreyfuss (the shark expert).

The premise of the skit is simple. The Land Shark, determined to eat its prey, manages to trick unsuspecting apartment dwellers into opening up their doors to him by offering up a series of incredible rouses until he finds the fiction that works.

Land Shark | Movies & TV | SPIKE.com

Think of the DNC Services Corporation as land sharks. For your own safety, ignore them. Always keep in mind, everything coming out of the National is smoke and mirrors. Why on earth would anyone credit the word or good intentions of the same people who perpetrated election fraud to get state election officials to print the name of BO on state ballots notwithstanding the Corporation refuses to respond to requests from hundreds or thousands of voters to disclose on what documentary evidence they based their Certification, he is Constitutionally qualified for the job? (See, for example, “OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES” below on this blog.)

Better yet, appreciate the joke that is the DNC; and laugh.

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EASIER SAID THAN DONE

A poster on the CW blog proposed, everyone involved in ‘outing’ BO should convene and decide to unify the focus. Here is my response.

jbjd // November 18, 2009 at 8:45 pm

Maddie // November 18, 2009 at 8:21 pm

JS @1:33 resistnet—see JS’s link above.

Excellent ideas….

We can do it! We need to brain-storm on how to get all groups together to pursue this 1 and only 1 goal – to expose and remove Obama! With all the patriots from all groups bombarding Congress and media non-stop, with all protests focused on 1 and only 1 issue – is Obama eligible to be POTUS? As we march along, more and more people will be educated on this issue. More people will join the war. The war gets bigger and bigger until they surrender!

This idea will only work IF everyone involved is prepared to drop ANY discussion of dual citizenship; or birth certificate vs. Certification; or social security numbers; or HI officials from the DoH; or quo warranto; or any other issue than this: Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did you determine BO is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS when you signed those official DNC Certifications of Nomination you submitted to state election officials in states that required the candidate to be qualified for the job in order to get his name printed on the general election ballot.

You already have evidence, she refused to answer the question. You have evidence, then DNC General Counsel Joseph Sandler answered written requests from voters seeking this information, by explaining, the DNC is not a public agency and, therefore, is not subject to a public records request. Yep; he took the time to write all that out but still failed to list the documentary basis for Certifying BO was Constitutionally qualified for the job. (In some states, Mr. Sandler forwarded NP’s Certification to state election officials.)

If the people who have been raking in the big bucks for carrying on this useless pursuit to ‘out’ BO were the types who would be willing to unify under a winning strategy from someone who has pointed out the flaws in their work, urging people to step back and use common sense; then they would have. No one has clicked on the PayPal button on my blog; but I have given away the complaints of election fraud to state A’sG in applicable states; that not only summarize the whole fraud, including specific examples of the absurdity of claims of legitimacy coming from BO’s camp; but also provide a viable means to expose the whole thing, based on existing laws.

I have said this before: what do you suppose would happen if every time one of these lawyers was interviewed, she or he said, ‘Why do you suppose BO/BB tried to trick the federal court into taking judicial notice that Annenberg Political Fact Check said he was for real; instead of handing the court one of NP’s signed Certifications of Nomination swearing he was Constitutionally qualified for the job?’ And held up that footnote from Hollister?

Think about how this would sound. If BO wanted the federal court to rule, he was for real, what is the strongest evidence of that fact? APFC ‘noting’ a phantom image of an unattributed newspaper image OR the word of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?
***************************************************************************************************

Then, there was this comment, to me.

#

Carlyle // November 18, 2009 at 8:40 pm

jbjd -

I was wondering about a bigger issue – Shouldn’t there be a “one stop” clearing house somewhere to settle constitutional issues? Trying to guess different avenues to persue – for different types of violations – and then no guarantee that you will be heard – something just isn’t right about that.

And – speaking of guarantees – all of the information you have provided about election rules and AG’s makes sense and is very appealing. BUT – what keeps the AG’s from just ignoring the complaints?
****************************************************************************************************

My response…

#

jbjd // November 18, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Carlyle, the one-stop shop to settle Constitutional issues is the SCOTUS. NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE SUSPECT HERE! I know people do not want to hear that but, it’s true! The Electors and the Congress did exactly what the Constitution required. BO is the POTUS. Yes; I agree he is not qualified under the Constitution. But enough people did not require such qualification that, he was lawfully elected. This does not mean, his lack of qualifications cannot be exposed, and result in his Impeachment. (Yes, I also believe, according to the Constitution,, this provides the ONLY lawful mechanism for removing him from office, in this case.)

