Friday, March 22, 2013

Professor Makes Students “Stomp on Jesus”

Just in time for Holy Week are many reports about this controversial incident involving a local college professor at Florida Atlantic University in Davie, Florida making his students literally stomp on paper after they were instructed to write the name Jesus on it.

By Todd Starnes
A Florida Atlantic University student said he was punished after he refused a professor’s directive to stomp on a piece of paper with the word “Jesus” written on it. The university, meanwhile, is defending the assignment as a lesson in debate.
“I’m not going to be sitting in a class having my religious rights desecrated,” student Ryan Rotela told television station WPEC. “I truly see this as I’m being punished.”
Rotela, who is a devout Mormon, said the instructor in his Intercultural Communications class told the students to write the name “Jesus” on a sheet of paper. Then, they were told to put the paper on the floor.
“He had us all stand up and he said ‘Stomp on it,’” Rotela said. “I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table.
The young college student told the instructor, Deandre Poole, that the assignment was insulting and offensive.
“I said to the professor, ‘With all due respect to your authority as a professor, I do not believe what you told us to do was appropriate,’” Rotela said. ‘I believe it was unprofessional and I was deeply offended by what you told me to do.’”
Rotela took his concerns to Poole’s supervisor – where he was promptly suspended from the class.
Poole did not return calls seeking comment.
According to his university profile, he has a PhD from Howard University and is authoring a book titled, “Obamamania: The Rise of a Mythical Hero.”
A university spokesperson told they could not comment about Rotela’s case due to student privacy laws.
However, the university is defending the instructor’s assignment to stomp on the name of Jesus.
“As with any academic lesson, the exercise was meant to encourage students to view issues from many perspectives, in direct relation with the course objectives,” said Noemi Marin, the university’s director of the school of communication and multimedia studies.
“While at times the topics discussed may be sensitive, a university environment is a venue for such dialogue and debate,” Marin added.
The lesson on bashing the name of Christ is included in a textbook titled, “Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, 5th Edition.”
Fox News obtained a synopsis of the lesson that got Rotela in trouble.
“Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper,” the lesson reads. “Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”
Paul Kengor, the executive director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, told Fox News he’s not surprised by the classroom lesson.
“These are the new secular disciples of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ – empty buzzwords that make liberals and progressives feel good while they often refuse to tolerate and sometimes even assault traditional Christian and conservative beliefs,” Kengor said.
Kengor said classes like the one at Florida Atlantic University demonstrate the contempt many public institutions hold for people of faith.
“It also reflects the rising confidence and aggression of the new secularists and atheists, especially at our sick and surreal modern universities,” he said.
The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus – and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.
“Gee, I wonder if the instructor would dare do this with the name of Mohammed,” Kengor wondered.
Rotela said the idea of stomping on the name of Jesus was beyond his comprehension.
“Any time you stomp on something it shows you believe that it has no value,” he told the television station. “If you were to stomp on the word Jesus – it says the word has no value.”


Deandre Poole teaches courses in intercultural communication, ethnicity and communication, leadership and communication, and organizational communication. His research focuses on the role mediated messages play in shaping individual attitudes and beliefs concerning issues of justice and inequality, and examines how leaders, organizations, and other influential authorities dominate and oppress marginalized groups of people. Currently, he is authoring the book, Obamamania: The Rise of a Mythical Hero, to be published by the Edwin Mellen Press. In addition to his academic pursuits, Dr. Poole is actively engaged in various community service projects throughout Palm Beach County.






Wednesday, March 20, 2013

How Long do you want to be a Bitch working for the Progressive Pimps!!




1) Only in America could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black

3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."

7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.

Sunday, March 17, 2013



SO THEY BANNED ME AGAIN...FOR ANOTHER 30 DAYS. If you are my friend on Facebook please let all my Friends Know!


3/17/13...This is the Picture that offended the PANSY SHITS at FACEBOOK... REALLY ?? AND THEY BANNED ME FOR 30 DAYS

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Top US Federal Judge Assassinated After Threat To Obama Agenda..Target was NOT Gabby Gifford

We are looking at the wrong file. The target was not Gabby Gifford....

A Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin states that the top US Federal Judge for the State of Arizona was assassinated barely 72-hours after he made a critical ruling against the Obama administrations plan to begin the confiscation of their citizen’s private retirement and banking accounts in order to stave off their nations imminent economic collapse, and after having the US Marshals protecting him removed.
According to this SVR report, Federal Judge John McCarthy Roll was the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona who this past Friday issued what is called a “preliminary ruling” in a case titled “United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al” [Case Number: 4:2010cv00703 Filed: November 30, 2010] wherein he stated he was preparing to rule against Obama’s power to seize American citizens money without clear and convincing evidence of a crime being committed.
The case being ruled on by Judge Roll, this report continues, was about bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States that the Obama administration claimed was their right to seize under what are called Presidential Executive Orders, instead of using existing laws. The Obama administration used as support for their claim before Judge Roll, the SVR says, the seizing of all American citizens’ gold, in 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s signing of Executive Order 6102, which was ruled at the time to be constitutional.
Should the Obama administration win their argument to seize their citizen’s money by Executive Order without having to abide by the law was made more chilling this past week when reports emerged from the US stating that President Obama and his regime allies were, indeed, preparing to rule America by decree since their loss this past November of their control over the US House of Representatives, and in the words of the Washington Posts columnist Charles Krauthammer: “For an Obama bureaucrat … the will of the Congress is a mere speed bump”.
Since taking office in early 2009, Obama has completely overturned the once free United States through his use of Executive Orders that asserts his power to put anyone he wants in prison without charges or trial forever and his right to assassinate any American citizen he deems a threat.

The most chilling of these powers Obama has asserted for himself, however, are contained in Executive Order 13528 he signed nearly a year ago (January 10, 2010) creating a Council of Governors he has hand-picked to rule over the United States in place of its elected representatives when their next “disaster” strikes and orders them to begin “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities”.

Going from the chilling to the outright scary, about whatever “disaster” the American regime is preparing their people for, is Obama’s Homeland Security Department, through their Ready.Gov organization, beginning to air this past week a public service television commercial titled “World Upside Down” that shows a typical family sitting in their home suddenly losing all of its gravity and warning all who watch it to begin preparing.

Interesting to note about the assassination of Judge Roll is that it is being blamed on a “lone gunman” said to be mentally unstable (aren’t they all) said directed at a US Congresswoman named Gabrielle Giffords, who survived this mass killing, and that killed at least 5 other innocent people, including a 9-year-old girl named Christina Taylor Green “curiously” born on September 11, 2001 (9/11).

Equally interesting to note about the assassin, a 22-year-old man named Jared Loughner, is that he is being described by the propaganda media organs in the US as an “anti-government” type individual who prior to this mass killing is said to have left “crazed rantings” on the Internet, but whose “handler”, described as a white male between 40-50 years old with dark hair, is still being sought after.

