by Pen Johannson
Editor, The Daily
Pen
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 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
officials and their unmonitored 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 handlers 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 concequences. 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, was the endowment
of executive political power to a like-minded, radical agent who would "push"
extreme doctrine enabling the governmental confiscation of advanced American
invidualism. Otherwise, if that truth fails to impress, then we should simply
consider the massive five trillion dollars of added indebtedness upon our
children and grandchildren, since Democrats took over the government in 2006,
the cost of being America.
By now, America is
realizing that 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, globally! Obama's desire for
economic equality is motivated by the very same communistic values which have
failed humanity for more than 200 years.
However, since communism
cannot succeed in America, the neo-liberal establishment is exploiting the
executive powers usurped by Obama as a President 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 this radical ruling class. The following
report is just one of many authored by other Americans which attempts, in small
part, to do this.
THE "O"
CON
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
Hawaii in charge of requesting, reviewing and verifying the legal qualifications
of a candidate's eligibility for inclusion on the Hawaiian ballot, in compliance
with state and Constitutional election laws.
Ultimately, the DPH's
rejection of Obama was due to a refusal by Obama to make available the original
documented evidence confirming his eligibility. However, this justifiable 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.
.
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 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.
Unfortunately, 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 in order to force
Obama's candidacy onto the Hawaiian presidential ballot. Of course, Democrats
claim there was no impropriety on the part of Pelosi and the DNC. However, they
have failed to explain why the state party authority refused to certify Obama,
due to his lack of legal qualifications, while the national party authority
simply certified Obama, ignoring that same lack of legal qualifications. The
lack of accountability makes the Democrat Party appear pathetically
disreputable. 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 candidate authenticity
for 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 synthetically place Obama's
inauthentic candidacy onto Hawaii's presidential ballot, it violated
Constitutional election law requiring that each state maintains the sovereign
authority to grant or deny ballot inclusion based on their own standards.
Most
egregious, however, 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 ballot.
SCHATZ'
ASCENDANCE
Compounding the OCON
controversy is the elevation of several minor characters of the "Obama For
President" script into positions of significant professional and political
advancement. Since Obama's election, multiple employees and officials in Hawaii
have been promoted, transfered or elected to higher positions after they played
integral roles in assisting Obama's enthronement.
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.
. 
Former DPH Chair, Brian
Schatz, now serves as
Hawaii's Lt. Governor under
Gov. Neil Abercrombie (2010).
As DPH
Chair, Schatz authored the state's Democrat
Party
OCON for Obama without including legally required
language stating that Obama
was constitutionally
eligible to serve as
president. Schatz won the Lt. Gov.
seat
by a wide margin after two years of remaining
silent
about his OCON controversy.
At first
glance, one might think 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" or "FILED DATE" stamp by
the Hawaiian Elections office like the certification documents in the other 49
states were. Therefore, the possibility remains that the OCON submitted by
Schatz may have actually been filed after the first "non-Constitutional" OCON
was submitted from the DNC. This would indicate a possible violation of Hawaiian
election law HRS 11-113(c)(1) which sets a precise deadline for the submission
of this document by the party authorities to the Hawaiian Chief Elections
Officer.
.
Without,
the "RECEIVED" or "FILED" date stamp, it is
impossible to determine which document was produced first or whether both
documents were submitted to the Hawaiian Elections office before the deadline.
The fact that these documents do not contain this stamp raises serious suspicion
about their authenticity and about the expected chronology of their chain of
possession. To anyone not associated with election procedures, the absence of
this stamp might appear like a simple administrative oversight, but to anyone
with basic understanding of laws governing official records, this is a shocking
dereliction. Compounding this unlawful omission by the Hawaiian Elections
Office, the DNC's OCON submitted to Hawaii was also not affixed with this
stamp.
The official dating of
documents is essential for authorities to track the chain of possession and
transaction of documented information. Marks, signatures and stamps allow them
to know who has seen the document, who has attested to its content and when the
document reached certain people and destinations. These determinations allow
officials to know when to initiate administrative procedures and, most
importantly, deliver written correspondence to candidates and/or applicants in
accordance with election laws, especially if disparities arise during the
evaluation of criteria used to approve eligibility for 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. Failure to indicate the date(s)
of any election document's original content or official transaction is a
grievous, intentional act meant to conceal or abscure the chronology of
that document's creation and chain of possession.