I am right; and no matter how many people continue to fight ME on this, they are wrong. The courts have clearly backed me up; and all the temper tantrums and name calling will not change a thing.

Bob Bauer wrote a textbook on federal election law. He knew, BO could take office without vetting as to Constitutional qualification. But he did not count on my figuring out how it was done. (NP signing the Certifications; misallocating delegates; caucus fraud; silence pledged delegates from vote binding states, etc.)

I am right. Hate me; call me names; whatever. Keep asking the question: given the documents in the public record, on what basis did NP Certify to state election officials in August 2008 that BO was Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, to get them to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot?
************************************************************************************************

And, finally, this exchange.

#

venice // November 18, 2009 at 9:18 pm

jbjd,

Where do things stand with the AG’s? D2i tells us there hasn’t been a word.
#

jbjd // November 18, 2009 at 9:22 pm

venice,

Hundreds of thousands of ‘pink slips’ make the news. What are a few hundred complaints to state A’sG? Are people camping out outside of the AG’s office to get word s/he is investigating? What about all of those groups out there, supposedly fighting to expose BO? Have they looked up the laws in their states to see whether they can file these complaints? In states where such complaints are not applicable, are people sending these complaints to their state officials / press to expose the fraud?

I have no idea what individual A’sG are doing. Why don’t you ask them?

ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND HOW NANCY PELOSI STOLE THE “D” PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION, SHE WILL BE UNABLE TO STEAL THE NOMINATION, AGAIN

Some people find helpful listening to a summary of the election fraud perpetrated by the D’s in the 2008 election cycle. Then, they fill in the details by reading the blog. However you educate yourself, remember, as long as the thieves know more about our political system than you, it makes no sense to assume, they will not steal the nomination, again.

Here’s a condensed version of my last 2 (two) ‘appearances’ on Revolution Radio with drkate, wherein I try to teach my audience how the D’s, led by Nancy Pelosi, were able to steal the Presidential nomination.

…Plans had been put in place years ago to steal the D Presidential nomination. Delegates in Texas over allocated to black districts and under allocated to Latino districts? Check. ACORN hired to rig the caucuses? Check. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, agreed to Chair the DNC Convention and sign the bogus Certifications of Nomination swearing to state election officials he is Constitutionally eligible for the job so they would print his name next to the D on the general election ballot? Check. Now, if everything went according to plan, she would drop out after Super Tuesday. Six (6) months later, he would be swept into nomination by a unanimous vote on the floor vote at the Convention. And no one would be the wiser that they had stolen his nomination.

Only, she did not drop out and so, they ratcheted up the fraud.

Now, they disengaged the software identifying country of origin of campaign contributions – foreign exchange rates could account for those odd figures in the black – to fund a magic extravaganza. They hired the press to report the lie, she had no chance to take the nomination, even while winning the popular vote and more pledged delegates as the result of votes cast directly for her than for him. (And she’s racist, too.) They bribed super delegates to commit to him, measuring success in direct proportion to the cost of that support.

They subtracted delegates pledged to vote for her, and added them to him, facing the cameras with the tortured logic people in Michigan would have voted for him if he hadn’t removed his name from the ballot. They threatened her delegates in every state to switch to voting for him before the Convention.

Only, they forgot about those pledged delegates from the 13 (thirteen) vote binding states, including California, who are required by state laws to vote for the candidate voters elected them to represent, in the roll call vote on the floor of the Convention. And they didn’t count on someone like me figuring out what they were doing. But I did; and I reported to A’sG in vote binding states, ‘Members of the D party have infiltrated your state and are encouraging her pledged delegates to break the law by switching to him before the Convention. Stop them!’ And it worked.

Until, finally, the only way left to steal the nomination for him was to prevent her delegates from vote binding states, from voting on the floor of the Convention. So, Chairwoman Pelosi called off the traditional roll call vote from the floor of the Convention…

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2009/10/29/Revolution-Radio-Witness-to-Election-Fraud
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2009/11/05/Revolution-Radio-Witness-to-Election-Fraud-Part-II