Friday, August 17, 2012

THE LIE THAT BILL AYERS WAS JUST A GUY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD!!

The Obama-Ayers incestuous money trail.


This is a story of millions of dollars that created an incestuous money trail being used to radicalize the Chicago education system and turn it into the socialist model used by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
This is also a story about how a father tried to use his power and money to rehabilitate his son, felon-on-the-run and unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and turn him into the socialist prince of Chicago. Tom Ayers enabled his son, Bill, to continue his addiction to communist causes by helping him raise millions of dollars through relationships among Chicago’s corporate and philanthropic community for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Tom Ayers used those connections and his political power so his son could help his newly hired employee, Barack Obama, become a force in Chicago politics. Through the Chicago Annenburge Challenge, Bill Ayers mentored Obama for four years about how to destroy the capitalist system from the inside. Their tactics mirrored those employed by dictator Hugo Chavez, which are designed to radicalize the education system.
Funding radicals to train radicals
For four years, Bill Ayers and Barack Obama raised $160 million from Bill Ayers’ father’s friends and connections, and most of that money, until three weeks ago, remained publicly unaccounted for. We still don’t know how all of it was spent and to whom it was given, although we do know that after Ayers hired Obama in 1995, one of the first grants they gave was $175,000 to taxi driver Michael Klonsky, an ally of Ayers from their days in Students for a Democratic Society and a founder of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) (USA). The money was used to fund a radical training group called the Small Schools Workshop, a group Klonsky and Ayers started.
This began a longtime friendship that continued through Obama’s presidential campaign when Klonsky hosted a blog on Obama’s official presidential campaign website to recruit other communists and radicals to help Obama.
Delighting in America’s economic decline
As the Bill Ayers and Barack Obama relationship moves to center stage in the waning days of the presidential campaign, little has been said about how this relationship developed, or the role Bill Ayers’ father, Tom, who was CEO of Commonwealth Edison, played in enabling his son to shepherd along the career of Barack Obama and continue to feed his addiction for communist and socialist causes. This is certainly worth a closer look, as the exact nature of the Obama/Ayers relationship exposes the ideological underpinnings of a man who would be president.
First, it is important to understand the personalities involved.
Bill Ayers, and his wife and co-conspirator, the Castro-trained Bernardine Dohrn Ayers, are socialist philosophy addicts who are hooked just as badly as druggies on the notion that massive wealth redistribution will solve the world’s problems. Like her husband, Bernardine Ayers was involved in Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground. She also spent much of the 1970s, again, like her husband, eluding the FBI. The couple was on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted List” for a string of bombings they committed in the U.S.
In the ’60s, when they were the heroes of the communist-inspired terrorist movement, their unofficial slogan was “kill the rich people” – ever hopeful that the day would come when America would implode and be brought to her knees. Today, they must delight in the economic slaughter of hundreds of millions of Americans through financial decline.
America’s financial crisis so amuses communist Bill Ayers that a little more than a month ago, the day before the anniversary of Sept. 11, he posted a line from a Randy Newman song on his blog: “The end of an empire is messy at best. … And this empire is ending, like all the rest.”
The godfather of Illinois politics
Tom Ayers, a man so powerful he was often referred to as the godfather of Illinois politics, obviously used his power and influence to make his son, Bill, the socialist prince of Chicago. And to a large degree, Tom Ayers succeeded as an enabler to his son’s mission to carry out his radical communist agenda.
As the head of Commonwealth Edison, Tom Ayers was not only very wealthy, but very connected to all the power players in Chicago. It was said his influence or support could help elect a mayor, a governor, or a senator.
The Sidley Austin law firm hired Tom Ayers’ Castro-trained daughter-in-law, even though as a felon, she was prohibited from practicing law. But Sidley Austin succumbed to Ayers’ pressure to hire her. Sidley Austin must have succumbed to pressure (or they had some unknown reason) to hire a young first-year law student as an intern. It is very rare for big law firms, such as Sidley Austin, to hire law students in their first year. Who supplied that pressure we don’t know, but the young man was Barack Obama. Bill Ayers hired Obama to help him radicalize the Chicago education system along the Hugo Chavez model.
Was this the first time the Ayers family met Barack Obama, or did the links begin even before he went to Harvard? We know Tom Ayers and Howard Trienens, a Sidley Austin partner, were fellow members of the board of trustees for Northwestern University. We know that they, or someone else, got Northwestern University to hire convicted felon, Castro-trained Bernardine Dohrn Ayers, as an associate professor of law – her hiring even being endorsed by a federal judge.
Now, could Tom Ayers and Trienens have helped Obama get endorsements from enough people to get him admitted to Harvard? We only know one person who endorsed Obama, Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight, a Saul Alinsky admirer who knew Tom Ayers and Howard Trienens through their seats on the board at his school. Harvard and Obama have not disclosed the identities of the other mystery endorsers.
Where did the $160 million go?
Ayers’ hiring of Barack Obama as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge commenced a four-year relationship where Bill Ayers acted as Obama’s mentor and introduced him to radical organizations and communists who would become helpmates as he rose to power.
Communist Bill Ayers and Obama funneled $160 million of this incestuous money trail to left-wing organizations bent on radicalizing students, parents and teachers. They repeatedly turned down grant requests to improve reading, writing or math skills, instead opting to bolster programs that focused on social justice teaching, such as the $175,000 they gave to former taxi driver Klonsky to start up the Small Schools Workshop.
This incestuous money trail also includes ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now), which is currently in the headlines for mass voter fraud, as a beneficiary of the radical rainmakers Obama and Ayers.
Bill Ayers and Barack Obama, in essence, used the Annenberg Challenge to implement a radical authoritarian structure on the Chicago School System copied from what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. Ayers has gone to Venezuela on a number of occasions to meet with Chavez and his associates, even leaving his adopted son with Chavez to learn the most recent techniques.
The question today is: Where did the rest of this $160 million go? Why did Obama and communist Bill Ayers fight tooth and nail to keep documents relating to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge sealed until just three weeks ago? How were they successful in keeping them sealed throughout the entire primary?
Are all of the records there? Where are the audit reports? Have they been sanitized? How long will it take for a forensic accountant to follow the incestuous money trail?
This money trail includes many Ayers family friends and radical supporters, who helped Obama in his run for the presidency. In the next report, we’ll talk about the Northern Trust, which seems to be the bank of choice for many of those many of those we have met as we follow this money trail, and we’ll follow the linkages to other organizations and foundations with which these Ayers family friends and associates are linked.

