HOW OBAMA & NANCY PELOSI STOLE THE ELECTIONS IN 2008 BY FORGING THE
HAWAII CERTIFICATION DOCUMENTS FOR OBAMA. ( FULL DETAILED EXPOSE. PLEASE
READ AND SHARE ) ITS NEVER TOO LATE TO EXPOSE THE FACTS.
ELECTIONS?? ITS A SCAM NOW... ITS ALL BEEN RIGGED.
Stalin said it best: "It does not matter who votes in the election.. .. It matters who counts the VOTES!!!"
The details of the following
account seem
somewhat daunting, and even overly exhaustive. However, it is
more important to remember that Obama's agents engaged
the prerequisites of his illegitimacy with exhaustive
investigation and extreme premeditation long before they pushed
him onto his present stage. They looked at all the angles.
They weighed all the consequences. They engaged all the
legal provisions, and how to "bend", but not break, them. THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL IN THEIR EDITORIAL TODAY SAID THAT OBAMA IS
WORKING TO GET NANCY PELOSI RE ELECTED AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE! NOW THE
WHOLE SEQUESTER AND FISCAL CLIFF DRAMA AND PELOSI'S STATEMENT LAST YEAR
WHEN SHE "GUARANTEED" THAT OBAMA WOULD WIN... ALL FELL INTO PLACE!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/16/nancy-pelosi-everybody-knows-mitt-romney-will-not-be-the-next-president/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Here is what the Wall Street Journal Said Today:
Obama's Pelosi II Strategy
The Washington Post reveals the real second-term priority.
Old Washington hands have been scratching their heads about the start
of President Obama's second term, with its aggressive liberal
priorities and attacks on Republicans. Whatever happened to governing?
Well, the answer arrived this weekend as the Washington Post reported
that
Mr. Obama's real plan for the next two years is returning Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker in 2014.
Columnist Dan Henninger on President Obama's conception of the economy and the place of government and the private sector.
"The goal is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic
control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on
gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his
final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats,
strategists and others familiar with Obama's thinking," reports the
Post, which is hardly hostile to the President.
The article says that shortly after finishing his speech on Election
Night last year, Mr. Obama called Mrs. Pelosi and Steve Israel, who
runs the Democratic House re-election campaign, to discuss 2014. The
strategy fits Mr. Obama's unprecedented new effort to raise $50 million
in $500,000 chunks to fund Organizing for Action (OFA), which will
spend millions in GOP-held districts. Mr. Israel says he met in January
with Jim Messina, Mr. Obama's 2012 campaign manager who now runs OFA,
to discuss the 2014 races.
White House press secretary Jay Carney pushed back against the
article on Monday, saying 2014 is "not a focus" for Mr. Obama. But that
looks like an attempt at damage control after the Post blew the White
House's cover. Mr. Obama has to appear to want bipartisan deals even as
he prepares the ground for blaming Republicans in 2014 when those
efforts fail.
This is already clear on the budget, as Mr. Obama insists on a
second tax increase that Republicans can't accept. We're also
increasingly worried about White House sabotage on immigration reform,
as it pushes the bill left on a guest-worker program and enforcement.
Mr. Obama is doing exactly what you'd expect if he doesn't want a deal
and plans to use the issue to drive minority turnout in 2014.
It's important to understand how extraordinary this is. Presidents
typically try to secure major bipartisan deals in their fifth or sixth
years, before their political capital ebbs. That's what Bill Clinton and
Ronald Reagan did, and George W. Bush tried on Social Security. Mr.
Obama seems to think he can use the next two years mainly to set up a
Pelosi House that would let him finish his last two years with a
liberal bang.
The next time you hear Mr. Obama, House Democrats or one of their
media acolytes talk about GOP "obstructionism," refer them to the
Washington Post article that shows what they really intend for the
current Congress. Bipartisan failure is their strategy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THEN I GOT IT!! THE WHOLE GAME PLAN!! AND THE RECIPROCATING THE
FAVORS AMONG THE CRONIES.All this goes back to 2008... Nancy Pelosi
orchestrated the Obama Presidency by falsifying the Certification for
Obama to run for President. No wonder Nancy Pelosi's district get all
the Obama Largesse!
Apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Obama as their nominee for president were two documents.
Here is one link:
http://theobamafile.com/_images/DNCCertificationOK.jpg
Here is the Other:
http://theobamafile.com/_images/DNCCertificationBogus.jpg
One contains language affirming his constitutional eligibility, filed
in Hawaii where state law requires the specific language, and
another omits the language, filed in the remaining 49 states. Now a
series of reports, including those from Butterdezillion, are
revealing the local state party's stance in 2008.
Danae contends that Hawaii refused to include
language that specifically stated that Obama was legally and
constitutionally eligible to run for POTUS. One day after that,
Nancy signed the one document certifying his eligibility as legally
and constitutionally eligible to Hawaii. Nancy Pelosi is the one who
certified that Barack Obama was eligible to run for POTUS for
Hawaii. Hawaii refused to do so because they know he is not
eligible.
Hawaii is also likely guilty of massive citizenship fraud and
welfare fraud committed from the date the Islands became a state.
Anyone could get a certificate of live birth for a baby "born at
home" with nothing other than the signature of a "witness." At the
time Hawaii had a large influx of immigrants from Asia, remember Viet
Nam? A lot of those folks came through Hawaii as their Ellis
Island. Only Hawaii didn’t handle it so well. So they made it easy
to "late" register births of babies so that they could qualify for
state and federal assistance. Those babies had no right to American
Citizenship, and who knows how many of them there are. Obama
happened to fall into that time period. So quite literally he could
easily be one of those babies, if indeed as suspected, his birth
documents show a late form, and a place of birth as a home address.
Now, take it just one step further. Obama knows all about this --
as many Hawaiians do. The State is desperate to keep this scandal
from becoming public, because the scope of it is huge. We aren’t
talking about a few hundred in a year, we are talking about thousands
over more than a decade. It's how Hawaii got more federal
assistance, sign up more babies for every program on the books from
schools to immunization, to welfare -- you name it.
So Hawaii is desperate to keep that off the radar of the public
and press. Obama, knowing this, has likely made it clear to Hawaiian
officials -- including a previously unfriendly Governor Linda Lingle
-- "hey you better protect my records, or this whole mess in its
entirety is likely to become public." That's some motivation don’t
you think?
Hawaii is not protecting Obama per-say, though Obama is using that in
order to cover up his real ineligibility for POTUS. Hawaii is
covering up its own massive crimes. Citizenship fraud on an
institutional scale, and welfare fraud also on an institutional scale.
Now, Nancy has to get documents that state Obama is eligible.
Hawaii refused to certify him as eligible. Thus Nancy had a choice:
fraudulently certify Obama for Hawaii herself, against the
constitution -- this is an illegal act -- or take Obama off the ballot.
Imagine what would have happened if she took him off the ballot!
OMG, the entire Democrat party would have been out for her head, and I
don’t mean the elected officials, I mean the Kool Aid drinking masses
who were all whipped up and wee weeed up -- and yea, riots. At the
very least.
So Nancy broke the law and certified Barack Obama herself for the
State of Hawaii. That is the reason this document went to Hawaii and
only Hawaii.
Analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008
Certification of Nomination for Obama reveals that reasons for
his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 was to visit
more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws and
post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a hearing with
Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification
from ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional
eligibility.