However,
the shocking lack of accountability on the part of the Hawaiian Office of
Elections and Kevin Cronin essentially forces a conclusion that these two
documents were never officially received or filed into the record of the 2008
election, yet they are being disseminated as the original records used to
certify Obama. These blatant administrative failures command an investigation
into the authenticity of Obama's documented nomination in Hawaii, the
individuals in the chain of possession from creation to filing, and the time
frame during which these documents were created, signed, notarized, submitted
and officially filed with the Elections authority.
Based on
the OCON submitted by Schatz, Cronin was forced by Hawaiian statutory
requirements 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 sensitive, correspondences between
Schatz, Cronin, and possibly, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod in order to balance
legal deadlines, plan campaign logistics and manage political vulnerability. At
the conclusion of the process, we know that Obama was included on the Hawaiian
presidential ballot without any protest by Schatz.
After the 2008 election,
the relationships between these entrenched individuals conspicuously changed.
Schatz, the youngest state party Chairman (2008-2010) in U.S. history at 35, and
former member of the Hawaiian House of Representatives (1996-2006, originally
elected at the age of 24), entered the race for Lt. Governor and won the
position to Gov. Abercrombie's administration, essentially making him the proxy
administrative boss over the Chief Elections Officer. Schatz' ascendance to
executive power essentially went unscrutinized in the wake of his involvement,
and suspicious inaction, in the OCON controversy.
Schatz announced his
candidacy for the Lt. Governor's race, the second-highest political seat in the
State of Hawaii, on January 10, 2010 after serving as the DPH chairman during
Obama's 2008 run for the White House. Of all ten major party candidates running
for the position, 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.
On January 14, 2010,
Schatz was formally endorsed by Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's sister, when Soetoro-Ng
returned to Hawaii after a three month stay in Washington D.C. with
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. 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.
.
QUESTIONS THE MEDIA
FAILED TO ASK
.
After the DNC submitted
a customized OCON, allegedly on August 28th, why did Schatz refuse to inquire to
the DNC or request from the DNC the evidence used by the DNC to determine
Obama's eligibility in Hawaii?
.
Why did the DPH not have
access to this information directly from the State of Hawaii, like the DNC did?
.
Are we supposed to
believe that the DNC, in Denver, almost 4000 miles away, had acquired documented
proof from the state of Hawaii to legally approve Obama's eligibility, yet the
state party authority, whose headquarters is within walking distance from the
State of Hawaii records and elections offices, was somehow not able to obtain
this evidence before the DNC?
.
Moreover, after the DNC
submitted their OCON, allegedly with seven full days remaining in the filing
deadline, why was the DPH not able to simply revise their OCON to include the
legal language after reviewing the evidence used by the DNC to certify Obama's
eligibility?
.
The lies and abetment of
Obama's illegitimacy in Hawaii are so glaring, it is breath-taking.
.
Perhaps the most
important question, however, is: Was Schatz politically rewarded for cooperating
with the DNC's fraudulent certification in 2008?
.
Appearances are worth
more than evidence in politics. What is known is that after justifiably filing
an official OCON document omitting critical statutorial language which would
otherwise certify Obama's candidacy, Schatz had very little to say after the DNC
overwrote his authority to oversee the validation of Democrat candidates for the
ballot in Hawaii. Schatz legally stated that Obama failed to provide adequate
information proving that he was legally qualified to serve as president under
the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which he was legally empowered to do,
yet the DNC certified Obama's eligibility thereby claiming that Schatz and the
DPH did not have access, nor was ever provided with some, as yet undisclosed,
"secret", unverified evidence supporting Obama's eligibility that only the DNC
was privileged to possess. The absurdity of this scam is laughable and utterly
criminal.
Obama appeared on the
Hawaiian ballot in 2008. However, Schatz knew there was no documented evidence
confirming Obama's eligibility, yet he allowed the DNC to circumvent his
authority, without protest. Then, miraculously, two years later, at the mere age
of 37, Schatz is elevated to a position to become the Chief Executive Officer of
the home state of the man whose lack of legal qualifications he, along with
Pelosi and the DNC, helped to conceal from the American people. The lack of congressional investigation into
the conduct of Hawaii's election operations is astonishing.
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 the state 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 an annexation of Obama's administration...like a co-opted municipal agency
placed in charge of Obama's secrets and personal documents.