The groups Obama kept off his resume to hide his MARXIST AND SOCIALIST TIES.

The groups Obama kept off his resume to hide his MARXIST AND SOCIALIST TIES.

During the Democratic debate on April 16 in Philadelphia, Barack Obama explained to the voters that his former boss, mentor and committed communist, Bill Ayers, was “a guy who lives in my neighborhood. … He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” But the truth is, “exchanging ideas” is most of what they did during their at least 15 years of collaboration together.
Below is an in-depth look at three organizations Obama omits from his official campaign and U.S. Senate biographies: The Woods Fund, The Joyce Foundation and The Gamaliel Foundation – as well as a look at how Obama’s long-time church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is inexorably linked to the Obama-Ayers “incestuous money trail.”
The Woods Fund
An outgrowth of the Woods Charitable Fund, The Woods Fund of Chicago focuses its attention on welfare reform, affordable housing, public schools, race and class disparities in the juvenile justice system, and tax policy as a tool in reducing poverty. According to DiscoverTheNetworks.org, “The Fund supported the concept of an expanding welfare state allocating ever-increasing amounts of money to the public school system, and the redistribution of wealth via taxes.”
Obama served on the Woods Fund Board from 1993 to 2002. During that time, he worked alongside two people who form part of the Obama network: Bill Ayers and Howard J. Stanback. Communist Bill Ayers joined the board in 1999 and served with Obama for three years. Considering the board met at least a dozen times, Ayers and Obama had plenty of opportunities to discuss the wealth redistribution goals of the foundation. Obama also served alongside Woods Fund Board Chairman Howard J. Stanback. In 2001, Stanback headed New Kenwood LLC, a limited liability company founded by Obama’s close friend and convicted felon, Tony Rezko, and Obama’s former law firm boss, Allison Davis.
While Obama served on the Woods Fund board, the Fund utilized Northern Trust’s investment services and participated in a Northern Trust private equity fund. Years later, Obama would be the beneficiary of a below market rate home loan from Northern Trust, which benefited from Obama’s actions as a member of the Woods Fund Board.
The Obama-Woods Fund story is not just the interpersonal relationships of its board, but also a revealing look at who benefited from Woods Fund grants.
As far back as 1987, Obama’s Developing Communities Project was the beneficiary of a $36,000 grant from the Woods Fund for school reform work. As board members years later, Barack Obama and Bill Ayers would send money to a number of projects near and dear to both of them, including:
  • a combined total of over $1 million to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (Obama was its chief executive officer and Ayers the author of the $50 million grant that gave life to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge)
  • a $6,000 grant to Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in 2001
  • a $20,000 grant in 1995 and a $35,000 grant in 2001 for communists Bill Ayers and Michael Klonsky’s Small School Workshops or his Chicago Forum for Small School Change at the University of Illinois at Chicago (Ayers was on the Woods Fund Board at the time)
  • a $75,000 grant to Chicago ACORN in 2001
  • a $45,000 grant to Chicago ACORN in 2000
  • a $40,000 grant to Chicago ACORN in 1999
  • a $55,000 grant in 1998, a $40,000 grant in 2001, a $20,000 grant in 2000 and grants totaling $98,500 grants in 1999 to the Community Renewal Society (another pet project of Bill Ayers’ father, Tom Ayers)
  • a $40,000 grant in 2000 and a $25,000 grant in 2001 to the Chicago Urban League (another Tom Ayers organization)
  • a $5,000 grant in 2000 to the Chicago Partnership for Economic Development (the fiscal agent is the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, which is yet another organization with which Bill Ayers’ father, Tom Ayers, was involved)
  • a $25,000 grant in 2001 to Obama’s former employer, The Developing Communities Project
  • $40,000 grants each in 1998 and 1999 to Project Match run by the Erickson Institute on whose board sat Tom Ayers
  • a combined total of $75,000 between 2001 and 2002 to the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), an anti-Israel outfit run by Mona Khalidi (Mona is the wife of Rashid Khalidi, founder of the Arab American Action Network, and both are friends of Obama’s from his days at the University of Chicago).
Between 1998 and 2001, the Obama and Ayers-led Woods Fund also gave nearly $300,000 to Northwestern University, where Bill Ayers and his wife, Castro-trained Bernardine Dohrn Ayers, had secured teaching jobs. Bill Ayers’ father, Tom Ayers, also sat on the Board of Trustees for Northwestern, as did Howard Trienens, who was a partner at the law firm (Sidley Austin) that hired Obama for an internship when he was only a first-year law student. Here are the grants in detail:
  • a $30,000 grant in 1998 to Northwestern University
  • a $65,000 grant in 2000 to the Northwestern University School of Law
  • a $96,218 grant to Northwestern University’s Institute for Policy Research in 2001
  • a $100,000 grant to Northwestern University in 1999
Trinity United Church of Christ
Trinity United Church of Christ’s central tenet is to advocate social justice through the redistribution of wealth in America. Barack Obama sat and listened to 20 years worth of sermons, many by his former friend Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that preached the only way to end the “victimization” of poor people is enact laws that would punish the well-to-do and redistribute their wealth evenly across the masses.
Though political expediency may have recently forced Obama to distance himself from Trinity and Wright, Obama’s long-standing relationship with the church speaks volumes.
Much ink has already been spilled on the extremist anti-American beliefs of former Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Rev. Wright. As Stanley Kurtz detailed in The National Review, Wright’s close associates were two such extremists, Jacob Carruthers and the late Asa Hilliard. Both were invited to speak at Rev. Wright and Obama’s church. According to Kurtz, Carruthers wrote in his wildly anti-American book, “Intellectual Warfare,” that no black person can be American in any authentic sense. Carruthers wrote that “submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.”
Asa Hilliard was a pioneer of African-centered curricula and addressed a teacher training session funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. She also helped formulate the curriculum for the South Shore African Village Collaborative funded by the Joyce Foundation and the Annenberg Challenge.
The Community Renewal Society was another pet project of Bill Ayers’ father, former Commonwealth Edison CEO Tom Ayers, who created the organization to push Chicago-area black churches to advance a radical concept of “social justice” through wealth redistribution. Funding figures for the Society are scant given the organization’s “church” status, which exempts them from having to file an IRS tax return, but the connections are clear.
The 2003 annual report for the Society shows that Trinity United Church of Christ gave between $5,000 and $10,000 to the Society while the Woods Fund gave between $100,000 and $200,000.
On full display is yet another way in which the Ayers family helped Obama further his career. Obama sat on the Board of the Joyce Foundation that gave grant money to the Community Renewal Society. Rev. Wright and Obama were close friends, and Wright’s church supports the Community Renewal Society, which is a Tom Ayers project.
In addition, on Feb. 12, 2000, the Community Renewal Society hosted a 10th Anniversary Prom in honor of one of its projects, CATALYST (also funded by the Joyce Foundation). Among the names on the Anniversary Planning Committee are none other than Bill Ayers’ brother, John Ayers, Michelle Obama and Susan Klonksy, former radical leftist and Students for a Democratic Society member, and wife of communist and Obama and Ayers buddy Michael Klonsky. Susan Klonsky is also active with “Progressives for Obama.”