Honolulu, Hawaii
At the center of the war over Barack
Obama’s illegitimacy as president are a series of deep seated,
unanswered questions about the detailed involvement of several
municipal employees and officials within the government of the
State of Hawaii. From former governor, Linda Lingle’s
convenient deniability to former Health Department director,
Chiyome Fukino’s intentionally misleading statements about
Obama’s vital records. From the blatant, dismissive ignorance
of Hawaii’s legislature about the difference between "
U.S. Citizenship" and
"Natural-born citizenship",
to the claims by a former Honolulu senior elections
office clerk that the State of Hawaii does not possess an
original, 1961
Certificate of Live Birth for Barack
Obama, the State of Hawaii has emerged as the primary, perhaps
unwitting, co-conspirator in keeping Obama’s identity a well
kept secret from the American people.
Now, however, a new investigation of Hawaii’s Election
Commission and the laws used by the state’s Office of Elections
to approve or deny candidates for inclusion on presidential
ballots raises shocking revelations about the administrative
power held by too few unaccountable people and their
capacity to override the U.S. Constitution. The evidence
reveals that municipal agents, working within the jurisdiction
of Hawaii state law and complex administrative rules, opened
shadowy legal channels which, ultimately, enabled Obama with an
opportunity to usurp presidential power and assault the
Constitutional sovereignty of the American people.
Setting The Stage
The details of the following account seem
somewhat daunting, and even overly exhaustive. However, it is
more important to remember that Obama's agents engaged
the prerequisites of his illegitimacy with exhaustive
investigation and extreme premeditation long before they pushed
him onto his present stage. They looked at all the angles.
They weighed all the consequences. They engaged all the
legal provisions, and how to "bend", but not break, them. The
evidence reveals they may have even pushed too hard on the
limits of lawful conduct.
If those seeking the truth about Obama's identity are not
equal to that same diligence, then they should question their
understanding of the importance of constitutional sovereignty.
Remember, among the primary objectives of liberal
globalists, in concealing Obama's identity and, ultimately, his
illegitimacy, were to endow political power to a like-minded,
radical agent who would be willing to "push" extreme doctrine
enabling the governmental confiscation of advanced American
individualism. Or, should we simply consider the massive
five TRILLION dollars of added indebtedness upon our children
and grandchildren since 2006 the cost of being American?
Obama was tactically positioned not to make America a better
nation for all of its citizens, but rather to confiscate the
value of America's superior, prosperous heritage and
redistribute it to those he and the liberal establishment
believes are more deserving of it. Obama's desire for
economic equality is motivated by communistic values. However,
since communism cannot succeed in America, the neo-liberal
establishment is exploiting the executive powers usurped by
Obama to enact "punitive" legislation which, essentially,
redirects money from vintage American society into an epic
liberal cause sought since the end of World War II. Two
generations ago, the American people sought to prosper from
their work. Now, under Obama, the definition of a new "American
Dream" has been hijacked by those lusting to make a
profit by defaming the prosperity and sacrifice of coming
generations.
Therefore, our momentary visit into the realm of
plausibility
serves well the value of our new found lessons and reinforces
the importance for the American people to seize responsibility
and proactively protect the sovereignty of their
blood-ransomed, Constitutional freedom. Sometimes, in order to
accomplish this, we must vigorously deny access to those with
plural, or ambiguous, allegiances. Otherwise, we should
resign ourselves to the idea that our value as the last hope
for humanity can never be defended or preserved. Unless of
course, we are willing to cast out the peddlers of corrupt
ideas.
Expulsion is an essential first step in physically removing
foul influences which undermine the intended goodness of our
founders. This starts by identifying and exposing the
components of corruption by members of our ruling class. The
following report is just one of many authored by other
Americans which attempts, in small part, to do this.
Recall, over the past two years, we became familiar with the
furor over the Democrat Party of Hawaii's refusal to certify
Obama's constitutional eligibility. The DPH is the Democrat
Party authority in charge of requesting, reviewing and
verifying the legal qualifications of a candidate's eligibility
for inclusion on the Hawaiian ballot, in compliance with
Hawaiian and Constitutional election laws.
Ultimately, the DPH's refusal to certify Obama was due to a
failure by Obama to make available the original documented
evidence confirming his eligibility. However, this correctly
justified lack of certification by the DPH was followed by a
covert attempt by the
Democratic National Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi
, to
artificially proclaim Obama eligible in Hawaii by submitting two separate, sworn
Official Certifications of Nomination (OCON)
for Obama, each containing different legal language.
Both versions of the OCON were sent to the Hawaiian Office of
Elections while only one version was submitted to other states'
Election authorities. The DNC's fraudulent OCON was an obvious,
desperate attempt to control damage and prevent Obama from
being disqualified from the Hawaiian ballot and prevent
public awareness of the DPH's refusal to certify Obama's
eligibility. As stated by Hawaii's Office of Elections in 2008:
"The Official Certification of Nomination is a
legally required document submitted by each party's state and
national authority to every state elections
committee authority prior to each presidential election. It
affords the Chief Elections Officer in each state with the
documented legal assurance that the candidates seeking
inclusion on their state's ballot are indeed certified as
constitutionally eligible to serve the office they
seek.".
The violation committed by the DNC's falsified certification
is that there was no evidence to support claims of Obama's
eligibility. The DNC simply fabricated reasons over the
authority of the state party authority to certify it. Of course,
Democrats will claim there was no impropriety on the
part of Pelosi and the DNC. However, if the state party
authority refuses to certify a candidate due to a lack of legal
qualifications, the national party authority cannot then simply
certify the same candidate without ignoring that same lack of
documents. That's absurd! The DNC is not
served by the multiple state party authorities, it is there
to serve
the state party authorities. Federal constitutional law
prescribes the mandates for Presidential eligibility, but state
authorities have the responsibility for validating the
authenticity of their own ballot.
The OCON controversy is an example of what happens when
dishonest, inferior people try to force themselves into
positions of power they are not qualified to assume. Even those
who seek to uphold the honorability of service at the local
level, within their own party, will eventually refuse to
endorse their candidacy if the disparity of legal
qualifications becomes irreconcilable.
Not only was the dual OCON a deceitful maneuver by Nancy
Pelosi and DNC to force Obama's unverifiable candidacy onto
Hawaii's presidential ballot, it violated Constitutional
election law requiring that each state maintains the authority
to grant or deny ballot inclusion based on their own
standards.
Most egregious, however, is that the agents running Obama's
political machine, those of legal mindedness, knew beforehand
this very intraparty conflict legally enabled the Chief
Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin Cronin, to invoke an obscure
law and approve Obama's inclusion on the Hawaiian
presidential ballot...even though Obama was never determined
with irrefutable documented evidence to be constitutionally
eligible to appear on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.
Schatz' Ascendance
Compounding the OCON controversy is the elevation of several
minor characters of the "Obama For President" script into
positions of significant advantage.
In August, 2008, just two months before the election, the
Democrat Party of Hawaii’s (DPH) chairman, Brian Schatz, had
already refused to include legally required, explicit language
in its sworn
Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) that Barack Obama was qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
The DPH's OCON document was allegedly submitted to the
Hawaiian Election's office between August 27th and September
5th, 2008. At first glance, it appears Schatz was simply acting
with discretion and, if nothing else, upholding the
appearance of legal prudence over political partisanship.
However, a review of records held by the State of Hawaii reveals
this document was not affixed with a
"RECEIVED DATE"
stamp by the Hawaiian Elections office like the certification
documents in the other 49 states were. The DNC's OCON submitted
to Hawaii also was not affixed with this stamp.
