When Was the Gambian President the Admiral of Nebraska?

  • Share
  • Read Later


Last month, apparently. (via Foreign Policy)

His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhaji Dr. Yahya Abdul-Azziz Jemus Junkung Jammeh has been President of the West African state of the Gambia ever since taking over in a 1994 military coup and is known – in the moments when he’s not simply being a tyrant – to be something of an eccentric.

Jammeh claims to have found the remedy for HIV/AIDS (it involves local herbs) and is wont to make strange, stray pronouncements – like when he suggested this year during a tirade against the meddling West that the first cross-Atlantic flight in history actually landed in the Gambia.

But in the past month, Jammeh has outdone himself. A report first published in the country’s main state paper on Sept. 17 announced that the President “bags 4 awards.” What were these prizes? Two apparently came from a certain President Barrack (note the spelling) Obama — a “Platinum Award” and a “President’s Volunteer Call to Service Award” — and one from the Printers and Publishers Guild of Northern Germany, which supposedly conferred upon Jammeh an “Honorary Vocational Bacherlors’ Degree.”

And the fourth? The Admiralship of the Great Navy of the State of Nebraska.

The irony about Jammeh’s reported trophy haul is that the only award that actually exists is the one that seems the most ludicrous. As a spokeswoman for the Nebraska governor’s office confirmed this week: “an ‘admiralship’ in the fictitious ‘Navy’ of Nebraska is meant to be a ceremonial acknowledgment of Nebraskans who have shown outstanding citizenship.” Still, Jammeh is not, and never will be, a Nebraskan admiral.

As absurd as the whole episode may be, the Committee to Protect Journalists has spotlighted it as a sign of Jammeh’s authoritarian grip over the Gambia, a tiny, riparian country snuck into the landmass of Senegal, itself hardly a vast nation. Jammeh has allegedly cracked down on media and had dissidents disappeared. His flaunting of imaginary prizes is indeed news you just can’t make up—except when you actually can.

– By Ishaan Tharoor


What?  Couldn't write another book?  I suppose Brown found being in Government especially in the R party

an easy way to make an income, great benefits, pension, etc plus fewer days in the work year. 

All he has to do is say NO to everything.....easy job to have right?


Dear Mr. Brown:

If you are going to take an OATH to UPHOLD the Constitution, how can you purport to REFUSE to RAISE REVENUE as the EXPRESS LANGUAGE of Article I, Section 8 clearly and unambiguously REQUIRES of the the Legislative Branch?

“Danger invites rescue.” – Justice Cardozo, Wagner v. International Railway, 232 N.Y. 176

I. The Speaker, Senate and Individual Members of Congress Cannot Willfully Disregard The Law of Judicial Estoppel By Refusing To Honor Congress’ Plenary Power To Raise Revenue Pursuant to Article I, Section 8

The doctrine of judicial estoppel is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions as applied to any official proceedings [Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181]; in order to maintain the integrity of the government, judicial estoppel precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second advantage by taking an incompatible position in disputes involving the same set of operative facts. Id.; Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 917, 943.

Here, the Speaker (and GOP Congress) expressly asserts that Article I, Section
8's express language mandating Congress raise revenue for the People's
"general WELFARE" is somehow "discretionary", despite the
fact that the evidentiary record proves the same Speaker, Senate and Congress (or collectively: “Speaker”) have all repeatedly admitted, acknowledged and, indeed, required that the Congress pause and take formal notice of the absolute importance of a “strict construction” of the Social Contract in dispassionately
discharging a wide range of government duties under the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, e.g., Judicial Confirmation hearings, et al. Nor can the Speaker cite to any “Rational Basis” that furthers a Legitimate State Interest in failing to perform the aforementioned requirements of his office, or the Congress doing theirs- not just the legal obligation to promulgate a Budget on an annual basis, but also the affirmative duty to engage in a robust debate over the cost/benefit of the State Action. To be sure, the undisputed fact that the
Speaker and his brethren see the Filibuster device and other procedural rules
as a means to affirmatively thwart the function of government is likewise
probative evidence of Foreign Money corrupting the integrity of the political
process and this “fast and loose” official conduct likewise implicates Judicial
Estoppel. See, Id. (“judicial estoppel prevents agents or elected officials from obtaining an unfair advantage or take incompatible positions, particularly when doing so would result in a manifest injustice”). Can the self-evident Damage of the pre-meditated “shut down”- much less “default”- be a graver set of injustices to the People, Treasury holders, small businesses and proper stream of Commerce by capriciously disregarding official duties? This is nothing short of unlawful State Action on its face and the fact any “default” is void ab initio does not, by any means, “undo" or “ameliorate” the Speaker and Congress’ malfeasance described herein and elsewhere in greater detail.