ANGLES
AND TRICKS: (A.K.A, HAWAIIAN LAWS AND CHICAGO
POLITICS)
From the beginning,
Obama's campaign drones knew that if any state Elections Officer, let
alone the one overseeing the legality of election procedure in the very state
where Obama grew up, was forced to disqualify Obama's candidacy on the grounds
of him being found ineligible there, the issue would have exploded into a
firestorm of mainstream inquiry. Imagine the explanation that would have been
damanded of the Hawaiian government if Obama actually failed to appear on their
ballot. How would other states have been able to justify Obama's inclusion on
their ballot if the very state of his alleged origins would not even put him on
theirs? Of course, 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 spin their cowardice behind political justifications. However, this
was not possible in the chronically liberal, remote bastions of
Hawaii.
.
Certainly the media
failed. The American people understand this. However, the most troubling part of
this drama is, quite simply, the irregular behavior by the Democrat party,
specifically Obama's throng, when they were faced by something as
routine as an eligibility certification. This erratic behavior should
have triggered a warning throughout the known universe of journalism. If nothing
else, it should have prompted some high profile journalist to ask some basic
questions. Yet, it was met with a bizarre and cowardly silence by the
mainstream.
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 endictment against
Obama. His 2008 campaign and, possibly, his political career, would not have
survived the revelation of the devastating documentable evidence against him,
but since the media failed to investigate and inform the people, we can
conclude, with confidence, that the media was complicit in the dishonest
contortions used to prevent such ramifications for Obama. The media's
dereliction in the wake of such obvious illicit behavior has injured the
confidence of the American people for years 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 supress public knowledge about Obama's legal
requirement to meet specific deadlines and 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 would 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 soon after his previous visit, it
looks very suspicious and invites media inquiry.
In order to avoid the
destructive political consequences, Obama had to engage a private meeting away
from the media. 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 members of 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..
How does this
Administrative Rule apply to Obama? Recall, the Hawaiian Department of Health
(HDH) has stated that the public disclosure of information contained in vital
records to anyone without tangible reasons for obtaining it is prohibited by
state law HRS 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, based on this tenet,
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.
LAP DOGS & BLOOD
HOUNDS
Obama's presence in
Hawaii in October, 2008 ignited suspicions which seemed to resonate among
several high profile media sources. On the October 23 broadcast of his radio show,
Rush Limbaugh said:
"Who announces days in advance they're
rushing to the side of aloved one who is deathly ill, but keeps campaigning in a
race that's said to beover, only to go to the loved one's side days later? See,
I think this is about something else. You know what's really percolating out
there? And I've beenlaying low on this because it just -- it hasn't met the
threshold to pass thesmell test on this program. But this birth certificate
business, this lawsuitthat a guy named Phillip Berg filed in Philadelphia in
August for Obama toproduce his genuine birth certificate, and he still hasn't
replied, he hasn'tdone so.
When you first announced this, you're
gonna rush, you're gonna hurry, you're gonna make tracks, you're gonna get over
there because you don't want your grandmother to die before you got there like
your mother did, but somehow you keep campaigning, you take three days to get
over there, if he's left yet. And this birth certificate business -- I'm just
wondering if something's up. I have no clue, and I -- folks, I'm telling you,
this has not reached the threshold until now, and it's now popping up all over
the place."
Mr. Limbaugh's
premonitions are well oriented. He just didn't quite follow his instincts about
the true motives for Obama's behavior and explicitly say the words...which was
exploit the condition of this grandmother for political reasons while also
giving the sentimental public appearance of being a family-oriented man who
cared for his sick grandmother.
During an appearance on the October 22, 2008
broadcast of G. Gordon Liddy's radio show, WND reporter and author, Jerome Corsi
said:
"I'm headed out to
Honolulu. I am not convinced that Barack Obamais going because his grandmother
is sick. I appreciate that his grandmother is sick and he wants to be with her.
I do recall that Barack Obama's mother died of cancer, and he didn't go to be by
her side when she died. He relates that in his autobiography, Dreams From My
Father. And I'm going out to do what digging I can on the birth
certificate.
I think I'll
accomplish something in Hawaii, too. Obama's headed out there, and I believe
there's a court challenge that if Obama does not dodge, he's gonna be forced to
produce a birth certificate, and there's gonna be something damaging on that
birth certificate, because even at the eleventh hour, Obama refuses to show us
the hospital-generated birth certificate when he was
born.".