This official dating of documents is essential for
authorities to know when to initiate administrative procedures
and correspondence with candidates and/or applicants if problems
arise during the processes used to approve eligibility and
ballot content. Hawaiian election laws, like many states'
laws, are particularly precise about the deadlines governing the
actions and procedures required for the Chief Elections Officer
and the candidate during this process.
However, the shocking lack of accountability on the part of
the Hawaiian Office of Elections and Kevin Cronin essentially
means that these two documents were not officially received and
filed into the record of the 2008 election, yet they are
being disseminated as the original records used to certify
Obama. This now demands an investigation into authenticity of
Obama's documented nomination in Hawaii and the time frame
during which these documents were created, signed, notarized,
submitted and officially filed with the Elections authority.
Regardless, based on the OCON submitted by Schatz, Cronin was
forced to disqualify Obama from the presidential ballot in
Hawaii until a lengthy administrative process reconciled the
disparity. This process created a series of politically
implicative, but highly discreet, correspondences between
Schatz, Cronin, and possibly, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod in
order to balance legal deadlines, campaign logistics and
political vulnerability. At the conclusion of the process, we
know that Obama was included on the Hawaiian presidential
ballot without any protest by Schatz.
Raising intense skepticism is the ongoing,
rebranding of
the relationships between these entrenched individuals. Schatz,
the former DPH Chairman (2008-2010) and former member of the
Hawaiian House of Representatives (1996-2006), has now
become the Lt. Governor essentially making him the proxy
administrative boss of Cronin. Schatz sudden ascendance to
executive power essentially went unscrutinized in the wake of
the OCON controversy. He announced his candidacy for the
Hawaiian Lt. Governor's office, the second-highest political
seat in the State of Hawaii, on January 10, 2010 after serving
as the DPH chairman. Of all ten major party candidates running
for the position, and 51 eligible representatives, Schatz'
official nomination was issued later than any other
candidate, on July 7th, yet he won the nomination just months
before the election with 39% of the vote, after receiving high
profile endorsements and incumbent promotions from individuals
close to Obama.
In September, 2010, Star Advertiser reporter, Herb
Sample asked why so many people would seek a position bearing
no real power under the governor and no real
responsibility over the many directors doing the work for
Hawaii's multiple agencies. The answer to Sample's question is
the only one which makes sense.
.
"I think most people want it as a way of becoming
governor," former University of Hawaii history professor Dan
Boylan said.
As of 2010, of the only six Governors serving the state of
Hawaii, three of them were Lt. Governors while at least one
other was elected to the U.S. Congress. The Lt. governor
position also pays a comfortable six figure salary ($115,000,
2010) compared to the $37,000 Schatz made as a House
Representative of District 25.
Schatz graduated from Punahou High School, Obama's
alma-mater, in 1990. Ironically, he also spent time in Kenya in
1992, the same year Obama first traveled there, as a part of the
School of International Training, a cross-cultural, world-wide
education outreach program supported predominantly by
liberal-based and foreign scholarship funding sources, where he
was educated in civil service, before graduating from Pomona
College in 1994.
On January 14, 2010 Schatz was formally endorsed by Obama's
sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, after Soetoro-Ng had returned from a
three month stay in Washington D.C. with Obama.
Was Schatz politically rewarded for cooperating with the DNC
in 2008? Appearances are worth more than evidence in politics.
What is known is that after justifiably filing an official
document omitting critical statutorial language in favor of
Obama's candidacy, Schatz had very little to say after the DNC
overwrote his official document which legally stated that Obama
had failed to provide adequate information that he was legally
qualified to serve as president under the provisions of
the U.S. Constitution. Obama appeared on the Hawaiian ballot in
2008. Two years later, at the mere age of 37, Schatz is in a
position to become the Chief Executive Officer of Obama's
claimed state of origin.
Regardless of Schatz' current executive position, the
implications of such incestuous governing powers melding with
partisan politics creates, if nothing else, the appearance of a
municipal "cartella" serving the interests of national
Democrat party politics, not the interests of the people of
Hawaii and, therefore, in the case of Obama's fallow
credibility, the interests of the entire nation. At most, it
makes the entire government of State of Hawaii look like some
annexation of Obama's administration...like a co-opted
municipal agency placed in charge of Obama's secret personal
documents and information.
Obama's campaign drones knew that if
any state
Elections Officer, let alone one overseeing the legality of
election procedure in the very state where the candidate grew
up, was forced to disqualify Obama's candidacy on the grounds of
him being found ineligible there, by his
own party
authority, the issue would have exploded into a firestorm of
mainstream inquiry. Imagine the explanation that would have been
demanded by the Hawaiian government if Obama actually failed to
appear on their ballot. If this had occurred in a
state like Texas or Oklahoma, the pro-Obama media's angle may
have been strained, but at least they would have been able to
cower behind political justifications. Not in Hawaii, however.
The most troubling aspect of this drama is, quite simply, the
irregularity of behavior by the Democrat party, specifically
Obama's entourage, when faced by something as routine as an
eligibility certification. This should have sounded a warning
throughout the known universe of journalism. Yet, it was
met with a bizarre and cowardly silence by the mainstream
media. Of course, Obama's handlers could not allow the exposure
of this controversy so close to the election, no matter how
valid the accusations. It would have been politically fatal.
There would have been no way to recover from such an indictment
against Obama. His 2008 campaign and, possibly, his political
career, would not have survived the revelation of the
devastating documentable evidence against him. Therefore, we
can conclude, with confidence, that there was
unimaginable pressures to engage is less than honest contortions
in order to prevent such ramifications for Obama. However, the
media's dereliction in the wake of such obvious illicit
behavior has injured the confidence of the American people for
elections to come. Moreover, Obama is no more eligible for any
of it.
However, this was not the only bad consequence "Team Obama"
needed to prevent in the wake of the Hawaiian OCON disaster.
They also needed to conceal the facts about his illegitimacy,
overall, as well as suppress any public knowledge about Obama's
legal requirement to meet specific deadlines or
personally attend to proceedings in Hawaii attributed directly to countering claims of his ineligibility.
Especially if Obama was required to meet with party authorities
in Hawaii and the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to refute
their findings between the OCON filing date of September
5, 2008 and November 4, 2008.
So, let's ask the most obvious question first. Did Obama make an
unscheduled or sudden trip to Hawaii between September 5th and
November 4th, 2008?
Before answering, let's remember, Obama was operating on a
very tight campaign schedule between mid-August and Election
day, 2008. A review of his schedule reveals more than 50 events
in the final two months. He had several town hall meetings and
debates which could not be cancelled or rescheduled
because they involved John McCain too. The only way to free
himself and cover up his motives was to
exploit some personal issue which could serve as a "front story" for his presence in Hawaii.
Complicating the logistical, legal and political nightmare
was the fact that Obama had already attended campaign rallies
and fundraisers in Hawaii in early to mid-August. He visited his
grandmother on August 7th. Therefore, justifying
another visit to Hawaii amid the maelstrom of campaign rallies,
debates, forums and town hall meetings scheduled in the other
49 states
would require a personal reason that Obama's campaign could
justify to the public while putting him in Hawaii to secretly
attend to his legal matters. Given the weight of Obama's lack of
legitimacy, if he appeared in Hawaii too close to his
previous visit, it looks very suspicious and invites media
inquiry.