Accordingly, the Speaker and Senate are estopped as a matter of law from refusing to immediately discharge their EXPRESS duty to meet the obligations
required to maintain the Defense and GENERAL WELFARE by the express mandate of the Supreme Law of the Land: Article I, Section 8. However, the law Judicial Estoppel is hardly the only cause of action justifying remedial measures by the Executive branch. Here, the Speaker’s purposeful omission to perform his legal function operates to frustrate the very performance of the State under the Social Contract’s Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing- to say nothing of the Congressional rules of Ethical conduct, law of Fiduciary Duty and Duty of Loyalty to the People. What, this brief summary of applicable law is not “really” the rule of law if Foreign Money bribes the Tea Party to say so? In this regard, the fundamental precepts of Natural Law contained in the 10th Amendment and
Due Process protections selectively incorporated into the 14th
Amendment likewise require remedial action by the Executive branch. Tell me,
how is the Speaker’s tortious and unprecedently disobedient omission to honor Article I, Section 8 not likewise actionable under civil law? Any cursory
review of civil liability tends to show it is predicated on two “smoking guns”
laying at the feet of the Speaker and his Lobbyist regime: in every instance of
official malfeasance by a fiduciary, it can be predicated on a single act or
conspiracy to act, if there is a duty to the individual, class or organization
complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (1928) 248 N.Y. 339, citing West Virginia
Central & P.R. Co. v. State 96 Md. 652. It is no coincidence that the
Treason complained of springs from the inextricable correlation of duty and
foreseeability of harm. Id. The illimitable extent to which the “shut down” has
harmed the State is dispositive on the issue of liability of the Speaker and,
indeed, Congress itself. Pity the “paid-for” Media seems to believe the “poll
numbers” or “market reaction today” are somehow probative to whether laws have been violated by the pre-meditated conspiracy to “shut down” the government by the Speaker, Grover Norquist and Foreign Money donors.

Our own Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has implicitly stated this "no new taxes" policy VIOLATES the Congress PLENARY POWER- and therefore LEGAL DUTY- to RAISE REVENUE, i.e., by COLLECTING FEDERAL INCOME TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND PRECEPTS OF NATURAL LAW.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Enough of this "law according to the Decider" in the Middle East. We are a Nation of laws based on precedent.

"Thy love afar is spite at home." - Emerson


So Brown rips Obamacare without providing anything resembling a workable conservative alternative, praises a President that nearly tripled the National Debt while circumventing the Constitution to sell arms to Iran...then lies about it, and closes by claiming a desire for the parties to work together?  Yeah...sounds like a GOP candidate to me. 


The Stupid Party lives.

It has a large constituency.



These are the people rallied by Rush Limbaugh, who stokes their quite natural sense of intellectual inferiority into a conviction that they are the saviors of America and teaches them what to think.

Obama's inexcusable healthcare fiasco rescued these morons just as they were committing political suicide, and the nation will need to endure more of their ignorant bluster and obstructionism before we're cured.


Sorry but Brown is NOT a tea party candidate.. as there is no such thing. Even if there were, we do not want him in NH.


Congress doesn't need another bum who's too lazy to get a job.  It's already full of loafers.