The Joyce Foundation
Obama joined the Board of Directors of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation in 1994 and served on its board until 2002. The Joyce Foundation targets its grants toward organizations with agendas of social justice, prison reform, increased government spending for social services and radical environmentalism, with many of those recipient groups hostile to the capitalist model.
Notable Joyce Foundation grants include:
  • an $80,000 grant to Bill Ayers’ Chicago School Reform Collaborative (part of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge)
  • a $429,112 grant in 1998 (a 28 month project) to the Bank Street College of Education to evaluate whether small schools operating within the Chicago Public Schools led to improved student performance (Bill Ayers received his masters from Bank Street College of Education and administered the Small Schools project.)
  • a $70,000 grant to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1996, 1997 and 1998 for a total of $210,000
  • a total of $300,000 to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge beginning in 1999 (after Obama joined the Foundation’s board)
  • $755,261 in grants to Bill Ayers’ Small School Workshop and Chicago Forum for School Change (according to Bill Ayers’ curriculum vitae); totals dispensed include $74,500 from 1992-1993; $79,761 from 1993-1994; $264,000 from 1995-1997 and $337,000 from 1998-1999 (the later two grants being made while Obama served on the boards of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Joyce Foundation (the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, in turn, provided $175,000 to the Small Schools Workshop)
  • a contribution valued at between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Chicago Public Education Fund (on whose board sat Obama, Tom and John Ayers)
  • a $151,930 grant in 1998 to Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to monitor federal, state and local compliance with Federal Title 1 requirements for assessing the educational progress of Chicago’s low-income public school students and providing assistance to improve performance (Obama was chairman of the Board for this organization beginning in 1994)
  • an $88,195 grant in 1996 (over two years) to the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law to help Chicago schools make better use of their federal Title I funds
  • A $313,000 grant in 1998 to the Community Renewal Society to expand its Catalyst: Voices of Chicago School Reform publication (Tom Ayers was active with the Community Renewal Society)
  • Grants total $392,850 in 1999 to the Community Renewal Society
  • A $78,000 grant in 1998 to Northwestern University’s Department of African American Studies to identify, describe and publicize the factors affecting student performance at 20 Chicago elementary schools
  • a $70,000 grant in 1999 to the Center for Improved Education in South Shore that was one of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s “external partners,” part of the network of Chicago Schools known as the “South Shore African Village Collaborative” that was thoroughly Afro centric in orientation – the Collaborative worldview was the same as that of Rev. Jeremiah Wright – see Stanley Kurtz’s brilliant article, “Wright 101″ (Oct. 14, 2008) at National Review Online for additional background
  • a $150,000 grant in 1996 (2 year grant) to the Center for Improved Education in South Shore
  • a $400,000 grant to the Erikson Institute for research into welfare (Tom Ayers and Bill Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn, served on the Erikson Board)
If the funding and the relationships sound all too cozy, that’s because they are. Joyce Foundation President Deborah Leff and Barack Obama served together on the Foundation’s Board as late as 1999, and they also served together on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Close Obama friend and presidential campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett would later join the Joyce Foundation board in 2003.
Gamaliel Foundation
According to Discover the Networks, “the stated mission of the Gamaliel Foundation is ‘to be a powerful network of grass-roots, interfaith, interracial, multi-issue organizations working together to create a more just and more democratic society.’” Predicated on the belief that America is a land rife with injustice, Gamaliel agitates for social change by supporting the efforts of a network of organizations whose goal is to allow individuals to “effectively participate” in the political, environmental, social and economic arenas. Gamaliel utilizes Saul Alinsky’s socialist methods to achieve their goal.
The Gamaliel Foundation receives its funding from a number of large foundations, including George Soro’s Open Society Institute. Barack Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project during the mid-to-late 1980s and is part of the Gamaliel network. The Foundation’s story is less about the money trail and more about the people with whom Obama worked. Gamaliel founder Greg Galluzo mentored Obama in Alinsky tactics, as did another Gamaliel employee, Mike Kruglik, who later helped school Obama campaign workers in Alinsky tactics. Obama later served as a consultant and Alinsky trainer of community organizers for Gamaliel. Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight sat on the Gamaliel Board. McKnight, a student of Alinsky tactics, was another of Obama’s mentors who later wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama to Harvard Law School.
The Obama secret
Obama’s official U.S. Senate and campaign biographies omit any detailed discussion of his work for the Woods Fund, Joyce Foundation or the Gamaliel Foundation – and the Developing Communities Project – and with good reason. Their inclusion would have invited a close look at his involvement with these groups that would, in turn, reveal the leftist goals of these organizations and pull back the curtain on Obama’s ultimate agenda for America.
The incestuous and long money trail to organizations on whose board Obama sat to other organizations on whose board Obama also served clearly demonstrate that Obama is committed to a socialist agenda. His stealth political strategy is to talk a soft game but have a hard-left social agenda. Just this past week, Obama was seen on network television promising that, “[B]efore I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we’re going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We’re going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America.”
What will be discussed at these “meetings”? Perhaps Obama’s proposal for “tax reform,” which would accomplish the goals of his former foundations, church and mentor Bill Ayers, by enacting a socialist wealth redistribution scheme. And not just on a national scale – but a global scale. I cover this in detail in “The Audacity of Deceit.” Not only would Obama send nearly $1 trillion of taxpayer dollars to the United Nations to redistribute wealth worldwide, but only 5 percent of the jobs created by this massive program would be manned by U.S. citizens. The other 95 percent would be filled by citizens from countries that are communist, socialist, Hindu, Muslim and atheist – in other words, countries that harbor an extreme dislike, or even hatred, for America.
As Obama told a concerned, tax-burdened plumber just days ago: “It’s not that I want to punish your success. … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Everybody, of course, except those being punished.
In “The Audacity of Deceit,” I also write about how Obama’s tax plan would increase the percentage of non-taxpayers in America from 30 percent to 44 percent. These figures were recently confirmed by pieces in the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily.
Under an Obama presidency, leftist, Alinsky-inspired organizations will have a seat at the table helping to shape the agenda of America. Socialism and wealth redistribution is not the change most Americans want.