Such a
private meeting would also have to be
justifiable under Hawaii Revised Statutes Adminstrative Rules
91, 92-4, 92-5, and 3-170-11. Specifically, any correspondence
or meeting between any candidate or representative of the
candidate and the Hawaiian Election commission would have to be
held in accord with these rules. However, it is
HRS 92-5-8
which affords the permission to hold a secret meeting between
members of the Elections Commission and Obama. The rules
states:
92-5 Exceptions (a) A board may hold a
meeting closed to the public pursuant to section 92-4 for one
or more of the following reason(s):
(8) To deliberate or make a decision upon a matter that requires the consideration of information that must be kept confidential pursuant to a state or federal law, or a court order.
Recall, we have already been told by the Hawaiian Department
of Health (HDH) that the public disclosure of information
contained in vital records to anyone without tangible reasons
for obtaining it
is prohibited by state lawHRS 338-18.
For more than three years, employees of the HDH have repeatedly
refused to disclose Obama's original natal records citing this
law, which requires that vital information "
must be kept confidential pursuant to state law."
Therefore, any justification for holding a private meeting for
the purpose of reviewing and discussing Obama's natal
information as it exists on file with the HDH would fall under
the provisions of
HRS 92-5-(8).
However, this only resolves the legality of the matter.
Politically, if Obama made another unscheduled appearance in
Hawaii too close to the OCON filing deadline of September 5,
2008, it would have brought too much attention, as well. The
question bears too much weight, "Why is Obama returning to
Hawaii at such a critical time leading up to
the most prolific Presidential election in American history?"
If he waited until too close to the election, he would miss
the deadline of October 24, 2008 Hawaii imposes for inclusion on
the ballot. Therefore, Obama needed to find a way to be in
Hawaii at a time that would:
1. Occur as long after the OCON deadline as possible, but no later than October 24th.
2. Allow him to cancel campaign events, but not miss
prescheduled debates with McCain or televised town hall
meetings.
3. Meet legal deadlines for ballot approval, but not violate
deadlines to refute the findings of ineligibility by the DPH.
4. Give the media a "decoy" story to serve as his excuse for
being in Hawaii, but not allow the public to discover that the
real reason he was in Hawaii was because he was attending
executive hearings with the Chief Elections Officer and the
DPH per HAR 3-170, HRS 92-4 and 92-5.
Obama was provided with such circumstances on October 23rd-24th, 2008.
Former Democrat Party of Hawaii
(DPH) Chairman, Brian Schatz, now serves as the state's Lt. Governor
An investigation of Hawaii Revised Statutes, along with
documented evidence, reveals that the Chief Elections Officer of
Hawaii, being bound by law from partisan participation, still had
the legal authority to circumvent the vetting process for Obama
and simply approve his placement on the Hawaiian
presidential ballot without ever verifying that he was
Constitutionally eligible to serve as president. Moreover, the
evidence presented herein further confirms that the legal tactics
employed by the Obama machine actually allowed him to fill
Hawaiian legal requirements, behind the lies of the media,
without actually having to ever present authentic documentation.
Shockingly, administrative procedures employed by the
Elections Office in the State of Hawaii actually helped Obama
avoid public scrutiny by simultaneously allowing him the
opportunity to personally attend a hearing about his eligibility
while visiting his sick grandmother in late October, 2008. The
chronology of available deadlines and correspondences
reveal that Obama would have been able to hide this eligibility
hearing under the headline of visiting his dying grandmother.
HRS 11-113, in coordination with Chapter 91 administrative rules,
and differences in time zones (that's right, Hawaii's geographic
location may have helped Obama meet legal deadlines), gave Obama
the linkage needed to preserve both legal and political
appearances by affording him almost
45 days between the Certification deadline and his trip to visit his dying grandmother.
Hawaiian Elections Authority
Many people falsely believe that the national
party committee for each party has certification jurisdiction
over state party officials. This is not true. The DNC and RNC are
not the primary constitutional authority in vetting
candidates. The Constitution gives authority of determining
candidate eligibility and to establish relationships enabling
candidate placement on each state ballot to each respective
state's Elections authority. This evolved out of the the
founder's understanding that placing the enforcement of voting
security in the hands of local authorities enabled fair access to
the residents of the state they apportion and confirm voting
registrations. National party authorities do not have the
jurisdiction, resources or logistic capacity to ensure voter
apportionment between states. Just because the DNC determines
that a candidate is eligible in, for example, New York, does mean
they can force the state of Hawaii to also find that same
candidate eligible. The founders understood that by endowing this
to a national authority made the people of states who oppose a
particular party vulnerable to under-representation and
party intimidation.
Under the Electoral College system, according to election
laws in every state, Electors from each state are only qualified
by the Constitution to cast votes for President and Vice
President. They do not participate in certifying the eligibility
of the candidates prior to the election. Inexplicably, the
certification of each candidate’s eligibility falls under the
autonomous authority of each candidate’s state and national
affiliated political party authority, while the approval of the
candidate’s placement on each state’s ballot then becomes the
responsibility of the Chief Elections Officer of each state.
The state’s electors must rely on the relationship between these
authoritative bodies to review qualifications, certify the legal
eligibility of each candidate and approve ballot placement of
each candidate nominated by each qualified party.
In August, 2008, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer (CEO)
was Kevin B. Cronin. He was appointed by the eight-member
Hawaiian Elections Commission on December 10, 2007 and took over
the position from Interim CEO, Rex M. Quidilla. By statute,
Cronin’s term began on February 1, 2008 and is set to end on
February 1, 2012. Cronin is a 30 year veteran of government
service and is licensed to practice law in Hawaii and
Wisconsin. The fully staffed Hawaiian Elections Commission is
made up of the following individuals.
Name, Position and Date of Term Expiration
Kevin B. Cronin, Senior Elections Officer 02/01/12
Daniel Young , Chief Justice, Oahu 06/30/12
Warren Orikasa , House Speaker, Maui 06/30/14
Margaret Masunaga, Senate President, Hawaii 06/30/14
Zale Okazaki , Senate President, Oahu 06/30/12
Patricia Berg , Senate Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14
Brian Nakashima, Chief Justice, Hawaii 06/30/12
Donna Soares, House Minority Leader, Maui 06/30/12
Charles King, House Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14
It is Cronin's constitutional authority to oversee
elections in the state of Hawaii under the advisement of the
Election Commission. It is his responsibility to maximize
registration, equalize registration among districts; and maintain
data related to registration, elections, districting and
apportionment; educate the public on voting and elections; set up
procedures and rules governing elections per HRS 11, AR 91 and
Arts. II & IV of the U.S. Constitution. Cronin does not have
the authority to certify the Constitutional eligibility of a
candidate, however, his most powerful authority is his
ability, according to HRS 11-113, to mediate
conflict over
eligibility and, as a result of mediation, officially approve
candidates for placement on the state’s ballot
even when the state party's vetting authority refuses to certify the legal qualifications of that candidate.
As absurd as this seems...it actually happened in Hawaii in 2008.
On August 27, 2008, the Democratic Party of Hawaii (DPH),
led then by Chairman, Brian Schatz and acting Secretary, Lynn
Matusow, signed and had attested by notarization, an Official
Certification of Nomination (OCON) for Barack Obama and Joe
Biden. Some time between August 27, 2008 and 4:30 p.m Hawaiian
Time (9:30 p.m. Eastern Time) September 5, 2008, the DPH filed
the document with Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The
copy provided for public review does not contain a Hawaiian
Elections Office "RECEIVED DATE" stamp, which is a suspicious
omission because the date of reception by the Elections Office
initiates the succession of correspondence and deadlines for
review, response and possible hearings available to those
opposing the findings of the CEO.
