NANCY PELOSI RIGGED THE 2008 ELECTIONS BY FORGING THE HAWAII CERTIFICATION DOCUMENTS FOR OBAMA. ( FULL DETAILED EXPOSE. PLEASE READ AND SHARE ) ITS NEVER TOO LATE TO EXPOSE THE FACTS. She Got kick backs for her work!

READ HOW NANCY PELOSI RIGGED THE 2008 ELECTIONS!!

ITS WHY SHE IS SO WEALTHY NOW! She was paid through kickbacks to her Husband and Brother

IT WAS ALL RIGGED.
Stalin said it best: "It does not matter who votes in the election.. .. It matters who counts the VOTES!!!"

The details of the following account seem somewhat daunting, and even overly exhaustive.  However, it is more important to remember that Obama's agents engaged the prerequisites of his illegitimacy with exhaustive investigation and extreme premeditation long before they pushed him onto his present stage.  They looked at all the angles.  They weighed all the consequences.  They engaged all the legal provisions, and how to "bend", but not break, them. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL IN THEIR EDITORIAL TODAY SAID THAT OBAMA IS WORKING TO GET NANCY PELOSI RE ELECTED AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE! NOW THE WHOLE SEQUESTER AND FISCAL CLIFF DRAMA AND PELOSI'S STATEMENT LAST YEAR WHEN SHE "GUARANTEED" THAT OBAMA WOULD WIN... ALL FELL INTO PLACE! 

 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/16/nancy-pelosi-everybody-knows-mitt-romney-will-not-be-the-next-president/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Here is what the Wall Street Journal Said Today:
Obama's Pelosi II Strategy
The Washington Post reveals the real second-term priority.
Old Washington hands have been scratching their heads about the start of President Obama's second term, with its aggressive liberal priorities and attacks on Republicans. Whatever happened to governing? Well, the answer arrived this weekend as the Washington Post reported that Mr. Obama's real plan for the next two years is returning Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker in 2014.

Columnist Dan Henninger on President Obama's conception of the economy and the place of government and the private sector.
"The goal is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats, strategists and others familiar with Obama's thinking," reports the Post, which is hardly hostile to the President.
The article says that shortly after finishing his speech on Election Night last year, Mr. Obama called Mrs. Pelosi and Steve Israel, who runs the Democratic House re-election campaign, to discuss 2014. The strategy fits Mr. Obama's unprecedented new effort to raise $50 million in $500,000 chunks to fund Organizing for Action (OFA), which will spend millions in GOP-held districts. Mr. Israel says he met in January with Jim Messina, Mr. Obama's 2012 campaign manager who now runs OFA, to discuss the 2014 races.
White House press secretary Jay Carney pushed back against the article on Monday, saying 2014 is "not a focus" for Mr. Obama. But that looks like an attempt at damage control after the Post blew the White House's cover. Mr. Obama has to appear to want bipartisan deals even as he prepares the ground for blaming Republicans in 2014 when those efforts fail.
This is already clear on the budget, as Mr. Obama insists on a second tax increase that Republicans can't accept. We're also increasingly worried about White House sabotage on immigration reform, as it pushes the bill left on a guest-worker program and enforcement. Mr. Obama is doing exactly what you'd expect if he doesn't want a deal and plans to use the issue to drive minority turnout in 2014.
It's important to understand how extraordinary this is. Presidents typically try to secure major bipartisan deals in their fifth or sixth years, before their political capital ebbs. That's what Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan did, and George W. Bush tried on Social Security. Mr. Obama seems to think he can use the next two years mainly to set up a Pelosi House that would let him finish his last two years with a liberal bang.
The next time you hear Mr. Obama, House Democrats or one of their media acolytes talk about GOP "obstructionism," refer them to the Washington Post article that shows what they really intend for the current Congress. Bipartisan failure is their strategy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THEN I GOT IT!! THE WHOLE GAME PLAN!!  AND THE RECIPROCATING THE FAVORS AMONG THE CRONIES.All this goes back to 2008... Nancy Pelosi orchestrated the Obama Presidency by falsifying the Certification for Obama to run for President. No wonder Nancy Pelosi's district get all the Obama Largesse!
Apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Obama as their nominee for president were two documents.

This link was scrubbed :  http://theobamafile.com/_images/DNCCertificationOK.jpg

So here is another as a PDF

http://www.calvarypo.org/HANDS/0700.pdf http://theobamafile.com/_images/DNCCertificationBogus.jpg

One contains language affirming his constitutional eligibility, filed in Hawaii where state law requires the specific language, and another omits the language, filed in the remaining 49 states.  Now a series of reports, including those from Butterdezillion, are revealing the local state party's stance in 2008.
Danae contends that Hawaii refused to include language that specifically stated that Obama was legally and constitutionally eligible to run for POTUS.  One day after that, Nancy signed the one document certifying his eligibility as legally and constitutionally eligible to Hawaii.  Nancy Pelosi is the one who certified that Barack Obama was eligible to run for POTUS for Hawaii.  Hawaii refused to do so because they know he is not eligible.
Hawaii is also likely guilty of massive citizenship fraud and welfare fraud committed from the date the Islands became a state.  Anyone could get a certificate of live birth for a baby "born at home" with nothing other than the signature of a "witness."  At the time Hawaii had a large influx of immigrants from Asia, remember Viet Nam?  A lot of those folks came through Hawaii as their Ellis Island.  Only Hawaii didn’t handle it so well.  So they made it easy to "late" register births of babies so that they could qualify for state and federal assistance.  Those babies had no right to American Citizenship, and who knows how many of them there are.  Obama happened to fall into that time period.  So quite literally he could easily be one of those babies, if indeed as suspected, his birth documents show a late form, and a place of birth as a home address.
Now, take it just one step further.  Obama knows all about this -- as many Hawaiians do.  The State is desperate to keep this scandal from becoming public, because the scope of it is huge.  We aren’t talking about a few hundred in a year, we are talking about thousands over more than a decade.  It's how Hawaii got more federal assistance, sign up more babies for every program on the books from schools to immunization, to welfare -- you name it.
So Hawaii is desperate to keep that off the radar of the public and press.  Obama, knowing this, has likely made it clear to Hawaiian officials -- including a previously unfriendly Governor Linda Lingle -- "hey you better protect my records, or this whole mess in its entirety is likely to become public."  That's some motivation don’t you think?
Hawaii is not protecting Obama per-say, though Obama is using that in order to cover up his real ineligibility for POTUS.  Hawaii is covering up its own massive crimes.  Citizenship fraud on an institutional scale, and welfare fraud also on an institutional scale.
Now, Nancy has to get documents that state Obama is eligible.  Hawaii refused to certify him as eligible.  Thus Nancy had a choice: fraudulently certify Obama for Hawaii herself, against the constitution -- this is an illegal act -- or take Obama off the ballot.  Imagine what would have happened if she took him off the ballot!  OMG, the entire Democrat party would have been out for her head, and I don’t mean the elected officials, I mean the Kool Aid drinking masses who were all whipped up and wee weeed up -- and yea, riots.  At the very least.
So Nancy broke the law and certified Barack Obama herself for the State of Hawaii.  That is the reason this document went to Hawaii and only Hawaii.

Analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nomination for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 was to visit more than just his sick grandmother.  Hawaiian election laws and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a hearing with Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.

Honolulu, Hawaii

At the center of the war over Barack Obama’s illegitimacy as president are a series of deep seated, unanswered questions about the detailed involvement of several municipal employees and officials within the government of the State of Hawaii.  From former governor, Linda Lingle’s convenient deniability to former Health Department director, Chiyome Fukino’s intentionally misleading statements about Obama’s vital records.  From the blatant, dismissive ignorance of Hawaii’s legislature about the difference between "U.S. Citizenship" and "Natural-born citizenship", to the claims by a former Honolulu senior elections office clerk that the State of Hawaii does not possess an original, 1961 Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama, the State of Hawaii has emerged as the primary, perhaps unwitting, co-conspirator in keeping Obama’s identity a well kept secret from the American people.

Now, however, a new investigation of Hawaii’s Election Commission and the laws used by the state’s Office of Elections to approve or deny candidates for inclusion on presidential ballots raises shocking revelations about the administrative power held by too few unaccountable people and their capacity to override the U.S. Constitution.  The evidence reveals that municipal agents, working within the jurisdiction of Hawaii state law and complex administrative rules, opened shadowy legal channels which, ultimately, enabled Obama with an opportunity to usurp presidential power and assault the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people.

Setting The Stage
 The details of the following account seem somewhat daunting, and even overly exhaustive.  However, it is more important to remember that Obama's agents engaged the prerequisites of his illegitimacy with exhaustive investigation and extreme premeditation long before they pushed him onto his present stage.  They looked at all the angles.  They weighed all the consequences.  They engaged all the legal provisions, and how to "bend", but not break, them.  The evidence reveals they may have even pushed too hard on the limits of lawful conduct.

If those seeking the truth about Obama's identity are not equal to that same diligence, then they should question their understanding of the importance of constitutional sovereignty.  Remember, among the primary objectives of liberal globalists, in concealing Obama's identity and, ultimately, his illegitimacy, were to endow political power to a like-minded, radical agent who would be willing to "push" extreme doctrine enabling the governmental confiscation of advanced American individualism.  Or, should we simply consider the massive five TRILLION dollars of added indebtedness upon our children and grandchildren since 2006 the cost of being American?

Obama was tactically positioned not to make America a better nation for all of its citizens, but rather to confiscate the value of America's superior, prosperous heritage and redistribute it to those he and the liberal establishment believes are more deserving of it.  Obama's desire for economic equality is motivated by communistic values.  However, since communism cannot succeed in America, the neo-liberal establishment is exploiting the executive powers usurped by Obama to enact "punitive" legislation which, essentially, redirects money from vintage American society into an epic liberal cause sought since the end of World War II.  Two generations ago, the American people sought to prosper from their work.  Now, under Obama, the definition of a new "American Dream" has been hijacked by those lusting to make a profit by defaming the prosperity and sacrifice of coming generations.


Therefore, our momentary visit into the realm of plausibility serves well the value of our new found lessons and reinforces the importance for the American people to seize responsibility and proactively protect the sovereignty of their blood-ransomed, Constitutional freedom.  Sometimes, in order to accomplish this, we must vigorously deny access to those with plural, or ambiguous, allegiances.  Otherwise, we should resign ourselves to the idea that our value as the last hope for humanity can never be defended or preserved.  Unless of course, we are willing to cast out the peddlers of corrupt ideas.