Obama’s Selective Service Card IS A Fraud: DONE BY A POOR FORGER TOO !!

Bombshell! Obama’s Selective Service Card IS A Fraud:   DONE BY A POOR FORGER TOO !!

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.. SHARE THIS AFTER YOU HAVE SEEN IT.
This proves that Obama did NOT  Register for Selective Service.. and so he cannot BE THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF..

ITS THAT SIMPLE..

EVERY MILITARY MAN AND EVERY CONSERVATIVE POLITICIAN SHOULD SEE THESE FACTS!!

It’s the Law!

Fraudulent Document Precludes Obama from Holding Office!


Card image from Government FOIA Request Received by Ken Allen
One of our readers, Gordo,  provided a link to “Bombshell” information that is found in an interview with  Mike Zullo.  He is the lead investigator of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse team, that was delving into Obama’s eligibility.
On March 2, 2012, on Frank Beckmann‘s radio program,  WJR (760),  Detroit, Michigan,  Mike and Frank have discussion about the Posse’s findings.   This is the link ,  so you can listen for yourself.

During the first part of the broadcast the emphasis is on Obama’s birth certificate.  They are looking for the individual that created the birth certificate and posted it on the WH website.  The document on the government website, “never started its life as a hard copy document.”   He said they used the airwaves and the internet to give the birth certificate the “look of it being authentic.”  Fraud  was committed.  First, there was  fraud against the citizens of  Maricopa County, then the state of Arizona,  and finally citizens across the nation.    Mike  said that they have identified  “a person of interest” in the forging of Obama’s birth certificate.
Mike also disclosed that the Posse decided not to approach the officials in Hawaii until they had proof from their own  investigations.   Frank inquired if  they were  going to contact them, and he said, “You can take that to the bank!”  He also said they were not involved in trying to keep Obama off the ballot, and that it was up to the citizens of Arizona.   They are investigating fraud and the forgery of documents.
I transcribed some of  the conversation between the two men after the discussion about the birth certificate.  It is worthwhile for you to listen to the entire conversation to get the full flavor of the details presented.
Frank: There is also a question about the president’s Social Security card.  “Were you looking into that as well?”
Mike:  “That is still under investigation.  The Social Security  issue is still  an unexplained phenomenon.  It is a little difficult to investigate that without having an official criminal investigation. But that is something that we are looking at.
What the public should be more concerned about is the possibility of the  Fraud of the Selective Service Card.  That has some severe ramifications.”

Frank:   asks him to repeat what he said because the conversation broke up.
Mike:  “The Selective Service card that we showed in our press conference.
We believe that document was fraudulently created to give the appearance that it  was accepted in 1980.  That has some far reaching implications.  That is actually something that the president himself at some point in time may have to answer for.”