The OCON sent to Cronin by the DPH contained the following words in the body of its content:
"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates
for President and Vice President of the United States (Obama and
Biden) are legally qualified to serve under the
provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at
the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February
19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado."
The only proclamation this document makes is that Democrat
Party of Hawaii asked a group of Democrats who they preferred as
their nomination for President. However, unfortunately for
Obama and the Democratic voters of Hawaii,
Hawaiian Revised Statute 11-113 (c)(1)(B) specifically requires that this statement must explicitly state that each candidate is
legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution
in order for the Hawaiian Elections Commission and the Chief
Elections Officer to be able to approve the candidate for ballot
placement.
Specifically, the wording of each party’s Hawaiian OCON must adhere to the requirements of
HRS §11-113 (c)(1); Presidential Ballots, which states:
(c) All candidates for president and vice president of the
United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general
election ballot under the following procedures:......(1) In the
case of candidates of political parties which have been
qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election
ballots, the appropriate official of those parties
shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the
sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally
qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States
Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen
candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the
time, place, and manner of the selection.
The Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCON for Barack Obama clearly did not meet the requirement of
HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B),
which clearly states that the (DPH) party official (Brian
Schatz) shall file a sworn application with the chief election
officer (Kevin Cronin) which explicitly includes “…a statement
that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the
provisions of the United States Constitution…” and is to be filed
not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day (September 5, 2008)
prior to the general election (November 4, 2008).
Let's mete out the scenerio giving the benefit of doubt to the
DPH, first. Perhaps this was simply an omissive error. Maybe the
DPH "forgot" to include legally required language in its OCON
for Obama on August 27, 2008 and didn't realize the error for
another nine days until after the September 5th filing
deadline had passed.
Or, despite the fact that the DPH OCON states that Obama was
chosen by the DPH Preference Poll and Caucus back in FEBRUARY of
2008, nearly
six months earlier, we are to believe there
just wasn't enough time to include the required statement that
Obama was legally qualified by the constitution for approval
for ballot placement by the Chief Elections Officer, and
therefore the DPH simply ignored the requirement hoping to sneak
it by the Election Commission.
However, comparing documented evidence of OCONs from previous
elections reveals that the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCONs for
both Al Gore/Joe Lieberman in 2000 and John Kerry/John Edwards
in 2004 both had the following identical language:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for
President and Vice President of the United States are legally
qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution
and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the
national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential
Preference Poll
and Caucus held in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National
Democratic Convention held in...”
The Democratic Party of Hawaii included the explicit statement
required by HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B) that the 2000 and 2004
candidates were legally qualified to serve under the provisions
of the United States Constitution, but the DPH did not do the
same for Obama. Also, in another comparison, the Hawaiian
Republican Party’s 2008 OCON, signed by RPH Chairman, Willes K.
Lee, for John McCain and Sarah Palin, states:
“We do hereby certify that at a National Convention of
Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United
States, duly held and convened in the City of Saint Paul, State
of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person meeting the Constitutional requirements
for the Office of Vice President of the United States were
nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing
general election, November 4, 2008…”
The Republican Party of Hawaii’s Official Certification of
Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin clearly includes the
words “…
meeting the Constitutional requirements…” and is
dated September 4, 2008, and is notarized by Sheila Rae Motzko,
notary of Minnesota. Therefore, the RPH obviously had no
reservations in certifying the eligibility of McCain and Palin.
Given the indisputable facts that the DPH had included the
language in previous OCONs, indicating officials were fully aware
of the legal requirement, and that the selection of Obama took
place more than six months prior to the submittal of the
OCON, indicating they had ample time to review any evidence, if
it exists, of Obama's eligibility, it becomes
impossible
that the DPH either forgot about the need for the specific
language or that the DPH simply ignored it. Therefore, the DPH
intentionally omitted the language stating that Obama is legally qualified under the provisions of the U.S. constitution because he is not.
THE "MESS"
The Democratic National Committee (DNC), chaired by Nancy
Pelosi, signed and had attested by notarization, its national
Official Certification of Nominations with all fifty states on
August 28th, 2008. We conclude this based on the "RECEIVED DATE"
stamp provided on multiple states' DNC OCONs of "
AUGUST 29th, 2009",
and the notarization date of August 28. This sworn application
was filed sometime between August 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008
with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy
provided by the Hawaiian Election office for public
review, however, does not contain a RECEIVED DATE stamp like
other states' OCONs do.
However, a review of the Democratic National Committee’s OCONs
for Obama reveals a shocking irregularity in the composition of
its Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii. On
December 19, 2008, Hawaii’s Chief Elections officer, Kevin
Cronin, in response to a written request by a Colorado resident
for a copy of the Official Certification of Nominations, sent a
letter and a copy of the DPH’s OCON and the DNC’s OCON. However,
analysis of the DNC OCON sent to Hawaii in comparison with
the DNC’s OCON sent to other states, reveals that they did not
match. In fact, Hawaii’s version of the DNC’s OCON contained
specific wording
not included in the versions sent to ALL the
other states, which directly contradicts the Democrat Party of
Hawaii's OCON. All the states' Election Commissions, except
for Hawaii's, were sent one Official Certification of Nomination
with the following statement:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National
Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of
America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008,
the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party
for President and Vice President of the United States
respectively”
The typo
“though” is not a mistake. It actually
exists in the official document. Notice, in this version of the
DNC’s OCON, there is no mention of Obama’s Constitutional
eligibility. However, in the version sent separately to Hawaii’s
Election Commission, it states the following:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National
Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of
America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008,
the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party
for President and Vice President of the United States
respectively and that the following candidates for President and
Vice President of the United States are legally
qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:”
The content of this second OCON from the DNC raises some
serious questions about the motives of its author. The fact that
the same typo remains on this second version is an indication
that it was not independently published but rather amended,
suddenly. The fact that there was a typo, at all, in both
versions indicates haste on the part of the DNC.
Also, notice the key language is tacked on the final sentence
in this second version of the DNC OCON rather than included in
the mid-body of the paragraph as with previous DPH OCONs. The
inclusion of the language previously omitted by the DPH's OCON
and the DNC OCON sent to every other state, indicates
nothing less than a conspiracy on the part of the DNC and the DPH
to force a confirmation of Barack Obama’s eligibility by the
state of Hawaii, without actually verifying it. This is apparent
because if either party authority had actually verified it, the
other would have also included the legally required language,
especially since both OCONs were notarized with seven days
remaining in the deadline to submit them to Hawaii CEO, Kevin
Cronin, unless, of course, the document was
actually submitted
to the Hawaiian Elections Office too late for revisions, which
is likely the case. Therefore, the DNC was forced to amend its
Hawaiian OCON specifically for Obama as a means of creating a
direct contradiction with the DPH’s
legitimate omission
of legal language which, if included, would certify Obama’s
constitutional eligibility in accordance with Hawaiian law.
Finally, as discussed previously, there is no FILING DATE
stamped on this document! The OCON submitted to the Hawaiian
Elections Office was one of fifty authored by the DNC and
submitted after August 28, 2008. Yet, the OCON received by the
State of Hawaii from the DNC is the
only one with no
filing date or RECEIVED DATE stamped on its face. A review of
OCONs submitted to every other state reveals the Elections
Office in those states affixed this stamp on their document. The
omission of this date stamp by the Hawaiian Elections Office is
particularly suspicious because, in accordance with HRS
11-113(c), (d) and (e), the RECEIPT DATE initiates a roster of
deadlines and correspondence between the Chief Elections Officer,
the applicant and the candidate, the first of which is a
written notification from Kevin Cronin informing the candidate if
they were either approved or denied for inclusion on the ballot.