The implications are magnetic and compelling. The lasciviousness
of the scheme makes it heart-wrenching. While the last living member of Obama's
extended family clings to her final moments...or perhaps had already passed
prior to Obama's arrival, the political scavengers and the ideologically afoul,
having confiscated Obama's existence, were actually exploiting her pain and
death for their political gain. Projecting a final thought in those moments in
that woman's apartment, we gain understanding of the contemptible
scene...
"If Obama waited too long to go to Hawaii, the old-bag
might kick the bucket early and leave Obama with no "personal" reason to hide
under. A premature death would prevent Obama from protecting his political image
while he proliferated more lies about the unresolved facts of his epic
illegitimacy. This would leave him exposed just 11 days before the most
prolific, fraudulent Presidential election in history, and force him to answer
for the actual reasons he was called to Hawaii, which was to rebut claims by the
Democrat Party's state authority that he was, simply, an inferior candidate
without legal qualifications...or, worse, if he went to Hawaii too early, before
the wise medical doctors had a chance to deliver their scripted testimony of a
media-approved "looming death decree" -- worthy of Obama's doting presence --
there would have been no way to hide the reasons for another trip there, yet
again, in coming weeks, when the political deadlines demanding his presence
finally arrived.".
.
"Never let a crisis go to waste", right? The entire affair is
despicable and should impose shame on those involved, including everyone in
Obama's family, his administration, the media, the State of Hawaii, and the
Democrat Party...and, unfortunately, the American people for not violently
protesting such disgraceful conduct. Is there any wonder why there is no decency
in government today?
.
In summary, Obama sought 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 to contest the DPH's refusal to certify his
nomination.
5. Exploit the story of
Obama's grandmother's illness, allowing Obama to schedule the trip precisely
while citing the doctor's assessment of his grandmother's condition as an excuse
to be in Hawaii. However, if Dunham died too soon, or was "not sick
enough" to warrant his cancellation of campaign events so close to an
election, Obama would be left exposed to media investigation about the truth of
all of his activities in Hawaii on October 24th, 2008.
On October 23rd, 2008,
even the ultra-liberal New York Times took notice of
Obama’s sheepish trip off the grid:
"On a whirlwind trip back to
Hawaii, Senator Barack Obama spent more than an hour visiting his ailing
grandmother late Thursday and is set to return to her bedside on Friday morning
after arriving here on a nine-hour flight from the Midwestern battleground of
the presidential campaign.
On the trip to Hawaii, Obama
stayed in the secluded front cabin of his campaign plane, reading and rarely
talking with a handful of aides who came along. The knot in his red tie was
loosened as he walked down the aisle of his plane to stretch his legs, but he
stayed a safe distance from a small group of reporters who accompanied
him...
"...It
was an unusual departure from the tug-of-war of the presidential campaign, with
11 days remaining in the race. While Mr. Obama is only going to be gone for one
full day – Friday – it still is an unusual occurrence at this point in a
presidential campaign."
“It’s not optimal, but there was
never any debate or discussion or
anything,” David Axelrod, the chief
strategist for Mr. Obama said in an
interview Thursday. “Barack’s grandmother
is one of the formative people in his
life. He wants to go see her on the
advice of her doctors. He had to do it now.
So we’ll just make do.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics
On October 25th, Star
Advertiser reporter, Laurie Au gave this peculiar first hand account of Obama's
evasive behavior.
The only exciting part of the day
(Friday October 24th, 2008) occurred shortly after 10 a.m., when his campaign
aides told us Obama would be taking a walk along Young Street in his old Makiki
neighborhood. Apparently there was some
confusion, though, because by the time we reached Young Street, Obama was
already two blocks away, forcing about a dozen of us — media and staff — to
chase after him. We stopped a respectful distance away, but he
still appeared down and slightly unhappy to see us.
Our day ended just after 5 p.m.
when Obama and more than 60 other staff and media boarded his private plane to
Nevada for more campaigning.
http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/inside-obamas-press-bus/
Au’s account of Obama’s schedule on
the morning of October 24th obviously
indicates that Obama was able to slip
out of his grandmother’s apartment without
being noticed by the media.
Thereafter, there is no accounting of presence
before or after this "solo
stroll" until his appearance at the airport. Au then
reports that the next
accounting of Obama's presence was when he boarded his
plane seven hours
later at 5:00 p.m. So, the obvious question arising from the
media’s fallow
account is where was Obama between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Friday,
October 24th?