The circumstances surrounding Judge Roll’s assassination by Loughner, also, mirror those of Farouk Abdulmutallab (aka The Underwear Bomber) who “used cash to buy a one-way ticket to the United States at the last minute while carrying no luggage and being on a terrorist watch list. Incredibly, his father had communicated to the US Embassy in Nigeria in November that Abdulmutallab had been radicalized and may be planning a terrorist attack.
At least one witness—passenger Kurt Haskell—claimed that a well-dressed Indian man had escorted Abdulmutallab to the ticket counter and told a ticket agent that Abdulmutallab didn’t have a passport but needed to get on the plane.”
To if this Loughner is able to join the long list of CIA/US Military “mind controlled” assassins there appears to be no doubt as his actions, past, present and future, shows his fitting the “profile” of these maniacs as detailed in the massive lawsuit currently wending its way through the US Federal Court system [United States District Court Northern District Of California, San Francisco Division Case: CV-09-0037] filed against the US government by hundreds of veterans, and as we can read as reported by the Raw Story news service:
“It’s well known that the CIA began testing substances like LSD on soldiers beginning in the 1950s but less is known about allegations that the agency implanted electrodes in subjects. A 2009 lawsuit claimed that the CIA intended to design and test septal electrodes that would enable them to control human behavior. The lawsuit said that because the government never disclosed the risks, the subjects were not able to give informed consent.”
To if the American people will ever be told the truth about Loughner and his assassination of Judge Roll there seems little doubt as the Obama regime is fighting with everything it has to keep the information on these “mind controlled” assassins secret, and as we can read as reported by the Courthouse News service:
“The Central Intelligence Agency in January (2011) will argue for dismissal of Vietnam veterans’ claims that the CIA must provide them with information about the health effects of chemicals used on them during Cold War-era human experiments. The CIA also claims it is not obligated to provide the veterans with medical care for side effects of the drugs. It’s the CIA’s third attempt to get the case dismissed.
“In a 2009 federal lawsuit, Vietnam Veterans of America claimed that the Army and CIA had used at least 7,800 soldiers as guinea pigs in “Project Paperclip.” They were given at least 250 and as many as 400 types of drugs, among them sarin, one of the most deadly drugs known to man, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene gas and LSD.
Among the project’s goals were to control human behavior, develop drugs that would cause confusion, promote weakness or temporarily cause loss of hearing or vision, create a drug to induce hypnosis and identify drugs that could enhance a person’s ability to withstand torture.
The veterans say that some of the soldiers died, and others suffered grand mal seizures, epileptic seizures and paranoia. The veterans say the CIA promised in the 1970s to compensate those who were made guinea pigs, but the 2009 complaint states that the government “never made a sincere effort to locate the survivors.”
In its 32-page motion to dismiss the group’s third amended complaint, the CIA claims it has no legal obligation under the Administrative Procedures Act to provide the veterans with notice of the drugs’ health effects and that the veterans’ notice claim “rests solely on state common-law duty.”
The CIA claims that the law on which the veterans base their claim for health care compensation stems from the Department of Defense and Army regulations, “which do not purport to have a binding affect on the CIA.” And it claims that the Defense Department “never intended nor committed to providing medical care for service member participants in the test programs.”
Based upon the CIA’s assertion that the US Defense Department “never intended nor committed to providing medical care for service member participants in the test programs” clearly shows their knowing of the existence of these “mind control” assassins, like Loughner, leading one to wonder how many more of them are out there, and even worse, when they will strike next.
One can only hope that there is some “power” in America today able to stop the madness currently taking over that once great nation before all is truly lost, we hope it is much sooner than later for all of the worlds sake.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes: Listed by Size of Tax Hike

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes: Listed by Size of Tax Hike

Complied by Americans for Tax Reform
WASHINGTON, DC -- Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill.
$123 Billion: Surtax on Investment Income (Takes effect Jan. 2013): A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:

Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans.  The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)
$86 Billion: Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
All Remaining Wages
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
3.8% self-employed
Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93
$65 Billion: Individual Mandate Excise Tax and Employer Mandate Tax (Both taxes take effect Jan. 2014):
Individual: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337
Employer: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346
(Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion)
$60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers (Takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.  Phases in gradually until 2018.  Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993
$32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family).  Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions.  CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
$23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105
$22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980
$20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
$15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995
$13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).  Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389
$5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959
$4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
$4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
$2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399
$1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959
$0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000                                                                                                              
$0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004
$ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971
$ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957


Friday, March 8, 2013



President Obama recently stated assertively, "This is the most transparent administration in history, and I can document how that is the case."


Obama made the comment without batting an eye or even causing a lightning fact his comment was uttered with his usual apparent sincerity. Obama, however, was remiss in not tying the added phrase, "the most ethical administration" in history, to the transparency statement as is often his want.

The President did this as his administration simultaneously battled to suppress details of the CIA has secret drone program kill list even if the target is an American citizen. Then, just days later Obama disappeared during a mini vacation in Florida to play golf (some with Tiger Woods) for four days without press access.

The press that usually spreads rose petals in the President's path was generally outraged by the lack of access during the golfing and an astonishing amount of criticism ensued. For example, Anne Compton of ABC News said, "The way the president's availability to the press has shrunk in the last two years is a disgrace...This White House goes to extreme lengths to keep the press away."

The mainstream media (MSM) has slowly begun to recognize Obama's tactics of marginalization, manipulation and a failure to practice transparency, particularly with those that would ask tough questions. These tactics when placed in the context of the transparency Obama promised on day one of his presidency..."to be the most open and transparent in history"... have become of late quite grating to the MSM and some in the public.

Perhaps the importance of transparency/openness bears some discussion. The American Heritage dictionary defines transparency as, "the quality or state of being transparent... guileless, candid, open; easily understood or detected." From a governmental standpoint transparency can be "understood as the availability and accessibility of relevant information about the functioning of the polity" (Curtin & Meijer, 2006). The professors go on to say an organization's transparency can be measured by the "depth of access it allows," "the depth of knowledge about processes it is willing to reveal" and the "attention to citizen response."