The absence of this RECEIPT or FILING DATE suspiciously obscures
the time line which would reveal if the second OCON submitted by
the DNC was in violation of Hawaiian law or if it was actually
submitted BEFORE the DPH's OCON.
The obvious crime in this intentional dissemination of
misinformation is that if the DPH was unable to verify Obama’s
eligibility, the DNC would have also not been able to verify it.
Why would the DNC not share its verification documentation of
Obama's candidacy with the Democrat Party of Hawaii's official?
If the DNC was actually able to verify Obama's eligibility, the
DPH would have also acquired the same documentation to
verify it. If the eligibility of Obama candidacy was provable and
verifiable, both party authorities would have included the same
appropriate language in accordance with Hawaiian law. Hawaiian
law also allowed for seven more days from the dates appearing on
both OCONs to be filed if more time was needed for the DPH
and the DNC to corroborate the verification of Obama's
eligibility.
Also, if the original version of the DNC's OCON had been
authored with language confirming Obama's constitutional
eligbility, the DNC had no rational motive for submitting two
different versions. The inclusion of such language only
reinforces perception of Obama's eligibility in every state.
Therefore, the submittal of different documents indicates an
act of deception on the part of Nancy Pelosi and the DNC in an
effort to contradict the Democrat Party of Hawaii's OCON.
Was the opportunity available for Obama to
personally engage a meeting to discuss the matter of his lack of
legal qualifications to appear on the Hawaiian ballot? Was it
possible that he actually attended such a hearing?
The following account demonstrates the logistic and legal
opportunity as well as the fact that Obama was present and
unaccounted for during a period of several hours in Hawaii on October 24th, 2008.
This documented contradiction was intentional by the party
authorities because the very presence of this conflict activates a
series of lawful empowerments to the Hawaiian Chief Elections
Officer to make autonomous decisions about ballot content.
However, Administrative procedure law in Hawaii dictates that
certain correspondence and deadlines must be met first:
HRS 11-113 (1)(d) provides that "…Each applicant and the
candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant's
or candidate's eligibility or disqualification for placement on
the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the
tenth business day after filing. The chief election officer may extend the notification period up to an additional
five business days, if the applicants and candidates are provided with notice of the extension and the reasons therefore."
The Hawaii Democratic Party (DPH) submitted the Official
Certification Of Nomination to the Hawaiian Elections
Office as late as September 5, 2008. We can't confirm this date
because the Hawaiian Elections Office did not stamp and "RECEIVED
DATE" on the document, like the other 49 states did on theirs,
but the official filing date could have occurred on
September 8, 2008. Therefore, this means that, by adding the
optional five business day extension to the mandated 10 day
notification deadline, Cronin mailed the notification to Obama
between
September 26, 2008 and September 29th, 2008, accounting for
weekends, the Labor Day Holiday on September 1st, difference in
time zones and end of "business day" Fridays.
HRS 11-113 (1)(e) then provides that "…(e) If the applicant,
or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the
presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility
or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on
the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question."
Therefore, if Cronin notified Obama that he was not qualified
to be placed on the ballot in Hawaii, this means that Obama had
until approximately October 7th, 2008 to respond in writing
and request a hearing.
HRS 11-113(1)(e) then provides that "…A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on
the tenth day after the receipt of the request and
shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91."
Cronin would have received Obama's request sometime around
October
9th or 10th, 2008. However, like the OCON, Cronin is not
obligated to record receipt of the document on the same day it
arrives. Therefore, based on HRS 11-113(e), the latest Cronin was legally able to schedule a hearing for Obama was
sometime between Monday, October 20th and Friday, October 24th, 2008.
Cronin has been accused of being overly liberal with statutory
deadlines in favor of democrats in the past. In early August,
2008, Hawaii Republican Party (RPH) Chair, Willes Lee filed a
lawsuit against Cronin and the Office of Elections (
Willes Lee v. Cronin, Civil No. 08-1-1609)
challenging the candidacy of a local Democrat, Isaac Choy, to
the state's House (24th Dist.). Lee contended that Choy had been
unlawfully named a candidate by the DPH when his predecessor,
Kirk Caldwell (D), left the post early to run for City Council.
The suit alleged that Caldwell had notified the Elections
Office on July 22, 2008 that he was leaving the seat. Cronin,
however, after waiting until the next day to file the withdrawl,
contended that the 72 hour deadline allowed by Hawaiian Election
law was actually initiated on July 23rd, not the 22nd, allowing
for the DPH's selection of Choy to occur on Saturday, the 26th,
not Friday, the 25th.
.
Moreover, Hawaii Revised Statute, Administrative Rules,
Chapter 91-9 (d), Contested Cases; notice, hearing; records states: "
Any procedure in a contested case may be modified or waived by stipulation of the parties
and informal disposition may be made of any contested case by
stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default."
Essentially, this HAR allows Obama to request a reasonable
modification of procedure in order to accommodate a reasonable
schedule and effort needed to attend a contesting hearing.
Therefore, Obama could have have sought extra time after the
hearing began in order to accommodate a pressing personal
matter…like a sick grandmother.
Where was Obama between October 23rd and 24th, 2008?
On Monday, October 21, 2008, Reuters reported:
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama
will leave the campaign trail to go to Hawaii this week to visit
the ailing grandmother who helped raise him, an aide said on
Monday.
Recently his grandmother has become ill and in
the last few weeks her health has deteriorated to the point
where her situation is very serious," said Obama aide Robert
Gibbs.
Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who will be
86 on Sunday, helped raise him along with his mother, Ann
Dunham, and his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Gibbs would not
discuss the nature of her illness.
The candidate is canceling events in Madison,
Wisconsin, and Des Moines, Iowa, that had been scheduled for
Thursday. He instead will go to an event in Indianapolis,
Indiana, on Thursday, then fly to Hawaii to see his
grandmother. He will return to the campaign trail on Saturday,
Gibbs said."
On October21, 2008, ABC News reported:
"Sen. Barack Obama has made the very personal decision to
leave the campaign trail for two days to visit his ailing
85-year-old grandmother in Hawaii...
Although a candidate has never before stopped campaigning this close to Election Day,
Obama's running mate and surrogates will remain on the trail,
and more important, his ads will continue to run. Obama decided
Monday night to cancel campaign stops on Thursday and Friday and
fly to Hawaii to see his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham..."
ABC News then reported on October 24th, 2008:
"After spending about two hours with his ill grandmother in her apartment this morning, Sen. Barack Obama , D-Ill., took a short walk alone in the Makiki neighborhood of Honolulu outside his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham’s, apartment."
KHNL News Hawaii Reported on October 24th:
HONOLULU (KHNL) - Barack Obama's quick visit to the islands came to an end today. He
is the first presidential candidate in history to take two
days out of the campaign, this close to the general
election. But he says, this move is all about family.
Senator Obama's jet took off from Honolulu International Airport
this evening. His motorcade escorted by Honolulu Police made
its way down Lagoon Drive, to the runway. The democratic
presidential candidate's plane left Honolulu at about 5 o'
clock. Earlier today, the presidential candidate visited with
his beloved tutu, which was his main objective on this trip.
Multiple blog and media accounts say that Obama was in Hawaii
for approximately 22 hours over two days, an eternity for a
Presidential candidate in the final days of a campaign. Yet, he
spent only approximately two hours with his gravely ill
grandmother, allegedly alone, with no other immediate family
members. Except for his reported "stroll about the neighborhood",
no other accounting of Obama's time in Hawaii has ever been made
known during these hours.