You have to hand it to the
Obama political syndicate. They squirrelled this one to a tee. It's sad that it
was so evil, sheepish and dishonest. Obama was able to pull an epic deception
off on the American people, and most of them bought the entire story without any
hesitation.
Members of the mainstream
network media, on the other hand, have a special wrath stored up for themselves
over this one. They were simply played like the fawning tools they have been
ever since Obama tickled their fetish six years ago. This proves that today's
journalists are a disgrace to their profession. They are not even journalists.
They are nothing more than adoring propagandists for the Obama administration.
Its disgusting, and they deserve to have this grand lie summarily forced down
their gullet, suffering from all the infirmities as it putrifies inside them.
They were used so efficiently by Obama it is laughable.
HAWAIIAN ELECTIONS AUTHORITYThe 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 to confirm voting
registration information. National party authorities do not have the
jurisdiction, resources or logistic capacity to ensure voter apportionment in
and between states. The intrusion of the national party authority upon a state
party authority during an election is akin to a federal agency, like FEMA,
taking over for a local fire department in putting out a house fire or rescuing
a cat from a tree. It is a complete misallocation of resources and a violation
of jurisdictional laws governing the assurance of voting security. However, this
is exactly what the DNC did in Hawaii in 2008.
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 affiliated political party authority, with support of the national 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 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. Cronin served as the CEO in Hawaii for only two years before
resigning amid a series of controversial lawsuits and lapses in administrative
accountability, including a failure by Cronin to register as a Hawaiian voter
immediately upon assuming the office of the CEO.
Name, Position and Date of Term
ExpirationKevin 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 was 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.
An
investigation of Hawaii Revised Statutes, along with documented evidence,
reveals that, Cronin, 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, adminstrative 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.
As absurd as this
seems...it actually happened in Hawaii in 2008.
Cronin resigned from his
position in December 2009 amid the controversies plaguing the Hawaii elections
office and Obama's OCON saga. Sources say that he was not forced to resign but
evidence shows a pattern of circumstances under Cronin's management in which his
"autonomous" approach to managing election procedures may have violated Hawaii
election laws. He faced at least two lawsuits challenging the manner in which he
made decisions about election procedures, deadlines and vending contracts.
However, Cronin's resignation is suspicious because it occurred immediately
after the OCON controversy went public in Fall of 2009. The public exposure of
the OCON documents revealed that the Elections Office, under Cronin, had
violated Hawaiian election laws by failing to properly document and record the
chain of possession of these legal documents. The order of records and filing
date of Obama's Hawaiian OCONs with the Office of Elections remains unknown,
even to this day.
.THE
SCENE OF THE CRIMEOn August 27, 2008, the Democratic Party of
Hawaii (DPH), led then by Chairman, Brian Schatz and acting Secretary, Lynn
Matusow, signed and had attested by notarization, an Official Certification of
Nomination (OCON) for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Some time between August 27,
2008 and 4:30 p.m Hawaiian Time (9:30 p.m. Eastern Time) September 5, 2008, the
DPH filed the document with Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy
provided for public review does not contain a Hawaiian Elections Office
"RECEIVED DATE" stamp, which is a suspicious omission because the date of
reception by the Elections Office initiates the succession of correspondence and
deadlines for review, response and possible hearings available to those opposing
the findings of the CEO.
The OCON sent to Cronin by
the DPH contained the following words in the body of its content:
"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that
the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States
(Obama and Biden) are legally qualified to serve under the provision
of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll
and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and
by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in
Denver, Colorado."
The only proclamation this
document makes is that Democrat Party of Hawaii asked a group of Democrats who
they preferred as their nomination for President. However, unfortunately for
Obama and the Democratic voters of Hawaii, Hawaiian Revised Statute
11-113 (c)(1)(B) specifically requires that this statement must
explicitly state that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under
the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the
Hawaiian Elections Commission and the Chief Elections Officer to be able to
approve the candidate for ballot placement.
Specifically, the wording
of each party’s Hawaiian OCON must adhere to the requirements of HRS
§11-113 (c)(1); Presidential Ballots, which states:
(c) All candidates for president and vice
president of
the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the
general election ballot under the following procedures:...