Expulsion is an essential first step in physically removing foul influences which undermine the intended goodness of our founders.  This starts by identifying and exposing the components of corruption by members of our ruling class.  The following report is just one of many authored by other Americans which attempts, in small part, to do this.


Recall, over the past two years, we became familiar with the furor over the Democrat Party of Hawaii's refusal to certify Obama's constitutional eligibility. The DPH is the Democrat Party authority in charge of requesting, reviewing and verifying the legal qualifications of a candidate's eligibility for inclusion on the Hawaiian ballot, in compliance with Hawaiian and Constitutional election laws.

Ultimately, the DPH's refusal to certify Obama was due to a failure by Obama to make available the original documented evidence confirming his eligibility. However, this correctly justified lack of certification by the DPH was followed by a covert attempt by the Democratic National Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi, to artificially proclaim Obama eligible in Hawaii by submitting two separate, sworn Official Certifications of Nomination (OCON) for Obama, each containing different legal language. Both versions of the OCON were sent to the Hawaiian Office of Elections while only one version was submitted to other states' Election authorities. The DNC's fraudulent OCON was an obvious, desperate attempt to control damage and prevent Obama from being disqualified from the Hawaiian ballot and prevent public awareness of the DPH's refusal to certify Obama's eligibility. As stated by Hawaii's Office of Elections in 2008:

"The Official Certification of Nomination is a legally required document submitted by each party's state and national authority to every state elections committee authority prior to each presidential election. It affords the Chief Elections Officer in each state with the documented legal assurance that the candidates seeking inclusion on their state's ballot are indeed certified as constitutionally eligible to serve the office they seek.".

The violation committed by the DNC's falsified certification is that there was no evidence to support claims of Obama's eligibility. The DNC simply fabricated reasons over the authority of the state party authority to certify it. Of course, Democrats will claim there was no impropriety on the part of Pelosi and the DNC. However, if the state party authority refuses to certify a candidate due to a lack of legal qualifications, the national party authority cannot then simply certify the same candidate without ignoring that same lack of documents. That's absurd! The DNC is not served by the multiple state party authorities, it is there to serve the state party authorities. Federal constitutional law prescribes the mandates for Presidential eligibility, but state authorities have the responsibility for validating the authenticity of their own ballot.

The OCON controversy is an example of what happens when dishonest, inferior people try to force themselves into positions of power they are not qualified to assume. Even those who seek to uphold the honorability of service at the local level, within their own party, will eventually refuse to endorse their candidacy if the disparity of legal qualifications becomes irreconcilable.

Not only was the dual OCON a deceitful maneuver by Nancy Pelosi and DNC to force Obama's unverifiable candidacy onto Hawaii's presidential ballot, it violated Constitutional election law requiring that each state maintains the authority to grant or deny ballot inclusion based on their own standards.

Most egregious, however, is that the agents running Obama's political machine, those of legal mindedness, knew beforehand this very intraparty conflict legally enabled the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin Cronin, to invoke an obscure law and approve Obama's inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot...even though Obama was never determined with irrefutable documented evidence to be constitutionally eligible to appear on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

Schatz' Ascendance

Compounding the OCON controversy is the elevation of several minor characters of the "Obama For President" script into positions of significant advantage.

In August, 2008, just two months before the election, the Democrat Party of Hawaii’s (DPH) chairman, Brian Schatz, had already refused to include legally required, explicit language in its sworn Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) that Barack Obama was qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

The DPH's OCON document was allegedly submitted to the Hawaiian Election's office between August 27th and September 5th, 2008. At first glance, it appears Schatz was simply acting with discretion and, if nothing else, upholding the appearance of legal prudence over political partisanship. However, a review of records held by the State of Hawaii reveals this document was not affixed with a "RECEIVED DATE" stamp by the Hawaiian Elections office like the certification documents in the other 49 states were. The DNC's OCON submitted to Hawaii also was not affixed with this stamp.

This official dating of documents is essential for authorities to know when to initiate administrative procedures and correspondence with candidates and/or applicants if problems arise during the processes used to approve eligibility and ballot content. Hawaiian election laws, like many states' laws, are particularly precise about the deadlines governing the actions and procedures required for the Chief Elections Officer and the candidate during this process.

However, the shocking lack of accountability on the part of the Hawaiian Office of Elections and Kevin Cronin essentially means that these two documents were not officially received and filed into the record of the 2008 election, yet they are being disseminated as the original records used to certify Obama. This now demands an investigation into authenticity of Obama's documented nomination in Hawaii and the time frame during which these documents were created, signed, notarized, submitted and officially filed with the Elections authority.

Regardless, based on the OCON submitted by Schatz, Cronin was forced to disqualify Obama from the presidential ballot in Hawaii until a lengthy administrative process reconciled the disparity. This process created a series of politically implicative, but highly discreet, correspondences between Schatz, Cronin, and possibly, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod in order to balance legal deadlines, campaign logistics and political vulnerability. At the conclusion of the process, we know that Obama was included on the Hawaiian presidential ballot without any protest by Schatz.

Raising intense skepticism is the ongoing, rebranding of the relationships between these entrenched individuals. Schatz, the former DPH Chairman (2008-2010) and former member of the Hawaiian House of Representatives (1996-2006), has now become the Lt. Governor essentially making him the proxy administrative boss of Cronin. Schatz sudden ascendance to executive power essentially went unscrutinized in the wake of the OCON controversy. He announced his candidacy for the Hawaiian Lt. Governor's office, the second-highest political seat in the State of Hawaii, on January 10, 2010 after serving as the DPH chairman. Of all ten major party candidates running for the position, and 51 eligible representatives, Schatz' official nomination was issued later than any other candidate, on July 7th, yet he won the nomination just months before the election with 39% of the vote, after receiving high profile endorsements and incumbent promotions from individuals close to Obama.

In September, 2010, Star Advertiser reporter, Herb Sample asked why so many people would seek a position bearing no real power under the governor and no real responsibility over the many directors doing the work for Hawaii's multiple agencies. The answer to Sample's question is the only one which makes sense.
.

"I think most people want it as a way of becoming governor," former University of Hawaii history professor Dan Boylan said.

As of 2010, of the only six Governors serving the state of Hawaii, three of them were Lt. Governors while at least one other was elected to the U.S. Congress. The Lt. governor position also pays a comfortable six figure salary ($115,000, 2010) compared to the $37,000 Schatz made as a House Representative of District 25.

Schatz graduated from Punahou High School, Obama's alma-mater, in 1990. Ironically, he also spent time in Kenya in 1992, the same year Obama first traveled there, as a part of the School of International Training, a cross-cultural, world-wide education outreach program supported predominantly by liberal-based and foreign scholarship funding sources, where he was educated in civil service, before graduating from Pomona College in 1994.

On January 14, 2010 Schatz was formally endorsed by Obama's sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, after Soetoro-Ng had returned from a three month stay in Washington D.C. with Obama.

Was Schatz politically rewarded for cooperating with the DNC in 2008? Appearances are worth more than evidence in politics. What is known is that after justifiably filing an official document omitting critical statutorial language in favor of Obama's candidacy, Schatz had very little to say after the DNC overwrote his official document which legally stated that Obama had failed to provide adequate information that he was legally qualified to serve as president under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Obama appeared on the Hawaiian ballot in 2008. Two years later, at the mere age of 37, Schatz is in a position to become the Chief Executive Officer of Obama's claimed state of origin.

Regardless of Schatz' current executive position, the implications of such incestuous governing powers melding with partisan politics creates, if nothing else, the appearance of a municipal "cartella" serving the interests of national Democrat party politics, not the interests of the people of Hawaii and, therefore, in the case of Obama's fallow credibility, the interests of the entire nation. At most, it makes the entire government of State of Hawaii look like some annexation of Obama's administration...like a co-opted municipal agency placed in charge of Obama's secret personal documents and information.

Obama's campaign drones knew that if any state Elections Officer, let alone one overseeing the legality of election procedure in the very state where the candidate grew up, was forced to disqualify Obama's candidacy on the grounds of him being found ineligible there, by his own party authority, the issue would have exploded into a firestorm of mainstream inquiry. Imagine the explanation that would have been demanded by the Hawaiian government if Obama actually failed to appear on their ballot.  If this had occurred in a state like Texas or Oklahoma, the pro-Obama media's angle may have been strained, but at least they would have been able to cower behind political justifications.  Not in Hawaii, however.
The most troubling aspect of this drama is, quite simply, the irregularity of behavior by the Democrat party, specifically Obama's entourage, when faced by something as routine as an eligibility certification.  This should have sounded a warning throughout the known universe of journalism.  Yet, it was met with a bizarre and cowardly silence by the mainstream media.  Of course, Obama's handlers could not allow the exposure of this controversy so close to the election, no matter how valid the accusations.  It would have been politically fatal.  There would have been no way to recover from such an indictment against Obama.  His 2008 campaign and, possibly, his political career, would not have survived the revelation of the devastating documentable evidence against him.  Therefore, we can conclude, with confidence, that there was unimaginable pressures to engage is less than honest contortions in order to prevent such ramifications for Obama.  However, the media's dereliction in the wake of such obvious illicit behavior has injured the confidence of the American people for elections to come.  Moreover, Obama is no more eligible for any of it.
However, this was not the only bad consequence "Team Obama" needed to prevent in the wake of the Hawaiian OCON disaster.  They also needed to conceal the facts about his illegitimacy, overall, as well as suppress any public knowledge about Obama's legal requirement to meet specific deadlines or personally attend to proceedings in Hawaii attributed directly to countering claims of his ineligibility.  Especially if Obama was required to meet with party authorities in Hawaii and the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to refute their findings between the OCON filing date of September 5, 2008 and November 4, 2008.
So, let's ask the most obvious question first.  Did Obama make an unscheduled or sudden trip to Hawaii between September 5th and November 4th, 2008?
Before answering, let's remember, Obama was operating on a very tight campaign schedule between mid-August and Election day, 2008.  A review of his schedule reveals more than 50 events in the final two months.  He had several town hall meetings and debates which could not be cancelled or rescheduled because they involved John McCain too.  The only way to free himself and cover up his motives was to exploit some personal issue which could serve as a "front story" for his presence in Hawaii.
Complicating the logistical, legal and political nightmare was the fact that Obama had already attended campaign rallies and fundraisers in Hawaii in early to mid-August. He visited his grandmother on August 7th. Therefore, justifying another visit to Hawaii amid the maelstrom of campaign rallies, debates, forums and town hall meetings scheduled in the other 49 states would require a personal reason that Obama's campaign could justify to the public while putting him in Hawaii to secretly attend to his legal matters. Given the weight of Obama's lack of legitimacy, if he appeared in Hawaii too close to his previous visit, it looks very suspicious and invites media inquiry.
Such a private meeting would also have to be justifiable under Hawaii Revised Statutes Adminstrative Rules 91, 92-4, 92-5, and 3-170-11.  Specifically, any correspondence or meeting between any candidate or representative of the candidate and the Hawaiian Election commission would have to be held in accord with these rules.  However, it is HRS 92-5-8 which affords the permission to hold a secret meeting between members of the Elections Commission and Obama.  The rules states:

92-5 Exceptions (a) A board may hold a meeting closed to the public pursuant to section 92-4 for one or more of the following reason(s):
(8) To deliberate or make a decision upon a matter that requires the consideration of information that must be kept confidential pursuant to a state or federal law, or a court order.