Frank:  “How so?  Explain.”
Mike:  “Selective Service back in 1980, there was a requirement that any males over the age of 18 years old register for Selective Service.  Failure to do so was under penalty of law which was a felony. It also precludes individuals from holding public office, governmental office, if they do not register.”   [Yes, read that again, folks!]
“We showed in our press conference yesterday that  we believe  that the post office stamp which tries to portray that card as  being accepted at a post office in Hawaii in 1980  was fraudulently applied to that document. That document is still under severe investigation by our office.
Frank:  “You are right, that is an even bigger issue than a birth certificate. I would think for most people.”
Mike: ” I do agree with you. It is a bigger issue for everybody involved, and  a lot of media, they are running from this issue because this issue,  it links directly to Mr. Obama.
Frank:  “We’ll see. The MSM is not going to give you a lot of coverage on this, are they?”
Mike:  “Nah, They are trying to go the same route as before. Everybody is starting to come out now trying to say well, its the scanner, its this, and we debunked all of that.  It is a topic that the MSM does not  want to deal with, and we will have to play accordingly.”
#######
To check the integrity of Mr. Zullo’s words that not registering or using a forged document precludes Obama from having a federal job, the following was found on the U.S. Selective Service Registration website concerning registering with the Selective Service.   Indeed, he is correct.
Register for the Draft: It’s Still the Law
Males 18 through 25 are required to register
Penalties for Failure to Register for the Draft
Men who do not register could be prosecuted and, if convicted, fined up to $250,000 and/or serve up to five years in prison. In addition, men who fail to register with Selective Service before turning age 26, even if not prosecuted, will become ineligible for:
Student Financial Aid – including Pell Grants, College Work Study, Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans, and National Direct Student Loans.
U.S. Citizenship - if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.
Federal Job Training – The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) offers programs that can train young men for jobs in auto mechanics and other skills. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service.
 Federal Jobs – men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.
In addition, several states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register.
You may have read or been told that there is no need to register, because so few people are prosecuted for failing to register. The goal of the Selective Service System is registration, not prosecution. Even though those who fail to register may not be prosecuted they will be denied student financial assistance, federal job training, and most federal employment unless they can provide convincing evidence to the agency providing the benefit they are seeking, that their failure to register was not knowing and willful.
Again, from the government, just in case Barack Obama (or whatever his name really  is)  arrived in the U.S. from a foreign county, illegal alien males are also required to register.
“All immigrant alien males, other than those admitted on non-immigrant visas, must register, whether or not they have a green card.”
So,  huge questions remain for Barack Obama to answer.  Who filed the Selective Service form and who signed his name?  According to Debbie Schlussel,  who wrote an  exclusive on her findings regarding Obama’s Selective Service Registration card in 2008, the form a forger used was  a  SSS Form 1 that was issued in  1990.  (lower left corner)  Yet, the form signed by Obama and supposedly stamped by a postal clerk  shows  1980!   How did Obama complete a form 10 full years before the form was in use?  That is just one of the multiple abnormalities identified by Debbie Schussel.
The Posse recreated the postal stamp that was used on Obama’s fraudulent form and figured out how it was made.  They  also noted that the stamp was missing  two numbers identified in a normal year pattern of 4 digits i.e., 1980.  The stamp print that the forger  used was compared to other forms from the same time period and found they all used the entire sequence of 4 digits, 1980.   On Obama’s form only the 80 was printed, and the 19 was missing.
Quickly after the Posse’s conference,  the Left came to Obama’s defense saying that the ink didn’t penetrate the 1 and 9 and, therefore, those two numbers didn’t print.   Well, they had to find an excuse for it!  The Posse showed Obama’s stamp compared  to other stamps from the same year and they all had complete 4 digit year markings.    If the Left’s  analysis was correct, then why was ink picked up in the numbers above the 08,  in the circular line and the words beneath the 08?    I think we will believe our own eyes  and the forensic document experts and law enforcement officials who have identified the document as a forgery.  The paid Leftist radicals who manufacture lies and deceive those who can not think for themselves are trying to defend the indefensible.
So now there are two confirmed document forgeries by law enforcement officials that purportedly belong to and are supposed to identify  the person sitting in the White House, Barack Obama.

CONFIRMED FORGERIES!

 Birth Certificate 

Selective Service Registration Form

How long do We the People have to wait to have a criminal investigation started regarding Barack Obama?  If the registration document is not his, then who completed the form for him that was sent to the government?  Is he a foreigner as many suspect since he uses a fake social security card number  and that number didn’t pass E-Verify?  Who created the Selective Service Registration form for Obama to sign?  How did that form information get into the government database?  Who works at the Selective Service Administration in Chicago that could put that card into their files?  (Conveniently, Selective Service forms are maintained in the Chicago office.).  Was the form created  in 2008 when Obama wanted to run for office?  Did the same person create both the birth certificate and the selective service form?  Does Obama think he will be able to skate on both these issues?
The man with multiple identities and no documentation is  occupying the highest office in our nation.  Abiding by the laws in our nation, Obama is ineligible to be in the position he is, and we certainly can not allow him to run for office again.
Failure to register with the Selective Service is a felony.  If Obama did not register when he was required to do so, and it appears he did not;  he is not eligible for a job in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.  
Let’s make Obama accountable now!
Start your letter campaign and demand Congress investigate!  If they want money for their reelection campaigns, then they damn well better do the job they are paid by the taxpayers to do!   Money talks, when Obama walks.
#######
Additional Reading:

UPDATE:  March 21, 2012

Authentic Date Stamps from 1980
The Cold Case Posse obtained these official 1980 US Postal Service stamps to show a comparison to Obama’s stamp where only the “80″ shows. 