Transparency and openness have obvious strengths that include increasing organizational efficiency, reducing corruption, assisting in evaluating performance and certainly building public support and legitimacy. It can also be argued that transparency lowers costs since the decision processes are open to scrutiny, criticism and positive revision. Certainly in other venues (e.g. business) decisions that are clear, logical, rational, truthful and accurate are accepted and gain support with greater ease within an organization.

The Obama administration has developed and published a statement on transparency to the White House web site. The statement establishes a goal of "creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government" and has paragraph long sections on transparency, participation and collaboration. Ironically the site also has a legal disclaimer at its conclusion. Based on the executive branch's record, people both inside and outside of government may be wondering if anyone in the administration has read the statement.

Numerous examples of a lack of transparency exist in this administration and warrant mention, some egregious:

  • In May 2008, during the campaign, Obama did not release his full medical records. Instead he submitted a one-page doctor's letter that raised the eyebrows of some but not those of The New York Times and other MSM news sources.
  • During the mid-term campaigns of 2010 Democrats and President Obama railed against 'anonymous foreign donors' yet Democrats established new political organizations (PACs) for 2012 using models that allowed a majority of their donors to be veiled. The most notable example was Bill Burton's Priorities USA. Priorities, in an infamous ad, charged Romney with "murder" because a Bain Capital termination removed an individual's health coverage.
  • President Obama promised the White House would maintain a detailed (and public) visitor log. According to the Center for Public Integrity both the names and details relative to meetings have routinely been omitted. Politico observed that "five junior staff aides together received more than 4,440 visits"..."by contrast, then chief of staff Rahm Emanuel famed for his workaholic schedule, was listed as having fewer than 500 visits." The practice of obfuscating the visitor log and the frequency of visits continues to this day.
  • Both the ACLU and the Sunlight Foundation have taken serious exception with the administration's proposed changes to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines. In essence the Department of Justice (DOJ) would be given the unilateral power to decide that documents do not exist and therefor prevent congressional and judicial oversight. The DOJ already has the power to deny access to documents for national security reasons; a process that is open to appeal. The proposed change in the guidelines, at core, would authorize and allow administration lying.
  • Relatively early in Obama's presidency Operation Fast and Furious reared its head. The operation was a gun-walking program designed to track the placement of weapons into the hands of key drug cartel leaders in Mexico. The DOJ essentially lost track/control of the weapons that then began to surface at crime scenes; one of which was found to have killed a border patrol agent. As information began to reach the public and congress, administration officials went to the foxholes. Eventually executive privilege was cited by Obama to protect Attorney General Eric Holder and others involved. Investigatory efforts continue to be stonewalled by the administration.

The forgoing examples do not include Obama's efforts to hide facts relative to Benghazi, aggressive efforts to stop FOIA requests from being fulfilled, demands to force disclosure of James Risen's (a New York Times reporter) source on a security matter and the growing EPA scandal ...the examples can go on ad nauseam. Just this week it was disclosed that key White House operatives had threatened both Bob Woodward and Lanny Davis for writing critical narratives on administration activities. The lack of transparency coupled with intimidation is apparently an Obama tactic.

Even in the face of much of the above, the President received an award last year for his administration's transparency -- presented behind closed doors. Nevertheless a growing level of indignation is finally rising in the long dormant MSM... a media that has essentially been a no critique zone for President Obama until his recent lack of transparency, openness and media manipulation.

Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer and FOIA expert, said "It's kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six (six administrations doing FOIA work), this is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There's just no question about it." David Sobel, a senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation states that "despite the positive rhetoric that has come from the White House...guidance (on transparency) has not been translated into real world results in actual cases...Basically the reviews are terrible."

Thus does President Obama's recent claim regarding his administration's transparency and openness stand up to critical evaluation? Given the dismal record exposed in the forgoing only a crazed few would give his recent assertion any credence at all. The Obama record can be reasonably called a fade to black by utilizing manipulation, stonewalling, a compliant media, lying and outright threats to hide its failures and scandals


Tuesday, March 5, 2013


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!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++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:

Here is the Other:

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 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 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 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.

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


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.