Recall, we have already been told by the Hawaiian Department of Health (HDH) that the public disclosure of information contained in vital records to anyone without tangible reasons for obtaining it is prohibited by state lawHRS 338-18.  For more than three years, employees of the HDH have repeatedly refused to disclose Obama's original natal records citing this law, which requires that vital information "must be kept confidential pursuant to state law."  Therefore, any justification for holding a private meeting for the purpose of reviewing and discussing Obama's natal information as it exists on file with the HDH would fall under the provisions of HRS 92-5-(8).
However, this only resolves the legality of the matter.  Politically, if Obama made another unscheduled appearance in Hawaii too close to the OCON filing deadline of September 5, 2008, it would have brought too much attention, as well.  The question bears too much weight, "Why is Obama returning to Hawaii at such a critical time leading up to the most prolific Presidential election in American history?"
If he waited until too close to the election, he would miss the deadline of October 24, 2008 Hawaii imposes for inclusion on the ballot.  Therefore, Obama needed to find a way to be in Hawaii at a time that would:
1. Occur as long after the OCON deadline as possible, but no later than October 24th.
2. Allow him to cancel campaign events, but not miss prescheduled debates with McCain or televised town hall meetings.
3. Meet legal deadlines for ballot approval, but not violate deadlines to refute the findings of ineligibility by the DPH.
4. Give the media a "decoy" story to serve as his excuse for being in Hawaii, but not allow the public to discover that the real reason he was in Hawaii was because he was attending executive hearings with the Chief Elections Officer and the DPH per HAR 3-170, HRS 92-4 and 92-5.
Obama was provided with such circumstances on October 23rd-24th, 2008.
Former Democrat Party of Hawaii
(DPH) Chairman, Brian Schatz, now serves as the state's Lt. Governor

   An investigation of Hawaii Revised Statutes, along with documented evidence, reveals that the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, being bound by law from partisan participation, still had the legal authority to circumvent the vetting process for Obama and simply approve his placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot without ever verifying that he was Constitutionally eligible to serve as president.  Moreover, the evidence presented herein further confirms that the legal tactics employed by the Obama machine actually allowed him to fill Hawaiian legal requirements, behind the lies of the media, without actually having to ever present authentic documentation.
Shockingly, administrative procedures employed by the Elections Office in the State of Hawaii actually helped Obama avoid public scrutiny by simultaneously allowing him the opportunity to personally attend a hearing about his eligibility while visiting his sick grandmother in late October, 2008.  The chronology of available deadlines and correspondences reveal that Obama would have been able to hide this eligibility hearing under the headline of visiting his dying grandmother.  HRS 11-113, in coordination with Chapter 91 administrative rules, and differences in time zones (that's right, Hawaii's geographic location may have helped Obama meet legal deadlines), gave Obama the linkage needed to preserve both legal and political appearances by affording him almost 45 days between the Certification deadline and his trip to visit his dying grandmother.

Hawaiian Elections Authority
Many people falsely believe that the national party committee for each party has certification jurisdiction over state party officials. This is not true. The DNC and RNC are not the primary constitutional authority in vetting candidates. The Constitution gives authority of determining candidate eligibility and to establish relationships enabling candidate placement on each state ballot to each respective state's Elections authority. This evolved out of the the founder's understanding that placing the enforcement of voting security in the hands of local authorities enabled fair access to the residents of the state they apportion and confirm voting registrations. National party authorities do not have the jurisdiction, resources or logistic capacity to ensure voter apportionment between states. Just because the DNC determines that a candidate is eligible in, for example, New York, does mean they can force the state of Hawaii to also find that same candidate eligible. The founders understood that by endowing this to a national authority made the people of states who oppose a particular party vulnerable to under-representation and party intimidation.
Under the Electoral College system, according to election laws in every state, Electors from each state are only qualified by the Constitution to cast votes for President and Vice President. They do not participate in certifying the eligibility of the candidates prior to the election. Inexplicably, the certification of each candidate’s eligibility falls under the autonomous authority of each candidate’s state and national affiliated political party authority, while the approval of the candidate’s placement on each state’s ballot then becomes the responsibility of the Chief Elections Officer of each state. The state’s electors must rely on the relationship between these authoritative bodies to review qualifications, certify the legal eligibility of each candidate and approve ballot placement of each candidate nominated by each qualified party.
In August, 2008, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer (CEO) was Kevin B. Cronin. He was appointed by the eight-member Hawaiian Elections Commission on December 10, 2007 and took over the position from Interim CEO, Rex M. Quidilla. By statute, Cronin’s term began on February 1, 2008 and is set to end on February 1, 2012. Cronin is a 30 year veteran of government service and is licensed to practice law in Hawaii and Wisconsin. The fully staffed Hawaiian Elections Commission is made up of the following individuals.

Name, Position and Date of Term Expiration
Kevin B. Cronin, Senior Elections Officer 02/01/12
Daniel Young , Chief Justice, Oahu 06/30/12
Warren Orikasa , House Speaker, Maui 06/30/14
Margaret Masunaga, Senate President, Hawaii 06/30/14
Zale Okazaki , Senate President, Oahu 06/30/12
Patricia Berg , Senate Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14
Brian Nakashima, Chief Justice, Hawaii 06/30/12
Donna Soares, House Minority Leader, Maui 06/30/12
Charles King, House Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14
It is Cronin's constitutional authority to oversee elections in the state of Hawaii under the advisement of the Election Commission. It is his responsibility to maximize registration, equalize registration among districts; and maintain data related to registration, elections, districting and apportionment; educate the public on voting and elections; set up procedures and rules governing elections per HRS 11, AR 91 and Arts. II & IV of the U.S. Constitution. Cronin does not have the authority to certify the Constitutional eligibility of a candidate, however, his most powerful authority is his ability, according to HRS 11-113, to mediate conflict over eligibility and, as a result of mediation, officially approve candidates for placement on the state’s ballot even when the state party's vetting authority refuses to certify the legal qualifications of that candidate.
As absurd as this seems...it actually happened in Hawaii in 2008.
On August 27, 2008, the Democratic Party of Hawaii (DPH), led then by Chairman, Brian Schatz and acting Secretary, Lynn Matusow, signed and had attested by notarization, an Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Some time between August 27, 2008 and 4:30 p.m Hawaiian Time (9:30 p.m. Eastern Time) September 5, 2008, the DPH filed the document with Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy provided for public review does not contain a Hawaiian Elections Office "RECEIVED DATE" stamp, which is a suspicious omission because the date of reception by the Elections Office initiates the succession of correspondence and deadlines for review, response and possible hearings available to those opposing the findings of the CEO.

The OCON sent to Cronin by the DPH contained the following words in the body of its content:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (Obama and Biden) are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado."

The only proclamation this document makes is that Democrat Party of Hawaii asked a group of Democrats who they preferred as their nomination for President. However, unfortunately for Obama and the Democratic voters of Hawaii, Hawaiian Revised Statute 11-113 (c)(1)(B) specifically requires that this statement must explicitly state that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Hawaiian Elections Commission and the Chief Elections Officer to be able to approve the candidate for ballot placement.

Specifically, the wording of each party’s Hawaiian OCON must adhere to the requirements of HRS §11-113 (c)(1); Presidential Ballots, which states:

(c) All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under the following procedures:......(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

The Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCON for Barack Obama clearly did not meet the requirement of HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), which clearly states that the (DPH) party official (Brian Schatz) shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer (Kevin Cronin) which explicitly includes “…a statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…” and is to be filed not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day (September 5, 2008) prior to the general election (November 4, 2008).

Let's mete out the scenerio giving the benefit of doubt to the DPH, first. Perhaps this was simply an omissive error. Maybe the DPH "forgot" to include legally required language in its OCON for Obama on August 27, 2008 and didn't realize the error for another nine days until after the September 5th filing deadline had passed.

Or, despite the fact that the DPH OCON states that Obama was chosen by the DPH Preference Poll and Caucus back in FEBRUARY of 2008, nearly six months earlier, we are to believe there just wasn't enough time to include the required statement that Obama was legally qualified by the constitution for approval for ballot placement by the Chief Elections Officer, and therefore the DPH simply ignored the requirement hoping to sneak it by the Election Commission.

However, comparing documented evidence of OCONs from previous elections reveals that the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCONs for both Al Gore/Joe Lieberman in 2000 and John Kerry/John Edwards in 2004 both had the following identical language:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll
and Caucus held in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National
Democratic Convention held in...”

The Democratic Party of Hawaii included the explicit statement required by HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B) that the 2000 and 2004 candidates were legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution, but the DPH did not do the same for Obama. Also, in another comparison, the Hawaiian Republican Party’s 2008 OCON, signed by RPH Chairman, Willes K. Lee, for John McCain and Sarah Palin, states:

“We do hereby certify that at a National Convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the City of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the United States were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008…”

The Republican Party of Hawaii’s Official Certification of Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin clearly includes the words “…meeting the Constitutional requirements…” and is dated September 4, 2008, and is notarized by Sheila Rae Motzko, notary of Minnesota. Therefore, the RPH obviously had no reservations in certifying the eligibility of McCain and Palin.