...(1) In the case of candidates of political
parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general
election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall
file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later
than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the
general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of
the two candidates;
(B) A
statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions
of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the
duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the
time, place, and manner of the
selection.
The Democratic Party of
Hawaii’s OCON for Barack Obama clearly did not meet the requirement of
HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), which clearly states that the (DPH) party
official (Brian Schatz) shall file a sworn application with the chief election
officer (Kevin Cronin) which explicitly includes “…a statement that each
candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United
States Constitution…” and is to be filed not later than 4:30 p.m. on the
sixtieth day (September 5, 2008) prior to the general election (November 4,
2008).
Let's mete out the
scenerio giving the benefit of doubt to the DPH, first. Perhaps this was simply
an omissive error. Maybe the DPH "forgot" to include legally required language
in its OCON for Obama on August 27, 2008 and didn't realize the error for
another nine days until after the September 5th filing deadline had passed.
Or, despite the fact that
the DPH OCON states that Obama was chosen by the DPH Preference Poll and Caucus
back in FEBRUARY of 2008, nearly six months earlier, we are to believe
there just wasn't enough time to include the required statement that Obama was
legally qualified by the constitution for approval for ballot placement by the
Chief Elections Officer, and therefore the DPH simply ignored the requirement
hoping to sneak it by the Election Commission.
However, comparing
documented evidence of OCONs from previous elections reveals that the Democratic
Party of Hawaii’s OCONs for both Al Gore/Joe Lieberman in 2000 and John
Kerry/John Edwards in 2004 both had the following identical
language:
“THIS IS TO
CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the
United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the
United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both
the state and the national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential
Preference Poll
and Caucus held in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at
the National
Democratic Convention held
in...”
The Democratic Party of Hawaii included the
explicit statement required by HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B) that the 2000 and 2004
candidates were legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United
States Constitution, but the DPH did not do the same for Obama. Also, in another
comparison, the Hawaiian Republican Party’s 2008 OCON, signed by RPH Chairman,
Willes K. Lee, for John McCain and Sarah Palin, states:
“We do hereby certify that at a
National Convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United
States, duly held and convened in the City of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on
September 4, 2008, the following person meeting the Constitutional
requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the
following person meeting the Constitutional
requirements for the Office of Vice President of the United States were
nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election,
November 4, 2008…”
The Republican Party of Hawaii’s Official
Certification of Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin clearly includes the
words “…meeting the Constitutional requirements…” and is dated
September 4, 2008, and is notarized by Sheila Rae Motzko, notary of Minnesota.
Therefore, the RPH obviously had no reservations in certifying the eligibility
of McCain and Palin.
Given the indisputable facts that the DPH had
included the language in previous OCONs, indicating officials were fully aware
of the legal requirement, and that the selection of Obama took place more than
six months prior to the submittal of the OCON, indicating they had ample time to
review any evidence, if it exists, of Obama's eligibility, it becomes
impossible that the DPH either forgot about the need for the specific
language or that the DPH simply ignored it. Therefore, the DPH
intentionally omitted the language stating that Obama
is legally qualified under the provisions of the U.S. constitution because he is
not.
THE "MESS"
The Democratic National Committee
(DNC), chaired by Nancy Pelosi, signed and had attested by notarization, its
national Official Certification of Nominations with all fifty states on August
28th, 2008. We conclude this based on the "RECEIVED DATE" stamp provided on
multiple states' DNC OCONs of "AUGUST 29th, 2009", and the
notarization date of August 28. This sworn application was filed sometime
between August 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008 with the Hawaiian Chief Elections
Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy provided by the Hawaiian Election office for
public review, however, does not contain a RECEIVED DATE stamp like other
states' OCONs do.
However, a review of the Democratic National
Committee’s OCONs for Obama reveals a shocking irregularity in the composition
of its Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii. On December 19,
2008, Hawaii’s Chief Elections officer, Kevin Cronin, in response to a written
request by a Colorado resident for a copy of the Official Certification of
Nominations, sent a letter and a copy of the DPH’s OCON and the DNC’s OCON.
However, analysis of the DNC OCON sent to Hawaii in comparison with the DNC’s
OCON sent to other states, reveals that they did not match. In fact, Hawaii’s
version of the DNC’s OCON contained specific wording not included in
the versions sent to ALL the other states, which directly contradicts the
Democrat Party of Hawaii's OCON. All the states' Election Commissions, except
for Hawaii's, were sent one Official Certification of Nomination with the
following statement:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the
National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America,
held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly
nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the
United States respectively”
The typo
“though” is not a mistake. It actually exists in the official document.