If we accept Robert Gibbs' and the media's account of Obama's
"leisurely" time during these days, then it appears he would have
been free to attend to eligibility matters in Hawaii during
Friday afternoon, at which time it is highly likely he met
privately with Cronin, the DPH, the Hawaiian Attorney General and
members of the Election Commission. He also would have
signed a sworn affidavit falsifying that he was Constitutionally
eligible to serve as president, letting Schatz and the DPH off
the "legal hook", in exchange for Schatz' silence, of course.
Media coverage of Obama's campaign state that he was
delivering a rally speech in Obelisk Square in Indianapolis at
noon, EST on October 23rd. Private flight time on Obama's
campaign jet, from Indianapolis to Honolulu, is approximately
seven hours. Indiana is the western-most state in the eastern
time zone which means that if Obama left Indianapolis at 1:00
p.m. EST, subtracting times zones from flight time, he would have
arrived in Honolulu between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. that same
day. ABC News did a report on October 23rd which described some
of the amenities available on the campaign jet which included a
private cabin at the front of the plane where "Obama slept and
read comfortably," and engaged his staff in meeting rooms.
Oddly, the story mentions that Obama was particularly
conscientious in avoiding the media and staff reporters during
the trip.
At least one major media network states that Obama spent an
hour at his grandmother's apartment that evening around 7:00,
then he returned the next morning for about two hours departing
at about 11:45 a.m. Obama's time is unaccounted for between about noon
and 5:00 p.m. when he boarded his campaign jet for for a 5
hour flight to Reno where he arrived around midnight, October
25th.
Reno is in the Pacific Standard Time zone, two hours ahead of
Honolulu. He appeared at a rally on the Nevada-Reno University
campus at 10:15 a.m. where he spoke for 30 minutes to a crowd of
11,000, on Saturday, October 25th.
Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113(b) gave Cronin the
legal right to choose to include Barack Obama, an uncertified,
unverified and, therefore, ineligible presidential candidate on
the Hawaiian presidential ballot. HRS 11-113(b) states:
b) A "national party" as used in this section shall mean a
party established and admitted to the ballot in at least one
state other than Hawaii or one which is determined by the chief
election officer to be making a bona fide effort to become a
national party.
If there is no national party or
the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party
do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential
candidates, the chief election officer may determine which
candidates' names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the
candidates' names off the ballot completely.
Within the legal prose of these corruptive Hawaiian laws lies
the permission for the Chief Elections Officer (Kevin Cronin) of
Hawaii to include the name of an ineligible candidate (Barack
Obama) on the Hawaiian presidential ballot when the state party
authority (DPH, chair Brian Schatz) and the national party
authority (DNC, chair Nancy Pelosi) do not agree on the
eligibility of the candidate. As we know, Obama appeared on the
Hawaiian presidential ballot indicating that Cronin acted alone
in approving Obama's candidacy for ballot placement.
Hawaii's remote, ridiculous legal moorings have become
legendary during the saga of Obama's fake identity. By now, the
entire world is at least familiar with
HRS 338-17.8
which actually obligates (not, "provides the choice" for) the
Director of the Hawaiian Health Department to provide official,
original Certificates of Live Birth to foreign born
children when a least one parent of the child claimed Hawaii as
their residence for at least one year prior to the birth. This
law is a direct affront to the U.S. Constitutional mandate that a
presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen, if the
Director of Health in Hawaii assumes jurisdiction in declaring
that its citizens are natural born citizens...which Fukino
actually had the afoul audacity to do in a formal press release
in July, 2009.
Now we can include more examples of legal absurdity from laws governing the Hawaiian Elections Office.
Perhaps, someday, the politically poisoned, liberal creatures
of the defunct American media might engage their responsibility
as journalists and seriously inquire as to what other grand
proclamations the
State of Hawaii has made about this strange and ambiguous character referred to as "President Barack Obama."
On the other hand, maybe if Hawaii had another name,
like..."Alaska", we wouldn't even be suffering because of this
horrific deception.
SUMMARY
A comparison of the DNC's OCON sent to Hawaii with the OCONs
sent to every other state reveals a conspiracy to conceal Obama's
ineligibility. Notice the statement added to the Hawaiian
document in order to make it compliant with
HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B),
after it was discovered the DEMOCRAT PARTY OF HAWAII
refused to include the legally required language enabling
Hawaii's Chief Elections Officer to approve of Obama's inclusion
on the Hawaiian Presidential Ballot.
Hawaii Revised Statute
HRS 11-113 (d) and
(e), in collaboration with
HRS 91, 92 and
3-170
creates a series of deadlines which enabled Obama with an
opportunity to appear in Hawaii almost 45 days after the OCON
controversy occurred, but on the exact day prior to the final
deadline for inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot. This
time line was critical in creating the appearance that Obama's
only reason for visiting Hawaii more than three times in 4 months
was for personal reasons.
Obama's time in Hawaii from the afternoon of October 23rd
through October 25th remains largely unnaccounted for, except for
the brief time he spent with his sick grandmother.
Any conflict among party authorities over candidate
eligibility allows the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer the
autonomous choice whether or not to include the candidate on the
ballot anyway, per HRS 11-113(b), which Cronin did, regardless if
that candidate is proven eligible or not. Cronin is not
obligated to verify eligibility per HRS 11-113.
This indicates a crime. If the original OCON had contained the
amended statement prior to being signed, it would have been left
in the body of the statement for ALL the OCONs received by all
the states. There is no rational motive for the DNC to omit this
statement post-signing because it only reinforces
allegations by Obama and the DNC that he is eligible in every
state. Which he is not, at least we know, in Hawaii. The fact
that it only appears in Hawaii's OCON indicates a cover-up.
The lack of a "
RECEIVED DATE" stamp on the DNC's
Hawaiian OCON, which is present on other state's version, also
prevents an accurate determination of the latest possible date on
which Cronin was able to schedule a CONTEST HEARING with Obama
after finding Obama uncertified by the DPH. Obama would not have
wanted to give the appearance of dealing with an
ineligibility issue so close to the election, but he also would
not want to allow anyone to know their was a legal problem with
his inclusion on the ballot so near the date when Hawaii received
the Certifications of Nomination there. Cronin was permitted to
record his receipt of the OCON as late as Sept. 5, 2008, 60 days
prior to the election, which would have allowed the
hearing to begin sometime between October 10, 2008 and October
24, 2008, after exhausting the legally permitted time and
personal allowances in the process for scheduling according to
HRS 11-113(d) and (e).
Obama cancelled several campaign appointments, just weeks
before the election, and suddenly traveled to Hawaii on October
23, 2008
without his family, to visit his ill grandmother.
HRS 92-5-8 affords the Hawaiian Elections
Commission the permission to conduct private meetings with
candidates when information contained in vital records protected
under HRS 338-18 is to be considered.
This documented evidence, in coordination with actions by the
Democrat party's authorities and the actions of the Hawaiian
Chief Elections Officer in coordination with the provisions of
Hawaiian election law and Obama's behavior, in coordination with
the events of the campaign, his personal life, and his lack
of constitutional eligibility to be president all leave little
doubt that the election of Obama occurred extralegally and
outside the limits of constitutional legitimacy making him, at
least, an unconstitutional president and, at most, an enemy
usurper of American sovereignty.
By undermining the provisions of the constitution, Barack
Obama has injured the American people by illegally circumventing
their right to the protections against domestic threats and
ineligible usurpation of their sovereign liberties, which include
the right of trust and confidence in those presenting
themselves as legitimate candidates for government office.