Given the indisputable facts that the DPH had included the language in previous OCONs, indicating officials were fully aware of the legal requirement, and that the selection of Obama took place more than six months prior to the submittal of the OCON, indicating they had ample time to review any evidence, if it exists, of Obama's eligibility, it becomes impossible that the DPH either forgot about the need for the specific language or that the DPH simply ignored it. Therefore, the DPH intentionally omitted the language stating that Obama is legally qualified under the provisions of the U.S. constitution because he is not.

THE "MESS"

The Democratic National Committee (DNC), chaired by Nancy Pelosi, signed and had attested by notarization, its national Official Certification of Nominations with all fifty states on August 28th, 2008. We conclude this based on the "RECEIVED DATE" stamp provided on multiple states' DNC OCONs of "AUGUST 29th, 2009", and the notarization date of August 28. This sworn application was filed sometime between August 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008 with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy provided by the Hawaiian Election office for public review, however, does not contain a RECEIVED DATE stamp like other states' OCONs do.

However, a review of the Democratic National Committee’s OCONs for Obama reveals a shocking irregularity in the composition of its Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii. On December 19, 2008, Hawaii’s Chief Elections officer, Kevin Cronin, in response to a written request by a Colorado resident for a copy of the Official Certification of Nominations, sent a letter and a copy of the DPH’s OCON and the DNC’s OCON. However, analysis of the DNC OCON sent to Hawaii in comparison with the DNC’s OCON sent to other states, reveals that they did not match. In fact, Hawaii’s version of the DNC’s OCON contained specific wording not included in the versions sent to ALL the other states, which directly contradicts the Democrat Party of Hawaii's OCON. All the states' Election Commissions, except for Hawaii's, were sent one Official Certification of Nomination with the following statement:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively”

The typo “though” is not a mistake. It actually exists in the official document. Notice, in this version of the DNC’s OCON, there is no mention of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. However, in the version sent separately to Hawaii’s Election Commission, it states the following:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:”

The content of this second OCON from the DNC raises some serious questions about the motives of its author. The fact that the same typo remains on this second version is an indication that it was not independently published but rather amended, suddenly. The fact that there was a typo, at all, in both versions indicates haste on the part of the DNC.

Also, notice the key language is tacked on the final sentence in this second version of the DNC OCON rather than included in the mid-body of the paragraph as with previous DPH OCONs. The inclusion of the language previously omitted by the DPH's OCON and the DNC OCON sent to every other state, indicates nothing less than a conspiracy on the part of the DNC and the DPH to force a confirmation of Barack Obama’s eligibility by the state of Hawaii, without actually verifying it. This is apparent because if either party authority had actually verified it, the other would have also included the legally required language, especially since both OCONs were notarized with seven days remaining in the deadline to submit them to Hawaii CEO, Kevin Cronin, unless, of course, the document was actually submitted to the Hawaiian Elections Office too late for revisions, which is likely the case. Therefore, the DNC was forced to amend its Hawaiian OCON specifically for Obama as a means of creating a direct contradiction with the DPH’s legitimate omission of legal language which, if included, would certify Obama’s constitutional eligibility in accordance with Hawaiian law.

Finally, as discussed previously, there is no FILING DATE stamped on this document! The OCON submitted to the Hawaiian Elections Office was one of fifty authored by the DNC and submitted after August 28, 2008. Yet, the OCON received by the State of Hawaii from the DNC is the only one with no filing date or RECEIVED DATE stamped on its face. A review of OCONs submitted to every other state reveals the Elections Office in those states affixed this stamp on their document. The omission of this date stamp by the Hawaiian Elections Office is particularly suspicious because, in accordance with HRS 11-113(c), (d) and (e), the RECEIPT DATE initiates a roster of deadlines and correspondence between the Chief Elections Officer, the applicant and the candidate, the first of which is a written notification from Kevin Cronin informing the candidate if they were either approved or denied for inclusion on the ballot. The absence of this RECEIPT or FILING DATE suspiciously obscures the time line which would reveal if the second OCON submitted by the DNC was in violation of Hawaiian law or if it was actually submitted BEFORE the DPH's OCON.

The obvious crime in this intentional dissemination of misinformation is that if the DPH was unable to verify Obama’s eligibility, the DNC would have also not been able to verify it. Why would the DNC not share its verification documentation of Obama's candidacy with the Democrat Party of Hawaii's official? If the DNC was actually able to verify Obama's eligibility, the DPH would have also acquired the same documentation to verify it. If the eligibility of Obama candidacy was provable and verifiable, both party authorities would have included the same appropriate language in accordance with Hawaiian law. Hawaiian law also allowed for seven more days from the dates appearing on both OCONs to be filed if more time was needed for the DPH and the DNC to corroborate the verification of Obama's eligibility.

Also, if the original version of the DNC's OCON had been authored with language confirming Obama's constitutional eligbility, the DNC had no rational motive for submitting two different versions. The inclusion of such language only reinforces perception of Obama's eligibility in every state. Therefore, the submittal of different documents indicates an act of deception on the part of Nancy Pelosi and the DNC in an effort to contradict the Democrat Party of Hawaii's OCON.

Was the opportunity available for Obama to personally engage a meeting to discuss the matter of his lack of legal qualifications to appear on the Hawaiian ballot?  Was it possible that he actually attended such a hearing?

The following account demonstrates the logistic and legal opportunity as well as the fact that Obama was present and unaccounted for during a period of several hours in Hawaii on October 24th, 2008.

This documented contradiction was intentional by the party authorities because the very presence of this conflict activates a series of lawful empowerments to the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to make autonomous decisions about ballot content.  However, Administrative procedure law in Hawaii dictates that certain correspondence and deadlines must be met first:

HRS 11-113 (1)(d) provides that "…Each applicant and the candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant's or candidate's eligibility or disqualification for placement on the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth business day after filing.  The chief election officer may extend the notification period up to an additional five business days, if the applicants and candidates are provided with notice of the extension and the reasons therefore."

The Hawaii Democratic Party (DPH) submitted the Official Certification Of Nomination to the Hawaiian Elections Office as late as September 5, 2008.  We can't confirm this date because the Hawaiian Elections Office did not stamp and "RECEIVED DATE" on the document, like the other 49 states did on theirs, but the official filing date could have occurred on September 8, 2008.  Therefore, this means that, by adding the optional five business day extension to the mandated 10 day notification deadline, Cronin mailed the notification to Obama between September 26, 2008 and September 29th, 2008, accounting for weekends, the Labor Day Holiday on September 1st, difference in time zones and end of "business day" Fridays.

HRS 11-113 (1)(e) then provides that "…(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question."

Therefore, if Cronin notified Obama that he was not qualified to be placed on the ballot in Hawaii, this means that Obama had until approximately October 7th, 2008 to respond in writing and request a hearing.

HRS 11-113(1)(e) then provides that "…A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91."


Cronin would have received Obama's request sometime around October 9th or 10th, 2008. However, like the OCON, Cronin is not obligated to record receipt of the document on the same day it arrives. Therefore, based on HRS 11-113(e), the latest Cronin was legally able to schedule a hearing for Obama was sometime between Monday, October 20th and Friday, October 24th, 2008.
Cronin has been accused of being overly liberal with statutory deadlines in favor of democrats in the past.  In early August, 2008, Hawaii Republican Party (RPH) Chair, Willes Lee filed a lawsuit against Cronin and the Office of Elections (Willes Lee v. Cronin, Civil No. 08-1-1609) challenging the candidacy of a local Democrat, Isaac Choy, to the state's House (24th Dist.).  Lee contended that Choy had been unlawfully named a candidate by the DPH when his predecessor, Kirk Caldwell (D), left the post early to run for City Council.  The suit alleged that Caldwell had notified the Elections Office on July 22, 2008 that he was leaving the seat. Cronin, however, after waiting until the next day to file the withdrawl, contended that the 72 hour deadline allowed by Hawaiian Election law was actually initiated on July 23rd, not the 22nd, allowing for the DPH's selection of Choy to occur on Saturday, the 26th, not Friday, the 25th.
.
Moreover, Hawaii Revised Statute, Administrative Rules, Chapter 91-9 (d), Contested Cases; notice, hearing; records states: "Any procedure in a contested case may be modified or waived by stipulation of the parties and informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default."

Essentially, this HAR allows Obama to request a reasonable modification of procedure in order to accommodate a reasonable schedule and effort needed to attend a contesting hearing. Therefore, Obama could have have sought extra time after the hearing began in order to accommodate a pressing personal matter…like a sick grandmother.

Where was Obama between October 23rd and 24th, 2008?

On Monday, October 21, 2008, Reuters reported:

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will leave the campaign trail to go to Hawaii this week to visit the ailing grandmother who helped raise him, an aide said on Monday.
    
Recently his grandmother has become ill and in the last few weeks her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious," said Obama aide Robert Gibbs.
    
Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who will be 86 on Sunday, helped raise him along with his mother, Ann Dunham, and his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Gibbs would not discuss the nature of her illness.
The candidate is canceling events in Madison, Wisconsin, and Des Moines, Iowa, that had been scheduled for Thursday. He instead will go to an event in Indianapolis, Indiana, on Thursday, then fly to Hawaii to see his grandmother. He will return to the campaign trail on Saturday, Gibbs said."

On October21, 2008, ABC News reported:

"Sen. Barack Obama has made the very personal decision to leave the campaign trail for two days to visit his ailing 85-year-old grandmother in Hawaii...

Although a candidate has never before stopped campaigning this close to Election Day, Obama's running mate and surrogates will remain on the trail, and more important, his ads will continue to run. Obama decided Monday night to cancel campaign stops on Thursday and Friday and fly to Hawaii to see his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham..."

ABC News then reported on October 24th, 2008:

"After spending about two hours with his ill grandmother in her apartment this morning, Sen. Barack Obama , D-Ill., took a short walk alone in the Makiki neighborhood of Honolulu outside his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham’s, apartment."

KHNL News Hawaii Reported on October 24th:

HONOLULU (KHNL) - Barack Obama's quick visit to the islands came to an end today. He is the first presidential candidate in history to take two days out of the campaign, this close to the general election. But he says, this move is all about family. Senator Obama's jet took off from Honolulu International Airport this evening. His motorcade escorted by Honolulu Police made its way down Lagoon Drive, to the runway. The democratic presidential candidate's plane left Honolulu at about 5 o' clock. Earlier today, the presidential candidate visited with his beloved tutu, which was his main objective on this trip.