From WND:   The first two stamps in the illustration are from the same Post Office – Makiki Station in Honolulu, Hawaii – indicated on Obama’s Selective Service registration.
While some of the letters stamped in the outer ring on some of the authentic documents are indistinct or even missing, all of the authentic date stamps include four digits for the year at the center of the stamp.
Below are  four of the authentic Selective Service registration forms. All of the forms have a Post Office stamp that indicates the year with four digits.  In sharp contrast, the year designation in Obama’s Selective Service registration has two digits, specifying only “80″ instead of “1980.”


Monday, August 13, 2012

OBAMA'S ILLEGAL CERTIFICATION TO RUN ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET IN 2008...THE BIG FRAUD EXPOSED IN DETAIL

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


by Pen Johannson
Editor, The Daily Pen

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

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

SETTING THE STAGE

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

If those seeking the truth about Obama's identity are not equal to that same diligence, then they should question their understanding of the importance of constitutional sovereignty. Remember, among the primary objectives of liberal globalists, in concealing Obama's identity and, ultimately, his illegitimacy, was the endowment of executive political power to a like-minded, radical agent who would "push" extreme doctrine enabling the governmental confiscation of advanced American invidualism. Otherwise, if that truth fails to impress, then we should simply consider the massive five trillion dollars of added indebtedness upon our children and grandchildren, since Democrats took over the government in 2006, the cost of being America.

By now, America is realizing that Obama was tactically positioned not to make America a better nation for all of its citizens, but rather to confiscate the value of America's superior, prosperous heritage and redistribute it to those he and the liberal establishment believes are more deserving of it, globally! Obama's desire for economic equality is motivated by the very same communistic values which have failed humanity for more than 200 years.

However, since communism cannot succeed in America, the neo-liberal establishment is exploiting the executive powers usurped by Obama as a President to enact "punitive" legislation which, essentially, redirects money from vintage American society into an epic liberal cause sought since the end of World War II. Two generations ago, the American people sought to prosper from their work. Now, under Obama, the definition of a new "American Dream" has been hijacked by those lusting to make a profit by defaming the prosperity and sacrifice of coming generations.

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

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

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

Ultimately, the DPH's rejection of Obama was due to a refusal by Obama to make available the original documented evidence confirming his eligibility. However, this justifiable lack of certification by the DPH was followed by a covert attempt by the Democratic National Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi, to artificially proclaim Obama eligible in Hawaii by submitting two separate, sworn Official Certifications of Nomination (OCON) for Obama, each containing different legal language. Both versions of the OCON were sent to the Hawaiian Office of Elections while only one version was submitted to other states' Election authorities. The DNC's fraudulent OCON was an obvious, desperate attempt to control damage and prevent Obama from being disqualified from the Hawaiian ballot and prevent public awareness of the DPH's refusal to certify Obama's eligibility.
. The Official Certification of Nomination is a legally required document submitted by each party's state and national authority to every state elections committee authority prior to each election. It affords the Chief Elections Officer in each state with the documented legal assurance that the candidates seeking inclusion on their state's ballot are indeed certified as constitutionally eligible to serve the office they seek.

Unfortunately, the violation committed by the DNC's falsified certification is that there was no evidence to support claims of Obama's eligibility. The DNC simply fabricated reasons over the authority of the state party authority in order to force Obama's candidacy onto the Hawaiian presidential ballot. Of course, Democrats claim there was no impropriety on the part of Pelosi and the DNC. However, they have failed to explain why the state party authority refused to certify Obama, due to his lack of legal qualifications, while the national party authority simply certified Obama, ignoring that same lack of legal qualifications. The lack of accountability makes the Democrat Party appear pathetically disreputable. The DNC is not served by the multiple state party authorities, it is there to serve the state party authorities. Federal constitutional law prescribes the mandates for Presidential eligibility, but state authorities have the responsibility for validating candidate authenticity for their own ballot.

The OCON controversy is an example of what happens when dishonest, inferior people try to force themselves into positions of power they are not qualified to assume. Even those who seek to uphold the honorability of service at the local level, within their own party, will eventually refuse to endorse their candidacy if the disparity of legal qualifications becomes irreconcilable. Not only was the dual OCON a deceitful maneuver by Nancy Pelosi and DNC to synthetically place Obama's inauthentic candidacy onto Hawaii's presidential ballot, it violated Constitutional election law requiring that each state maintains the sovereign authority to grant or deny ballot inclusion based on their own standards.

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

SCHATZ' ASCENDANCE

Compounding the OCON controversy is the elevation of several minor characters of the "Obama For President" script into positions of significant professional and political advancement. Since Obama's election, multiple employees and officials in Hawaii have been promoted, transfered or elected to higher positions after they played integral roles in assisting Obama's enthronement.

In August, 2008, just two months before the election, the Democrat Party of Hawaii’s (DPH) chairman, Brian Schatz, had already refused to include legally required, explicit language in its sworn Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) that Barack Obama was qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The DPH's OCON document was allegedly submitted to the Hawaiian Election's office between August 27th and September 5th, 2008.
. Former DPH Chair, Brian Schatz, now serves as
Hawaii's Lt. Governor under Gov. Neil Abercrombie (2010).
As DPH Chair, Schatz authored the state's Democrat
Party OCON for Obama without including legally required
language stating that Obama was constitutionally
eligible to serve as president. Schatz won the Lt. Gov.
seat by a wide margin after two years of remaining
silent about his OCON controversy.
At first glance, one might think Schatz was simply acting with discretion and, if nothing else, upholding the appearance of legal prudence over political partisanship. However, a review of records held by the State of Hawaii reveals this document was not affixed with a "RECEIVED DATE" or "FILED DATE" stamp by the Hawaiian Elections office like the certification documents in the other 49 states were. Therefore, the possibility remains that the OCON submitted by Schatz may have actually been filed after the first "non-Constitutional" OCON was submitted from the DNC. This would indicate a possible violation of Hawaiian election law HRS 11-113(c)(1) which sets a precise deadline for the submission of this document by the party authorities to the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer.
.
Without, the "RECEIVED" or "FILED" date stamp, it is impossible to determine which document was produced first or whether both documents were submitted to the Hawaiian Elections office before the deadline. The fact that these documents do not contain this stamp raises serious suspicion about their authenticity and about the expected chronology of their chain of possession. To anyone not associated with election procedures, the absence of this stamp might appear like a simple administrative oversight, but to anyone with basic understanding of laws governing official records, this is a shocking dereliction. Compounding this unlawful omission by the Hawaiian Elections Office, the DNC's OCON submitted to Hawaii was also not affixed with this stamp.