Notice, in this version of the DNC’s OCON, there is no mention of Obama’s
Constitutional eligibility. However, in the version sent separately to Hawaii’s
Election Commission, it states the following:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the
National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America,
held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly
nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the
United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and
Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States
Constitution:”
The content of this second
OCON from the DNC raises some serious questions about the motives of its author.
The fact that the same typo remains on this second version is an indication that
it was not independently published but rather amended, suddenly. The fact that
there was a typo, at all, in both versions indicates haste on the part of the
DNC.
Also, notice the key
language is tacked on the final sentence in this second version of the DNC OCON
rather than included in the mid-body of the paragraph as with previous DPH
OCONs. The inclusion of the language previously omitted by the DPH's OCON and
the DNC OCON sent to every other state, indicates nothing less than a conspiracy
on the part of the DNC and the DPH to force a confirmation of Barack Obama’s
eligibility by the state of Hawaii, without actually verifying it. This is
apparent because if either party authority had actually verified it, the other
would have also included the legally required language, especially since both
OCONs were notarized with seven days remaining in the deadline to submit them to
Hawaii CEO, Kevin Cronin, unless, of course, the document was actually
submitted to the Hawaiian Elections Office too late for revisions, which is
likely the case. Therefore, the DNC was forced to amend its Hawaiian OCON
specifically for Obama as a means of creating a direct contradiction with the
DPH’s legitimate omission of legal language which, if included, would
certify Obama’s constitutional eligibility in accordance with Hawaiian
law.
Finally, as discussed
previously, there is no FILING DATE stamped on this document! The OCON submitted
to the Hawaiian Elections Office was one of fifty authored by the DNC and
submitted after August 28, 2008. Yet, the OCON received by the State of Hawaii
from the DNC is the only one with no filing date or RECEIVED DATE
stamped on its face. A review of OCONs submitted to every other state reveals
the Elections Office in those states affixed this stamp on their document. The
omission of this date stamp by the Hawaiian Elections Office is particularly
suspicious because, in accordance with HRS 11-113(c), (d) and
(e), the RECEIPT DATE initiates a roster of deadlines and
correspondence between the Chief Elections Officer, the applicant and the
candidate, the first of which is a written notification from Kevin Cronin
informing the candidate if they were either approved or denied for inclusion on
the ballot. The absence of this RECEIPT or FILING DATE suspiciously obscures the
time line which would reveal if the second OCON submitted by the DNC was in
violation of Hawaiian law or if it was actually submitted BEFORE the DPH's OCON.
The obvious crime in this intentional
dissemination of misinformation is that if the DPH was unable to verify Obama’s
eligibility, the DNC would have also not been able to verify it. Why would the
DNC not share its verification documentation of Obama's candidacy with the
Democrat Party of Hawaii's official? If the DNC was actually able to verify
Obama's eligibility, the DPH would have also acquired the same documentation to
verify it. If the eligibility of Obama candidacy was provable and verifiable,
both party authorities would have included the same appropriate language in
accordance with Hawaiian law. Hawaiian law also allowed for seven more days from
the dates appearing on both OCONs to be filed if more time was needed for the
DPH and the DNC to corroborate the verification of Obama's eligibility.
Also, if the original
version of the DNC's OCON had been authored with language confirming Obama's
constitutional eligbility, the DNC had no rational motive for submitting two
different versions. The inclusion of such language only reinforces perception of
Obama's eligibility in every state. Therefore, the submittal of different
documents indicates an act of deception on the part of Nancy Pelosi and the DNC
in an effort to contradict the Democrat Party of Hawaii's
OCON.
THE "FIX" 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,
Adminstrative procedure law in Hawaii dictates that certain correspondence and
deadlines must be met first:
HRS 11-113(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 DPH submitted the OCON
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(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(e) then also
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, 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 - 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 his sister, Maya. 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 to eight 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 and
adding an hour for a refueling stop in Sacramento at 3:00 PST, he would have
arrived in Honolulu between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. that same
day.
At least one major media network
states that Obama spent an hour at his grandmother's apartment that evening
beginning around 7:00, then he returned the next morning for about two hours
departing at about 10:45 a.m. Obama's time is unaccounted for between about
11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on October 24th, when he boarded his campaign jet for
for a 5 hour flight to Reno where he arrived around midnight PST, 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.