Multiple blog and media accounts say that Obama was in Hawaii for approximately 22 hours over two days, an eternity for a Presidential candidate in the final days of a campaign. Yet, he spent only approximately two hours with his gravely ill grandmother, allegedly alone, with no other immediate family members. Except for his reported "stroll about the neighborhood", no other accounting of Obama's time in Hawaii has ever been made known during these hours.

If we accept Robert Gibbs' and the media's account of Obama's "leisurely" time during these days, then it appears he would have been free to attend to eligibility matters in Hawaii during Friday afternoon, at which time it is highly likely he met privately with Cronin, the DPH, the Hawaiian Attorney General and members of the Election Commission. He also would have signed a sworn affidavit falsifying that he was Constitutionally eligible to serve as president, letting Schatz and the DPH off the "legal hook", in exchange for Schatz' silence, of course.

Media coverage of Obama's campaign state that he was delivering a rally speech in Obelisk Square in Indianapolis at noon, EST on October 23rd.  Private flight time on Obama's campaign jet, from Indianapolis to Honolulu, is approximately seven hours.  Indiana is the western-most state in the eastern time zone which means that if Obama left Indianapolis at 1:00 p.m. EST, subtracting times zones from flight time, he would have arrived in Honolulu between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. that same day.  ABC News did a report on October 23rd which described some of the amenities available on the campaign jet which included a private cabin at the front of the plane where "Obama slept and read comfortably," and engaged his staff in meeting rooms.  Oddly, the story mentions that Obama was particularly conscientious in avoiding the media and staff reporters during the trip.

At least one major media network states that Obama spent an hour at his grandmother's apartment that evening around 7:00, then he returned the next morning for about two hours departing at about 11:45 a.m.  Obama's time is unaccounted for between about noon and 5:00 p.m. when he boarded his campaign jet for for a 5 hour flight to Reno where he arrived around midnight, October 25th.

Reno is in the Pacific Standard Time zone, two hours ahead of Honolulu.  He appeared at a rally on the Nevada-Reno University campus at 10:15 a.m. where he spoke for 30 minutes to a crowd of 11,000, on Saturday, October 25th.


Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113(b) gave Cronin the legal right to choose to include Barack Obama, an uncertified, unverified and, therefore, ineligible presidential candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot. HRS 11-113(b) states:

b) A "national party" as used in this section shall mean a party established and admitted to the ballot in at least one state other than Hawaii or one which is determined by the chief election officer to be making a bona fide effort to become a national party.  If there is no national party or the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates' names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates' names off the ballot completely.

Within the legal prose of these corruptive Hawaiian laws lies the permission for the Chief Elections Officer (Kevin Cronin) of Hawaii to include the name of an ineligible candidate (Barack Obama) on the Hawaiian presidential ballot when the state party authority (DPH, chair Brian Schatz) and the national party authority (DNC, chair Nancy Pelosi) do not agree on the eligibility of the candidate.  As we know, Obama appeared on the Hawaiian presidential ballot indicating that Cronin acted alone in approving Obama's candidacy for ballot placement.

Hawaii's remote, ridiculous legal moorings have become legendary during the saga of Obama's fake identity.  By now, the entire world is at least familiar with HRS 338-17.8 which actually obligates (not, "provides the choice" for) the Director of the Hawaiian Health Department to provide official, original Certificates of Live Birth to foreign born children when a least one parent of the child claimed Hawaii as their residence for at least one year prior to the birth.  This law is a direct affront to the U.S. Constitutional mandate that a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen, if the Director of Health in Hawaii assumes jurisdiction in declaring that its citizens are natural born citizens...which Fukino actually had the afoul audacity to do in a formal press release in July, 2009.

Now we can include more examples of legal absurdity from laws governing the Hawaiian Elections Office.

Perhaps, someday, the politically poisoned, liberal creatures of the defunct American media might engage their responsibility as journalists and seriously inquire as to what other grand proclamations the State of Hawaii has made about this strange and ambiguous character referred to as "President Barack Obama."

On the other hand, maybe if Hawaii had another name, like..."Alaska", we wouldn't even be suffering because of this horrific deception.

SUMMARY
  
A comparison of the DNC's OCON sent to Hawaii with the OCONs sent to every other state reveals a conspiracy to conceal Obama's ineligibility. Notice the statement added to the Hawaiian document in order to make it compliant with HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B), after it was discovered the DEMOCRAT PARTY OF HAWAII refused to include the legally required language enabling Hawaii's Chief Elections Officer to approve of Obama's inclusion on the Hawaiian Presidential Ballot.

Hawaii Revised Statute HRS 11-113 (d) and (e), in collaboration with HRS 91, 92 and 3-170 creates a series of deadlines which enabled Obama with an opportunity to appear in Hawaii almost 45 days after the OCON controversy occurred, but on the exact day prior to the final deadline for inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot. This time line was critical in creating the appearance that Obama's only reason for visiting Hawaii more than three times in 4 months was for personal reasons.

Obama's time in Hawaii from the afternoon of October 23rd through October 25th remains largely unnaccounted for, except for the brief time he spent with his sick grandmother.

Any conflict among party authorities over candidate eligibility allows the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer the autonomous choice whether or not to include the candidate on the ballot anyway, per HRS 11-113(b), which Cronin did, regardless if that candidate is proven eligible or not. Cronin is not obligated to verify eligibility per HRS 11-113.

This indicates a crime. If the original OCON had contained the amended statement prior to being signed, it would have been left in the body of the statement for ALL the OCONs received by all the states. There is no rational motive for the DNC to omit this statement post-signing because it only reinforces allegations by Obama and the DNC that he is eligible in every state. Which he is not, at least we know, in Hawaii. The fact that it only appears in Hawaii's OCON indicates a cover-up.

The lack of a "RECEIVED DATE" stamp on the DNC's Hawaiian OCON, which is present on other state's version, also prevents an accurate determination of the latest possible date on which Cronin was able to schedule a CONTEST HEARING with Obama after finding Obama uncertified by the DPH. Obama would not have wanted to give the appearance of dealing with an ineligibility issue so close to the election, but he also would not want to allow anyone to know their was a legal problem with his inclusion on the ballot so near the date when Hawaii received the Certifications of Nomination there. Cronin was permitted to record his receipt of the OCON as late as Sept. 5, 2008, 60 days prior to the election, which would have allowed the hearing to begin sometime between October 10, 2008 and October 24, 2008, after exhausting the legally permitted time and personal allowances in the process for scheduling according to HRS 11-113(d) and (e).

Obama cancelled several campaign appointments, just weeks before the election, and suddenly traveled to Hawaii on October 23, 2008 without his family, to visit his ill grandmother.

HRS 92-5-8 affords the Hawaiian Elections Commission the permission to conduct private meetings with candidates when information contained in vital records protected under HRS 338-18 is to be considered.

This documented evidence, in coordination with actions by the Democrat party's authorities and the actions of the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer in coordination with the provisions of Hawaiian election law and Obama's behavior, in coordination with the events of the campaign, his personal life, and his lack of constitutional eligibility to be president all leave little doubt that the election of Obama occurred extralegally and outside the limits of constitutional legitimacy making him, at least, an unconstitutional president and, at most, an enemy usurper of American sovereignty.

By undermining the provisions of the constitution, Barack Obama has injured the American people by illegally circumventing their right to the protections against domestic threats and ineligible usurpation of their sovereign liberties, which include the right of trust and confidence in those presenting themselves as legitimate candidates for government office.
The fact that very specific, and rational questions remain unanswered about Obama's past, including the actions by officials working within the government agencies of the State of Hawaii, reveals nothing less than a web of legally knitted deception in order to conceal the obviousness of Barack Obama complete lack of Constitutional standing to be President of the United States. As such, Obama's entire Presidency has been built on an epic lie of such grand proportions no remedy remains except that which can only come from the common-men and descendants of our vintage American founders.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Reviewing The FACTS:
1.  Electors from each state rely on each party’s state authority in that state to certify the nomination of their candidates and verify their legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

2.  Hawaiian election law specifically requires each state’s party authority to file a sworn application (Official Certification of Nomination) with Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer certifying the eligibility of each candidate to serve as President and Vice President of the United States.

3.  Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113 (c) specifically requires that this sworn application from each state party authority contains explicit language stating that all candidates are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Chief Elections Officer to approve the candidate for placement on the state’s presidential ballot.

4.  On August 27th, 2008, by notary testimony, authorities of the Democrat Party of Hawaii (DPH) signed a sworn Official Certification of Nomination and was required to submit the document to Hawaii's Chief Election Officer, Kevin Cronin before 4:30 p.m. on September 5, 2008 or September 8, 2008 allowing for the count of one additional business day for one lost on Labor day.

5.  The DPH, chaired by Brian Schatz, refused to include legally required language, per HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), within the state party’s Official Certification of Nomination stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

UPDATE:  THE VERY SAME SCAHATZ.... Hawaii Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz Picked to Replace Late Sen. Daniel Inouye

THIS IS AN INCESTUOUS EVIL CABAL... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hawaii-governor-announce-replacement-late-sen-daniel-inouye/story?id=18069645

6.  The Democrat Party of Hawaii included this legally required language for other Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in past elections dating to, at least, 2000 and 2004.  Therefore, the omission of this language within the DPH’s 2008 OCON of Obama’s candidacy is not a mistake or an oversight.  It was done intentionally and with full understanding of Brian Schatz that the Hawaiian CEO, Kevin Cronin, would not be legally permitted to approve Barack Obama as a candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot, unless the Democratic National Committee (the national party authority) included this language in its OCON.

7.  The Republican Party of Hawaii included the legally required language in its sworn 2008 Official Certification of Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin, per HRS 11-113, without reservation or exceptions.

8.  The Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to acknowledge that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as president under the provisions of U.S. Constitution and, therefore, the DPH refused to provide legal certification allowing the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to approve the placement of Barack Obama on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

9.  Since the DPH did not provide legal certification of Barack Obama's constitutional candidacy, Kevin Cronin, was required to send a written notice to Barack Obama informing him that the DPH refused to provide legal certification of his candidacy for approval of his inclusion on the State of Hawaii’s 2008 presidential ballot.  Cronin was legally required to send this notification within 10 business days from the time Cronin received the OCON from the DPH.  Cronin also had the option, under HRS 11-113, to extend the notification deadline five more business days for a total of 15 days from the day the DPH filed the OCON.