The official dating of documents is essential for authorities to track the chain of possession and transaction of documented information. Marks, signatures and stamps allow them to know who has seen the document, who has attested to its content and when the document reached certain people and destinations. These determinations allow officials to know when to initiate administrative procedures and, most importantly, deliver written correspondence to candidates and/or applicants in accordance with election laws, especially if disparities arise during the evaluation of criteria used to approve eligibility for ballot content. Hawaiian election laws, like many states' laws, are particularly precise about the deadlines governing the actions and procedures required for the Chief Elections Officer and the candidate during this process. Failure to indicate the date(s) of any election document's original content or official transaction is a grievous, intentional act meant to conceal or abscure the chronology of that document's creation and chain of possession.

However, the shocking lack of accountability on the part of the Hawaiian Office of Elections and Kevin Cronin essentially forces a conclusion that these two documents were never officially received or filed into the record of the 2008 election, yet they are being disseminated as the original records used to certify Obama. These blatant administrative failures command an investigation into the authenticity of Obama's documented nomination in Hawaii, the individuals in the chain of possession from creation to filing, and the time frame during which these documents were created, signed, notarized, submitted and officially filed with the Elections authority.

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

After the 2008 election, the relationships between these entrenched individuals conspicuously changed. Schatz, the youngest state party Chairman (2008-2010) in U.S. history at 35, and former member of the Hawaiian House of Representatives (1996-2006, originally elected at the age of 24), entered the race for Lt. Governor and won the position to Gov. Abercrombie's administration, essentially making him the proxy administrative boss over the Chief Elections Officer. Schatz' ascendance to executive power essentially went unscrutinized in the wake of his involvement, and suspicious inaction, in the OCON controversy.

Schatz announced his candidacy for the Lt. Governor's race, the second-highest political seat in the State of Hawaii, on January 10, 2010 after serving as the DPH chairman during Obama's 2008 run for the White House. Of all ten major party candidates running for the position, Schatz' official nomination was issued later than any other candidate, on July 7th, yet he won the nomination just months before the election with 39% of the vote, after receiving high profile endorsements and incumbent promotions from individuals close to Obama.
On January 14, 2010, Schatz was formally endorsed by Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's sister, when Soetoro-Ng returned to Hawaii after a three month stay in Washington D.C. with Obama.

In September, 2010, Star Advertiser reporter, Herb Sample asked why so many people would seek a position bearing no real power under the governor and no real responsibility over the many directors doing the work for Hawaii's multiple agencies. The answer to Sample's question is the only one which makes sense.
.
"I think most people want it as a way of becoming governor," former University of Hawaii history professor Dan Boylan said.
.
As of 2010, of the only six Governors serving the state of Hawaii, three of them were Lt. Governors while at least one other was elected to the U.S. Congress. The Lt. governor position also pays a comfortable six figure salary ($115,000, 2010) compared to the $37,000 Schatz made as a House Representative of District 25. As of 2010, of the only six Governors serving the state of Hawaii, three of them were Lt. Governors while at least one other was elected to the U.S. Congress. The Lt. governor position also pays a comfortable six figure salary ($115,000, 2010) compared to the $37,000 Schatz made as a House Representative of District 25.
.
Schatz graduated from Punahou High School, Obama's alma-mater, in 1990. Ironically, he also spent time in Kenya in 1992, the same year Obama first traveled there, as a part of the School of International Training, a cross-cultural, world-wide education outreach program supported predominantly by liberal-based and foreign scholarship funding sources, where he was educated in civil service, before graduating from Pomona College in 1994.
.
QUESTIONS THE MEDIA FAILED TO ASK
.
After the DNC submitted a customized OCON, allegedly on August 28th, why did Schatz refuse to inquire to the DNC or request from the DNC the evidence used by the DNC to determine Obama's eligibility in Hawaii?
.
Why did the DPH not have access to this information directly from the State of Hawaii, like the DNC did?
.
Are we supposed to believe that the DNC, in Denver, almost 4000 miles away, had acquired documented proof from the state of Hawaii to legally approve Obama's eligibility, yet the state party authority, whose headquarters is within walking distance from the State of Hawaii records and elections offices, was somehow not able to obtain this evidence before the DNC?
.
Moreover, after the DNC submitted their OCON, allegedly with seven full days remaining in the filing deadline, why was the DPH not able to simply revise their OCON to include the legal language after reviewing the evidence used by the DNC to certify Obama's eligibility?
.
The lies and abetment of Obama's illegitimacy in Hawaii are so glaring, it is breath-taking.
.
Perhaps the most important question, however, is: Was Schatz politically rewarded for cooperating with the DNC's fraudulent certification in 2008?
.
Appearances are worth more than evidence in politics. What is known is that after justifiably filing an official OCON document omitting critical statutorial language which would otherwise certify Obama's candidacy, Schatz had very little to say after the DNC overwrote his authority to oversee the validation of Democrat candidates for the ballot in Hawaii. Schatz legally stated that Obama failed to provide adequate information proving that he was legally qualified to serve as president under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which he was legally empowered to do, yet the DNC certified Obama's eligibility thereby claiming that Schatz and the DPH did not have access, nor was ever provided with some, as yet undisclosed, "secret", unverified evidence supporting Obama's eligibility that only the DNC was privileged to possess. The absurdity of this scam is laughable and utterly criminal.