THE
FINALE
Hawaii Revised Statute
11-113(b) then 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 serously 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, as one of
the newest states, if Hawaii had a different name, like..."Alaska", we wouldn't
even be having a discussion about eligibility.
SUMMARY
A comparison of the DNC's OCON sent
to Hawaii with the OCONs sent to every other state reveals a conspiracy to
conceal Obama's ineligibility. Notice the statement added to the Hawaiian
document in order to make it compliant with HRS
11-113(c)(1)(B), after it was discovered the DEMOCRAT PARTY OF HAWAII
refused to include the legally required language enabling Hawaii's Chief
Elections Officer to approve of Obama's inclusion on the Hawaiian Presidential
Ballot.
Hawaii Revised Statute HRS
11-113 (d) and (e), in collaboration with HRS
91, 92 and 3-170 creates a series of deadlines which
enabled Obama with an opportunity to appear in Hawaii almost 45
days after the OCON controversy occurred, but on the exact day prior to
the final deadline for inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot. This time
line was critical in creating the appearance that Obama's only reason for
visiting Hawaii more than three times in 4 months was for personal reasons.
Obama's time in Hawaii from the
afternoon of October 23rd through October 24th 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.
Madelyn Dunham's death was reported
on November 3rd, 2008. It allegedly occurred at about 3:00 a.m. on November 2nd.
No official medical documents, death certificate or coronor's report of her
passing has ever been publicly revealed..
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
FACTS1. 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)(1)(B)
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 attestment,
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.
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 notarization 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 29th, 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, 92
and 3-170.
23. AR 91-9 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.
QUESTIONS FOR
CONGRESS
QUESTION 1: Why, after
including the legally required language for previous Democratic candidates in
elections past, did chairperson, Brian Schatz and the Democrat Party of Hawaii,
refuse to include the legally required language upon submitting it for the
approval of that state party’s 2008 Official Certification of Nomination when
they submitted it to Kevin B. Cronin and the Hawaiian Election
Commission?
QUESTION 2: Did Kevin Cronin,
Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer in 2008, approve the placement of Barack
Obama’s name on the presidential ballot for the 2008 federal election, in spite
of the fact that explicit language stating that Obama was Constitutionally
eligible to run for president was omitted from the Official Certification of
Nomination submitted by the Democrat Party of Hawaii?
QUESTION 3: Did Kevin Cronin,
Chief Elections Officer, in coordination with the Hawaiian Election Commission,
and HRS 11-113 (1)(d), notify Barack Obama in writing, of his eligibility or
disqualification for placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot and what date
did he provide this notification?
QUESTION 4: If a notice of
disqualification was sent to Obama, upon receiving this notice from the Hawaiian
Elections Commission, did Barack Obama file a request, per HRS 11-113 (1)(e), in
writing to Mr. Cronin and what date did he submit this request?
QUESTION 5: Did Cronin
schedule Obama to a hearing and what date was this hearing scheduled?
QUESTION 6: Where was Obama
between October 20th and 24th, 2008?
QUESTION 7: Was Obama present
in Hawaii during the time when a hearing was conducted with the Hawaiian
Elections Commission regarding his disqualification from the 2008 Hawaiian
Presidential ballot?
QUESTION 8: Why did the
Democratic National Committee author two separate Official Certifications of
Nomination for Barack Obama, sending one version to Hawaii but not the other 49
states?
QUESTION 9: Did The DNC send
two separate versions of its OCON to the Hawaiian Election Commission, and if
so, why did it do this?
QUESTION 10: What secret
evidence, which was obviously not accessible to the Democrat Party of Hawaii
(the very state Obama was born in), did Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National
Committee acquire to determine Barack Obama’s legal qualifications to serve
under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and, thereby, include such
language in its OCON?
QUESTION 11: When it was
determined that the state and national party authorities of the Democratic Party
did not agree on the status of Barack Obama’s eligibility, did the Chief
Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin Cronin, determine to include Obama on the
Hawaii presidential election ballot with authority provided by HRS
11-113(b).
QUESTION 12: What
documented evidence was used by the DNC, which was not available to the Democrat
Party of Hawaii, to determine that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve
as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution?
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
officials and their unmonitored 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.