10. The DPH's OCON is dated August 27th, 2008.  However, HRS 11-113 provides that OCONs may be filed by 4:30 p.m. on no less than the 60th day prior to the day of the election.  In this case, based on the alleged date appearing the DPH's OCON, the DPH still had eight more days to file the OCON and perhaps request verification documentation from Obama.  Therefore, Obama received his notification of the Hawaiian CEO's findings no later than September 20, 2008.

11.  However, documents provided by the Hawaiian Election Commission show that the Democratic National Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi, signed its 2008 Official Certification of Nomination with a date of August 28, 2008.  However, documented evidence shows that the DNC also authored a separate version of its OCON at a later time. One version was sent only to Hawaii containing specific wording which directly contradicted that state party’s Constitutional authority to declare that Barack Obama was not constitutionally eligible to serve as president and was, therefore, not approved for inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

12.  Article IV-Section 4, Article IV-Section 1 and Article II-Section 1 of the Constitution grants sovereignty for certifying a candidate’s nomination and approving a candidate’s inclusion on each state’s presidential ballot to each state.  The Democratic National Committee does not have the legal authority to supersede the sovereignty of Hawaii’s appointed authority to conduct election, approve ballot content and certify the nomination of candidates.

13.  By intentionally contradicting the findings of Hawaii’s party authority for the purpose of forcing the state of Hawaii to include Obama’s candidacy on its ballot, the Democratic National Committee, headed by Nancy Pelosi, committed election fraud and violated the Constitutional right of the people of the state of Hawaii to an election process in which supreme power is held by the citizens and their entitlement to vote for Constitutionally eligible candidates.

14.  The Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer by the DNC was not sent to any other state’s CEO.

15.  Based on the authority given them by the Constitution, some states’ election laws do not require an explicit statement indicating a candidate’s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the Constitution, like Hawaii, but rather a general statement citing documentation that the candidate is qualified under federal law to serve as President and Vice President.

16.  The DNC sent a different OCON to every other state omitting the reference to Constitutional eligibility.

17.  Cronin sent written notification to Obama stating that Obama was found legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution based on the DNC’s OCON.

18.  The Democratic Party of Hawaii and the Democratic National Committee do not agree with one another about the Constitutional qualifications of Barack Obama.

19.  Cronin’s notifications have never been revealed to the public.

20.  If the notification from Cronin to Obama stated that Obama was found not qualified to be on the Hawaiian ballot, Obama had five business days after the finding to send a written request for a hearing to contest the finding and reconcile his lack of eligibility with the DPH.

21.  Upon receiving a request for a hearing from Obama, Cronin was obligated to schedule the hearing within 10 business days of receiving the request.

22.  Hearings to contest candidate eligibility findings are conducted under Administrative Procedures governed by HRS AR 91.

23.  AR 91 allows a petitioner for a hearing to request reasonable scheduling accommodations in order to attend the hearing based on travel, personal matters and/or financial issues.

24.  The hearing would have been conducted around mid to late October, 2008.

25.  Barack Obama’s grandmother was reported to have become gravely ill in early to mid October, 2008.

26.  Barack Obama was in Hawaii in mid October, 2008.  The American public was told that his only business there was to visit with his ill grandmother.

27.  Obama went to Hawaii, suddenly, without his wife and children, even though Dunham's condition was reported to have been expectedly declining for several weeks, during which, at any time, Obama could have otherwise scheduled a planned visit.  The exclusion of Dunham's great-grandchildren and Michelle Obama during this visit is odd.  Madelyn Dunham did not pass away for two more weeks after Obama's visit having never been visited by Obama's family in her final months.

27.  HRS 11-113 (b) states: If there is no national party or the national and state parties…do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates' names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates' names off the ballot completely.

28.  Barack Obama was included on the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++..

from http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/DailyPen06.htm

If you are a regular visitor to my facebook page you see me say "Sic Semper Tyrannis”, latin for “Thus Always to Tyrants" a lot. Here is an explanation!!

Why The Word “Tyrant” Accurately Describes Obama 

 
“Sic Semper Tyrannis”, latin for “Thus Always to Tyrants,“ is the rallying cry against tyranny dating back to the Roman Empire with the utterance of this phrase by Marcus Junius Brutus upon the assassination of Julius Caesar.
This simple phrase has been used by countless European nationals as a cry to arms for independence from their oppressive monarchs, as well as others down through the ages since first spoken two thousand years ago. (To give an American context to this phrase, John Wilkes Booth immortalized it as he leapt to the stage from the Presidential Box after mortally wounding Abraham Lincoln at Fords Theater 147 years ago, and it is the motto for the state of Virginia.)

Throughout history, man has always sought self-determination as a God-given or natural right as they struggled against the rule of man through kings, royalty, and monarchs. This nation was founded upon the principle that man, given the ability, the will, and means to do so, could flourish under self-rule and the rule of law. Flourish, we have; the amount of economic growth and wonders this nation has seen in its short existence of only 236 years is astounding and has not been rivaled in history.

Many wonder at how this came about that we have stood in the belief of personal freedom to champion the individual, the cornerstone of our Republic above all else. We have accomplished this by creating a unique identify that embraces all, while giving none dominion over others. Our history is not blemish free, with the stain of slavery and oppression of the Indian Nations on our national honor. We have endured, being true to our founding principles by righting these injustices with the blood of our ancestors shed in battle as this is the only way these sins can be paid.

One seminal danger that the Founders sought to address was that our President would never have divided loyalties with the simple requirement that our president be a natural born citizen as enumerated in Article II, Sec. 1 of our Constitution. These men were wise beyond their ability to foresee the future, though keen to realize the frailty of mere men to govern themselves.

What does it mean to be a “natural born citizen” for the president? The historical context means that one has certain duties bound to themselves and their nation to act in the best interest of all its citizens as they mark their service to the nation while shunning any allegiance to another. Recognizing that there is a hereditary distinction requiring both parents to be citizens differs from an ordinary or naturalized citizen, these wise men would not have otherwise placed this requirement amongst the pages of our Constitution!

The concept of “natural born citizen” is being faced in a manner that our founders never dreamed would happen; that a man would rise to usurp the office of president that would tear down the very fabric and framework of our Nation.

Our founders believed in the possibility that day would come to challenge this principle, making this a national security issue, so they placed this frail, meager, and humble requirement into the framework of our Government. We are now facing that day with ruin of our nation’s economy by reckless spending of the nation’s treasure that is fully spent and requiring even more. Signs of our decline are practically the same as Brutus eloquently spoke and are shown by the following:

-Authorizing the borrowing of revenues against the future, though spending it in the present is dangerous and foolhardy, practiced without any restriction of sound fiscal management.

-Division of our nation by a president that is using wealth, race, gender, creed, class distinction, sexual orientation, and political ideology to create doubt and fear in the nation’s citizens while advocating another vision for our nation, solely of his creation.

-Shrouding of the president’s identity of his past thoughts, deeds, actions and credentials by not allowing any scrutiny of his bona-fides by this nation citizens. He alone creates the narrative that he wishes to be seen, and only that narrative which has been malleable, embellished, and fabricated to suit his current fancy. Too many judges and courts have been all too willing to assist him in this shameless endeavor.

-The president declaring to a sovereign State Court, after being served a valid subpoena from this court, that their demands are not applicable to him, as he seeks reelection within the State of Georgia and that he is above the rule of law.

-Creation of a tax system that forces 51% of the nation’s citizens to pay federal income taxes while the rest either pay no federal taxes or receive more than they paid in benefits. He does this while manipulating the definition of citizens that are in poverty, further straining these all too few taxpayers as they are wrung of their last dime to pay ever increasing amounts of taxes to the indolent.

-Usurping the powers of the other two separate but equal branches of our government by redefinition of laws and using regulatory powers to thwart the legislative and judicial branch purview into the office of president. And using signing statements rather than veto power granted to him by the Constitution to subvert legislation by his own hand.

-Deliberately defying and usurping the authority of congressional oversight by making unconstitutional appointments of secretaries and commissioners to agencies of the federal government while they are in session.

-Appointment of Czars who have overlapping authority to cabinet level positions that lack any congressional approval or oversight, making their actions absolute without recourse against them by Congress, the courts, or the people.

-By passing final and absolute judgment upon the nation’s citizens without their 5th Amendment rights to due process of law, and denying them the ability to face their accusers in open court. By summarily executing these citizens in defiance of the Constitution with the use of secret panels.

-Granting of Constitutional rights and requiring a Miranda warning be given to this nation’s sworn enemy when captured on foreign battlefields. The Geneva Convention designates these belligerents as illegal combatants and are not accorded any rights under this Treaty. However, they are given these rights over our citizens by the granting of due process of law, while denying the same to our citizens.

-Designation of the entire nation as a battle zone with authorization to use military assets in a law enforcement role sweeping aside the exclusive police powers granted to the several states by the Constitution. This designation has the authority to arrest citizens by military forces and subject them to indefinite confinement without trial or charges, causing the abolishment of Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus, as long standing Constitutional guarantees to our nation’s citizens from abuse of process and power of the federal government.

-Callous, wanton, and reckless spending of the nation’s treasure upon sycophants that fawn upon this president to fill his election coffers with their lucre; in deference to his duty to safeguard the treasury to the benefit of all our citizens versus dispensation to the select few that curry his momentary favor.

-Allowing corrupt law enforcement policies and practices that caused the death and destruction of hundreds if not thousands of a neighboring nation’s citizens without their knowledge or consent, with illegal arms sent across their border as a guise, impetus, and artifice to curtail our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Electing a president with divided loyalties has hastened these events and the weakening of our nation. The wisdom of the founders can only be embraced while we are forced to endure these inequities and injustice as a debasement of our freedom and heritage.

These are the acts of a wanton and craven Tyrant and Dictator, and it is up to each and every citizen to stand against the deliberate corruption of our founding principles. These things will test our commitment to freedom, justice, and liberty, and it is each patriot’s duty to see that he does not succeed!


REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION !!

ARE YOU WITH US ???

To whom do the Armed Services owe their oath of allegiance!!

Be Ready To Raise Your Right Hand...