The fact that very specific, and rational questions remain
unanswered about Obama's past, including the actions by officials
working within the government agencies of the State of Hawaii,
reveals nothing less than a web of legally knitted deception in
order to conceal the obviousness of Barack Obama complete
lack of Constitutional standing to be President of the United
States. As such, Obama's entire Presidency has been built on an
epic lie of such grand proportions no remedy remains except that
which can only come from the common-men and descendants of our
vintage American founders.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Reviewing The FACTS:
1. Electors from each state rely on each party’s state
authority in that state to certify the nomination of their
candidates and verify their legal qualifications to serve under
the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Hawaiian election law specifically requires each state’s
party authority to file a sworn application (Official
Certification of Nomination) with Hawaii’s Chief Elections
Officer certifying the eligibility of each candidate to serve as
President and Vice President of the United States.
3. Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113 (c) specifically requires that
this sworn application from each state party authority contains
explicit language stating that all candidates are legally
qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States
Constitution in order for the Chief Elections Officer to
approve the candidate for placement on the state’s presidential
ballot.
4. On August 27th, 2008, by notary testimony, authorities of the
Democrat Party of Hawaii (DPH) signed a sworn Official
Certification of Nomination and was required to submit the
document to Hawaii's Chief Election Officer, Kevin Cronin before
4:30 p.m. on
September 5, 2008 or September 8, 2008
allowing for the count of one additional business day for one
lost on Labor day.
5. The DPH, chaired by Brian Schatz, refused to include legally
required language, per HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), within the state
party’s Official Certification of Nomination stating that Obama
was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.
UPDATE: THE VERY SAME SCAHATZ.... Hawaii Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz Picked to Replace Late Sen. Daniel Inouye
THIS
IS AN INCESTUOUS EVIL CABAL..
. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hawaii-governor-announce-replacement-late-sen-daniel-inouye/story?id=18069645
6. The Democrat Party of Hawaii included this legally required
language for other Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates
in past elections dating to, at least, 2000 and 2004. Therefore,
the omission of this language within the DPH’s 2008 OCON of
Obama’s candidacy is not a mistake or an oversight. It was done
intentionally and with full understanding of Brian Schatz
that the Hawaiian CEO, Kevin Cronin, would not be legally
permitted to approve Barack Obama as a candidate on the Hawaiian
presidential ballot, unless the Democratic National Committee
(the national party authority) included this language in its
OCON.
7. The Republican Party of Hawaii included the legally required
language in its sworn 2008 Official Certification of Nomination
for John McCain and Sarah Palin, per HRS 11-113, without
reservation or exceptions.
8. The Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to acknowledge that
Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as president under
the provisions of U.S. Constitution and, therefore, the DPH
refused to provide legal certification allowing the Hawaiian
Chief Elections Officer to approve the placement of Barack Obama
on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.
9. Since the DPH did not provide legal certification of Barack
Obama's constitutional candidacy, Kevin Cronin, was required to
send a written notice to Barack Obama informing him that
the DPH
refused to provide legal certification of his
candidacy for approval of his inclusion on the State of Hawaii’s
2008 presidential ballot. Cronin was legally required
to send this notification within 10 business days from the time
Cronin received the OCON from the DPH. Cronin also had the
option, under HRS 11-113, to extend the notification deadline
five more business days for a total of 15 days from the day
the DPH filed the OCON.
10. The DPH's OCON is dated August 27th, 2008. However, HRS
11-113 provides that OCONs may be filed by 4:30 p.m. on no
less than the 60th day prior to the day of the election. In this
case, based on the alleged date appearing the DPH's OCON, the
DPH still had eight more days to file the OCON and perhaps
request verification documentation from Obama. Therefore, Obama
received his notification of the Hawaiian CEO's findings no later
than September 20, 2008.
11. However, documents provided by the Hawaiian Election
Commission show that the Democratic National Committee, chaired
by Nancy Pelosi, signed its 2008 Official Certification of
Nomination with a date of August 28, 2008. However, documented
evidence shows that the DNC also authored a separate version of
its OCON at a later time. One version was sent only to Hawaii
containing specific wording which directly contradicted that
state party’s Constitutional authority to declare that Barack
Obama was not constitutionally eligible to serve as president
and was, therefore, not approved for inclusion on the Hawaiian
presidential ballot.
12. Article IV-Section 4, Article IV-Section 1 and Article
II-Section 1 of the Constitution grants sovereignty for
certifying a candidate’s nomination and approving a candidate’s
inclusion on each state’s presidential ballot to each state. The
Democratic National Committee does not have the legal authority
to supersede the sovereignty of Hawaii’s appointed
authority to conduct election, approve ballot content and certify
the nomination of candidates.
13. By intentionally contradicting the findings of Hawaii’s
party authority for the purpose of forcing the state of Hawaii to
include Obama’s candidacy on its ballot, the Democratic National
Committee, headed by Nancy Pelosi, committed election fraud and
violated the Constitutional right of the people of the state of
Hawaii to an election process in which supreme power is
held by the citizens and their entitlement to vote for
Constitutionally eligible candidates.
14. The Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii’s
Chief Elections Officer by the DNC was not sent to any other
state’s CEO.
15. Based on the authority given them by the Constitution, some
states’ election laws do not require an explicit statement
indicating a candidate’s legal qualifications to serve under the
provisions of the Constitution, like Hawaii, but rather a general
statement citing documentation that the candidate is qualified
under federal law to serve as President and Vice President.
16. The DNC sent a different OCON to every other state omitting the reference to Constitutional eligibility.
17. Cronin sent written notification to Obama stating that Obama
was found legally qualified to serve as President under the
provisions of the U.S. Constitution based on the DNC’s OCON.
18. The Democratic Party of Hawaii and the Democratic National
Committee do not agree with one another about the Constitutional
qualifications of Barack Obama.
19. Cronin’s notifications have never been revealed to the public.
20. If the notification from Cronin to Obama stated that Obama
was found not qualified to be on the Hawaiian ballot, Obama had
five business days after the finding to send a written
request for a hearing to contest the finding and reconcile his
lack of eligibility with the DPH.
21. Upon receiving a request for a hearing from Obama, Cronin
was obligated to schedule the hearing within 10 business days of
receiving the request.
22. Hearings to contest candidate eligibility findings are
conducted under Administrative Procedures governed by HRS AR 91.
23. AR 91 allows a petitioner for a hearing to request
reasonable scheduling accommodations in order to attend the
hearing based on travel, personal matters and/or financial
issues.
24. The hearing would have been conducted around mid to late October, 2008.
25. Barack Obama’s grandmother was reported to have become gravely ill in early to mid October, 2008.
26. Barack Obama was in Hawaii in mid October, 2008. The
American public was told that his only business there was to
visit with his ill grandmother.
27. Obama went to Hawaii, suddenly, without his wife and
children, even though Dunham's condition was reported to have
been expectedly declining for several weeks, during which, at any
time, Obama could have otherwise scheduled a planned visit. The
exclusion of Dunham's great-grandchildren and Michelle Obama
during this visit is odd. Madelyn Dunham did not pass away
for two more weeks after Obama's visit having never been visited
by Obama's family in her final months.
27. HRS 11-113 (b) states: If there is no national party or the
national and state parties…do not agree on the presidential and
vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may
determine which candidates' names shall be placed on the
ballot or may leave the candidates' names off the ballot
completely.
28. Barack Obama was included on the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot.