"The focus of these Oaths is that the oath-taker would be bound to follow any order given through their chain of command. The chain of command is very detailed and laid out from the presidency to the Private burning human defecation on a FOB in Afghanistan. This structured military’s foundation is The Constitution. ”A well-regulated Militia…” (Article II of the Constitution) That phrase “well-regulated” is important because the Constitution is the greatest level of authority that any politician can aspire to hold. The military is not disciplined because a politician tells them to be rather it is because the Constitution demands it.

This brings me to my main point: The duty of the military is to obey all lawful orders given by the well-regulated chain of command. In the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) says* soldiers must obey all lawful orders and lawful general orders as well as lawful orders from Officers and Warrant officers/ Each time it is commanded of the Soldier to obey an order the caveat of “lawful” is put directly prior. So a soldier is at least permitted to refuse to obey any unlawful order. The Supreme Court however makes it clear in multiple cases throughout American Military history that “I was following Orders” is not an excuse for breaking the law.

The first such case is the Little vs. Barreme in 1804. ” A Danish vessel, The Flying Fish, with neutral Danish property on board was seized by the United States frigate Boston, commanded by Captain Little (Little), and brought into the port of Boston and libeled as an American vessel that had violated the non-intercourse law.” (casebriefs.com) John Adams had given the order that all American ships going to or from a French port could be seized by the Navy. The defense was that it was an order given by the President. However the Supreme Court found that the president did not have authority to write law or give an order that contradicted a law established by the Legislative body. (There are many more details in this case and I would encourage you to study it yourself in further detail.)

Since all power is derived from the Constitution it is logical to assume that any law given by congress or any order that is given by the President that clearly circumvents the Constitution is not to be obeyed by any member of the military. This was very intentionally planned by our Founding Fathers to prevent any military action that jeopardized the sustainability of a Constitutional Government while preventing the military from staging an unjust coup"

http://philosophicalvendetta.com/2013/02/13/disobeyingtheconstitution/

http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/swearing-in-for-military-service.html?comp=7000023431425&rank=1

WILL THE US MILITARY ... SHOOT THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN ??? SHARE !! THIS IS THE SURVEY CIRCULATED IN THE MILITARY LAST YEAR!!!

Has anyone heard if the Government is circulating a new variation of this 1994 questionnaire to military ??
Read the questions first circulated during the Clinton Leftward NWO MOVE... Would the Sons and Daughters of Americans do this ??

U.S. Armed Forces Survey: This is the questionnaire that was given in 1994 to select groups of U.S. armed forces personnel. Notice the references to the U.N., the firing on American civilians and the correlations of the two aforementioned. Note questions 8‑17 deal with the use of U.S. federal armed forces intervening in the civilian affairs of the U.S. public under the pretense of policemen. According to the U.S. Constitution (posse comitatus law) No federal forces are to be used in the civil control of the populace. Also note question 46 for a stunning question concerning the use of federal forces.
Note questions 18‑45 deals entirely with the United Nations, which is really the heart of this survey. Questions 1‑7 are only lead in questions for the rest of the survey.
Results to the article (paper file) is "Incredible" - The following is all taken in order: Combat Arms Survey: This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regards to non‑traditional missions. All of your responses are confidential. Write your answers directly on the questionnaire form. In part II, place an "X" in the space provided for your response.
Part I. Demographics:
1: What service are you in?
2: What is your pay grade? (e.g. E‑7, O‑7)
3: What is your MOS code and description?
4: What is your highest level of education in years?
5: How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield?
6: How many months did you serve in Somalia?
7: What state or country did you primarily reside in during childhood?
Part II. Attitudes: Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the United States for any of the following missions?
8: Drug enforcement?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
9: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
10: Security at national events? (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
11: Environmental disaster clean‑up?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
12: Substitute teachers in public schools?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
13: Community assistance programs? (e.g. landscaping, environmental cleanup, road repair, animal control)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
14: Federal and State prison guards?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
15: National emergency police force?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
16: Advisors to S.W.A.T. units, the F.B.I., or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T.F.)?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
17: Border patrol? (e.g. prevention of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
Do you fell that U.S. combat troops under U.S. command should be used in other countries for any of the following United Nations missions?
18: Drug enforcement?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
19: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
20: Environmental disaster clean‑up?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
21: Peace keeping?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
22: Nation building? (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school systems, develops or improve public transportation system..etc.)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
23: Humanitarian relief? (e.g. food, and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries, under the command of non‑U.S. officers appointed by the United Nations for any of the following missions?
24: Drug enforcement?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
25: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
26: Environmental disaster clean‑up?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
27: Peace keeping?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
28: Nation building? (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school systems, develops or improve public transportation system..etc.)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
29: Humanitarian relief? (e.g. food, and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
30: Police Action? (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, but serving under non‑U.S. officers)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
Consider the following statements:
31: The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises, under U.S. command and control?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
32: The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S./U.N. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these exercises?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
33: The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops should serve under U.N. command and control during these exercises?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
34: U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions as long as the U.S. has full command and control?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
35: U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under United Nations command and control?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
36: U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non‑commissioned officers (NCO's) at battalion and company levels while performing U.N. missions?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
37: It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team? (e.g. fire team, squad, platoon)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
38: It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company
commander?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
39: I feel the President of the United States has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander‑in‑Chief to the U.N. Secretary General?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
40: I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
41: I feel my unit's combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing humanitarian missions for the United Nations?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
42: I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigned to the command and control of the United Nations?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
43: I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N. command?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
44: I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
45: I would swear to the following code: "I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense."
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
46: The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire on U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
End of questionnaire
Now ask yourself these questions:
1: Are we to turn over our armed forces to the U.N.?
2: Can we be the U.N.'s world policeman?
3: Or the world's policeman on our own?
4: Should we give oath of allegiance to a foreign power?
5: Should we compromise our U.S. Constitution in the name of world government?
6: Who is first, the United States or the rest of the world, specifically the United Nations?
7: Would you rather answer to a world court (United Nations court) or to the courts of the United States?
8: Do you believe you will have any say in a world government or world court (United Nations)?
9: Are you willing to sacrifice national sovereignty for world laws and courts?
10: Is the United Nations better able to dictate our lives to us than we as a country are?
11: DO YOU BELIEVE IN A NEW WORLD ORDER RUN BY THE UNITED NATIONS?
Think about it, that is what this survey was meant to convey, A New World Order Run By the United Nations!
Here are the results of the survey:
Shoot Americans (New World Order Survey of Last Year) Survey Results One In Four Marines would fire! Results are in from the U.S. military "shoot Americans" survey ‑ and they are disquieting By Mike Blair. About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps Base in Southern California. In addition, more than four out of five of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force."
The SPOTLIGHT has been provided the results of the survey contained in a master degree thesis, reportedly undertaken by a student at the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey California, to determine "unit cohesion" when soldiers are assigned to "non‑traditional missions." Few stories published in the SPOTLIGHT have created such a stir when it was revealed in this newspaper's July 25,1994 issue that the survey had been taken at the Marine base. On May 10,1994, the survey was undertaken by Navy Lt. Cmdr. Ernest G. Cunningham, purportedly as research for his thesis: "Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational control; A Study of their effect on Unit Cohesion,” at the Marine base, located on the South‑east corner of the Mojave Desert, about 70 miles due east of San Bernadino, California, just east of Los Angeles
Received Degree: Cunningham turned in the thesis for printing on March 20 and was graduated from the post Graduate school on March 23, receiving his Master of Science in Manpower, Personnel and Training Analysis degree. According to U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officials, Cunningham administrated the survey to 300 Marine veterans of the Persian Gulf War and the earlier invasion of Panama in the base auditorium.
He had the cooperation and permission of the base's public affairs officer, but Cunningham did not have consent of the base commander, Brig. Gen. Russell H. Sutton. In fact, Sutton did not know about the survey until afterwards. The results of the survey have until now been "classified," according to a Marine Corps spokesman. The survey contained 46 questions dealing with the Marines' willingness to perform "non‑traditional" missions. Question 46, dealing with a gun confiscation scenario, jolted both the Marines and Navy, as well as The Department of Defense, numerous members of the House and Senate and virtually every American concerned with the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, which grantees the people's right to "keep and bear arms."
Very Disturbing: This is how the question was posed to the Marines: "The U.S. Government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. "Consider the following statement:'I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'." The question was then posed as to what degree the individual Marine agreed with the statement. According to results given in Cunningham's thesis, a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question. Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines indicated they would be willing to fire upon U.S. citizens."
Of that total, 18.67 percent or 56 Marines, indicated they "agree" with the statement, and 7.67 percent or 23 Marines, indicated that "strongly agree." A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing on citizens.
Of that total, 42.33 percent, or 127 indicated they "strongly disagree" and 19.33 percent or 58, indicated they "disagree." In is thesis, Cunningham noted: "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil marks on the response or written comments in the margin space. The responses to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."
In other words, if a commander asked the men of his unit to raise their hands in a simple poll, he could determine the position of such servicemen and those who responded in the affirmative could be tasked for such a mission. This is just one of the reasons the question, not to mention the fact that it was allowed to be asked, is obviously potentially dangerous. In fact, several months before the survey was taken at Twenty‑Nine Palms, the SPOTLIGHT, MODERN GUN and other publications revealed the question posed by Cunningham in his survey had ben asked of members of a U.S. Seal (Sea‑Air‑land) team. In addition, despite Navy and Marine Corps denials, there have been dozens of reports, unconfirmed, that the survey has been given to other servicemen, as well as various law enforcement agents.
Further Surveys? In fact, Cunningham notes: "If the results of this survey elicit concerns in the areas queried, then further studies are warranted. Perhaps a random sample survey should be conducted to determine whether the results of this survey is valid for the entire Marine Corps and/or Army. Also, a survey could provide an indication of the volunteer pool that would seek service in units dedicated to, and specialized in, peacekeeping operations...Also of concern is the fact, as reported by Cunningham in his thesis that 97.67 percent of the Marines responded to a question‑‑an overwhelming 85.33 percent in the affirmative‑‑that they would be willing to participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force..." "Furthermore," Cunningham notes "43.0 percent of the soldiers strongly agreed..."Federal Troops have been restricted from participation with local police authorities to quell domestic violence since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. That being the case, it was surprising that these soldiers seemed not to know the legal restrictions placed on them by this act." He also noted, however, that "In May 1992, 4,000 U.S. Army and Marine Soldiers were ordered by President George Bush to augment city and county law enforcement and state National Guard during the riot in Los Angeles, California following the Rodney King trial. "Since, 1981," Cunningham states, "the majority of today's All Volunteer Force has been exposed to and participated in an environment of expanding non‑traditional missions when Congress passed the Military
Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981. This act enabled the Military to participate in the drug war. This cooperative alliance of military and civilian police efforts in the name of national security may have eroded the demarcation between civilian law enforcement and our military institution first established by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878."
The results of another question, No. 45, posed by the survey indicates American soldiers are not eager to swear allegiance to the United Nations, although nearly one in four would do so. Question 45 states: "I would swear to the following code:'I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense'." A total of 69.33 percent, or 208 Marines surveyed, indicated they disagreed, with 117, or 39 percent, indicating they strongly disagreed.
On the other hand, 71 Marines, or 23.66 percent, indicated they would be willing to swear such allegiance to the UN, with 19, or 6.33 percent, indicating they were strongly in favor of doing so. "For thousands of years." Cunningham notes in his thesis, "military organizations have required their soldiers to swear to some kind of code or allegiance. A code provides a standard for the soldiers to live up to and, in many cases, to die for. A code can be a powerful tool for establishing and sustaining unit cohesion. But what if the mission a solider is assigned to perform counters or confuses the code he has sworn to uphold? Question 45 was presented to determine if the solders would swear to such a code." No one knows if the American personnel traveling in the helicopter shot down over Iraq [by "friendly fire"] in April 1994 would have sworn allegiance to such a code.
Yet, Vice President Albert Gore stated that these Americans "died in the service of The United Nations." "It is patently clear," a retired high ranking Army Officer told The SPOTLIGHT,"that this survey raises some very serious issues, not the least of which is that U.S. servicemen are not being properly educated as to the limits of their service in the civilian sector. This is most dangerous, and, I should think the Congress has an obligation to the people to take a careful look at this, not to mention the people at the Pentagon."From:   http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/armysurvey.html

Obama is setting himself up to be the LAST ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Last American President: ONLY WE CAN STOP HIS RAMPAGE...WE MUST BE THE VEHICLE OF CHANGE: EXCELLENT ANALYSIS!!

by Dave Hodges -  thecommonsenseshow.com

I had a recent conversation with a man who scoffed at my notion that Obama has set himself up to be a dictator on the scale of a Hugo Chavez and even an Adolph Hitler. “This could never happen in America,” the man proclaimed. “Congress and the Supreme Court would never let him get away with it.”
Through the unconstitutional power of Executive Orders (i.e. dictatorial power to issue decrees), Obama has positioned himself to stand alongside the most heinous dictators in history. Since taking office, President Obama signed 923 Executive Orders in the first 40 months of his term, many times more than any other president to date.

 When one looks at the scope of his Executive Orders, along with what they entail, it is clear that Obama is attempting to become the last American President.

Dictatorial Control Over All Fuel, Transportation
Executive Order 10990
Allows the government to take control over all modes of transportation, highways, and seaports.
Executive Order 11003
Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
Executive Order 11005
Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
Executive Order 10997
Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
Dictatorial Control Over All Food and Water
Executive Order 10998
Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
Dictatorial Control Over All Media and Communications
Executive Order 10995
Allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
Dictatorial Control Over the Ability to Completely Enslave the American People
Executive Order 11000
Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
Executive Order 11001
Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.
Executive Order 11002
Designates the Postmaster General to operate national registration of all persons.
Executive Order 11004
Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
Dictatorial Control Over the Ability to Grant Self Totalitarian Control Over Government
Executive Order 11051
Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
Executive Order 11310
Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Executive Order 11049
Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
Grants Self Total Dictatorial Control Over Everything
Executive Order 11921
Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and flow of money in the U.S.A. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
Dictatorial Control Over Americans Right to Defend Themselves Against Tyranny
Obama has created 23 Executive Orders which deal with gun control. Yet, the White House has not listed them as of yet, meaning that the President has not signed them. Clearly, this is a lever he is holding over Congress to get what he wants with gun control. If Congress, does not submit to his desires, Obama will, no doubt, enact the 23 Executive Orders, thus leaving American defenseless against the tyranny of the aforementioned Executive Orders.
Conclusion
When 2016 rolls around, it is becoming clear that this President will never leave office as he has the ability, under the aforementioned Executive Orders to decree himself, Ruler for Life. Under these Executive Orders he has granted himself to incarcerate those who would oppose him, starve populations into submission, control all jobs, wages, transportation and control the message to the people. He now has the ability to limit the citizens’ the right to defend themselves against his tyranny. And along with his criminal partners in Congress, under the NDAA, he has the ability to “disappear” and even murder suspected political dissidents in the spirit of Mao, Hitler and Stalin.
Who will oppose this tyrannical power grab? The 50% of the Obamanistas who are sustained through federal subsidies? Will he be opposed by those who are brainwashed by the corporate controlled media?
Almost a half a million well-to-do people have left the country in the past year. What have they figured out that the rest of us have not?

OBAMA IS KILLING THE ECONOMY.. ON PURPOSE AND THE LYING SACK OF SHIT MEDIA IS LYING !!

No recovery: U.S. personal income fell 3.5%

Early this morning, I heard/saw it again — some chattering reporter on an alphabet TV network saying the words “the improved economy.”
For crying out loud.
Stop lying!
The economy is NOT improving!
FOTM has posted about America’s retail apocalypse — of major national retailers like J.C. Penney, Sears, and Best Buy cutting staff and closing stores, and Wal-Mart having the worst February sales in 7 years. Even Wall Street giant Morgan Stanley is cutting 1,600 employees, as revenue from trading and deal-making remains in the doldrums.
Now comes more dismal economic news from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. In January 2013:

• U.S. personal income decreased 3.5% ($505.5 billion), the biggest drop in personal income in 20 years.
• That, in turn, led to a 4% decrease ($491.4 billion) in disposable personal income.
• The decline in disposable personal income meant Americans had less money to buy goods, which accounts for why consumption increased by only 0.2% from December 2012.
• The decline in disposable personal income also led to a decrease of personal saving rate to 2.4% — the lowest since November 2007.

Click image to enlarge
.

In the words of Bloomberg economist Rich Yamarone: “Consumers can’t spend what they don’t have, and they don’t have much.”
Nor is America’s anemic economic performance confined to just the month of January 2013.
As measured by personal income, 2012 was worse than 2011. Whereas personal income increased 5.1% in 2011, personal income increased only 3.5% in 2012. The year 2013 promises to be even worse, with personal income decreasing by 3.5% in the first month of the year.

Republicans Sign Legal Brief Supporting Gay Marriage.. WE ARE BEING EATEN FROM THE INSIDE!! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

BREAKING!!!......Republicans Sign Legal Brief Supporting Gay Marriage.............

• Posted by Michael CHILDS, Admin II on February 26, 2013 at 12:50pm in Patriot Action Alerts

At least 75 top Republicans have signed a legal brief to be submitted to the Supreme Court this week, arguing that gay marriage is a constitutional right, according to The New York Times, which got a copy of the document.
The court is preparing to take on the subject of gay marriage late next month, when it will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, and the Defense of Marriage Act. It is expected to render a decision in early summer.
The signers of the document are mostly out-of-office Republicans or former top officials, including former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, former Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), former Massachusetts Govs. William Weld and Jane Swift, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.
Read More:

This is potentially a big deal. It gives cover to a swing justice or two who may be sitting on the fence about marriage equality.
It is telling how many of these politicians are no longer in office and how many of them opposed gay marriage when they were in a positions of power and had to worry about elections.
It speaks volumes to the fear Republicans have of the extremists who wield so much influence in their party and how easily they cave to it.
Just think of your spouse, if you currently now have one. Like many people, I know what my spouse is about and I celebrate it everyday. She tells me what she would never tell her family. We are a team.

I'm thankful that regardless of trusts and wills, the law defaults to my oversight of her wishes and needs should anything happen to her. I will honor "her" wishes, no matter what. I'm sure many of you know this feeling.





Currently gay couples, in most states, do not have this basic right. National recognition of the validity of gay marriage will codify this right, in a way that wills, trusts, or contracts cannot compare.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Instead of worrying about the deficit or the unemployment lets worry about Gay marriage instead cause that is more important than millions out of work.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Republicans doing their best to save their political lives at the risk of losing the 30 million Christians which will of course eliminate the Republican Party from contention. Either way the Republicans can blame themselves for destroying the Republican Party.
Who cares except some tiny minority that already have every right listed under the bill of rights where does it end ?  This move is to legalize sodomy which even animals don't practice aren't humans suppose to be superior to animals.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
If you click through to the source article on NYT, you see a better description of the importance of this document. As noted above, it is an brief laying out an argument in support, but based on more conservative viewpoints. The intent is to help persuade more conservative leaning justices.

This is no small matter. The Supreme Court, by its nature, does often look at prevailing social opinion about topics such as this. We are in the middle of a shift in thinking similar to the 1950s and 1960s. Support for marriage equality is growing rapidly, and it is quite strong among voters under 30. The Supreme Court is going to consider this, even if some of the justices won't admit to it. That the support is coming from multiple political perspectives is going to reinforce that.

One reason that the justices will consider these things is that part of the legal wrangling focuses on the level of scrutiny that is used for determining constitutionality. Often, laws must make distinctions based on certain groups, such as legal age to drive a car. Some distinctions are more suspect than others, and thus the test of constitutionality varies. This variation in the test is referred to as the level of scrutiny.
When a law makes distinctions based on a protected class, such as race, then typically the government must show that the law serves a compelling (very important or crucial) purpose. This is called strict scrutiny. Certain other classifications, such as gender, are subject to what is called intermediate scrutiny, which requires that the law serve an important purpose (but not necessarily a crucial one). Other classifications require only that the law make some rational sense, even if it isn't proven to be accurate.

This last level, put simply, amounts to "there are some distinctions that make sense, and laws need to be allowed to make these distinctions". For example, age based laws are very common. Historically, orientation has typically fallen in this last level. In other words, until recently, courts have viewed orientation as an unprotected class. Part of what is at issue is whether that level of scrutiny should be raised.

Showing that orientation is not merely choice and also society as a whole views this as a matter of equality could go a long way to helping someone like Roberts, or possibly even an Alito, to shift their views.