Obama appeared on the Hawaiian ballot in 2008. However, Schatz knew there was no documented evidence confirming Obama's eligibility, yet he allowed the DNC to circumvent his authority, without protest. Then, miraculously, two years later, at the mere age of 37, Schatz is elevated to a position to become the Chief Executive Officer of the home state of the man whose lack of legal qualifications he, along with Pelosi and the DNC, helped to conceal from the American people. The lack of congressional investigation into the conduct of Hawaii's election operations is astonishing.

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

ANGLES AND TRICKS: (A.K.A, HAWAIIAN LAWS AND CHICAGO POLITICS)

From the beginning, Obama's campaign drones knew that if any state Elections Officer, let alone the one overseeing the legality of election procedure in the very state where Obama grew up, was forced to disqualify Obama's candidacy on the grounds of him being found ineligible there, the issue would have exploded into a firestorm of mainstream inquiry. Imagine the explanation that would have been damanded of the Hawaiian government if Obama actually failed to appear on their ballot. How would other states have been able to justify Obama's inclusion on their ballot if the very state of his alleged origins would not even put him on theirs? Of course, if this had occurred in a state like Texas or Oklahoma, the pro-Obama media's angle may have been strained, but at least they would have been able to spin their cowardice behind political justifications. However, this was not possible in the chronically liberal, remote bastions of Hawaii.
.
Certainly the media failed. The American people understand this. However, the most troubling part of this drama is, quite simply, the irregular behavior by the Democrat party, specifically Obama's throng, when they were faced by something as routine as an eligibility certification. This erratic behavior should have triggered a warning throughout the known universe of journalism. If nothing else, it should have prompted some high profile journalist to ask some basic questions. Yet, it was met with a bizarre and cowardly silence by the mainstream.

Of course, Obama's handlers could not allow the exposure of this controversy so close to the election, no matter how valid the accusations. It would have been politically fatal. There would have been no way to recover from such an endictment against Obama. His 2008 campaign and, possibly, his political career, would not have survived the revelation of the devastating documentable evidence against him, but since the media failed to investigate and inform the people, we can conclude, with confidence, that the media was complicit in the dishonest contortions used to prevent such ramifications for Obama. The media's dereliction in the wake of such obvious illicit behavior has injured the confidence of the American people for years to come. Moreover, Obama is no more eligible for any of it.

However, this was not the only bad consequence "Team Obama" needed to prevent in the wake of the Hawaiian OCON disaster. They also needed to conceal the facts about his illegitimacy, overall, as well as supress public knowledge about Obama's legal requirement to meet specific deadlines and personally attend to proceedings in Hawaii attributed directly to countering claims of his ineligibility. Especially if Obama was required to meet with party authorities in Hawaii and the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to refute their findings between the OCON filing date of September 5, 2008 and November 4, 2008.
So, let's ask the most obvious question first. Did Obama make an unscheduled or sudden trip to Hawaii between September 5th and November 4th, 2008?

Before answering, let's remember, Obama was operating on a very tight campaign schedule between mid-August and Election day, 2008. A review of his schedule reveals more than 50 events in the final two months. He had several town hall meetings and debates which could not be cancelled or rescheduled because they involved John McCain too. The only way to free himself and cover up his motives was to exploit some personal issue which would serve as a "front story" for his presence in Hawaii.

Complicating the logistical, legal and political nightmare was the fact that Obama had already attended campaign rallies and fundraisers in Hawaii in early to mid-August. He visited his grandmother on August 7th. Therefore, justifying another visit to Hawaii amid the maelstrom of campaign rallies, debates, forums and town hall meetings scheduled in the other 49 states would require a personal reason that Obama's campaign could justify to the public while putting him in Hawaii to secretly attend to his legal matters. Given the weight of Obama's lack of legitimacy, if he appeared in Hawaii too soon after his previous visit, it looks very suspicious and invites media inquiry.

In order to avoid the destructive political consequences, Obama had to engage a private meeting away from the media. Such a private meeting would also have to be justifiable under Hawaii Revised Statutes Adminstrative Rules 91, 92-4, 92-5, and 3-170-11. Specifically, any correspondence or meeting between any candidate or representative of the candidate and members of the Hawaiian Election commission would have to be held in accord with these rules. However, it is HRS 92-5-8 which affords the permission to hold a secret meeting between members of the Elections Commission and Obama. The rules states:
92-5 Exceptions (a) A board may hold a meeting closed to the public pursuant to section 92-4 for one or more of the following reason(s):
.
(8) To deliberate or make a decision upon a matter that requires the consideration of information that must be kept confidential pursuant to a state or federal law, or a court order..
How does this Administrative Rule apply to Obama? Recall, the Hawaiian Department of Health (HDH) has stated that the public disclosure of information contained in vital records to anyone without tangible reasons for obtaining it is prohibited by state law HRS 338-18. For more than three years, employees of the HDH have repeatedly refused to disclose Obama's original natal records citing this law, which requires that vital information "must be kept confidential pursuant to state law." Therefore, based on this tenet, any justification for holding a private meeting for the purpose of reviewing and discussing Obama's natal information as it exists on file with the HDH would fall under the provisions of HRS 92-5-(8).

However, this only resolves the legality of the matter.

LAP DOGS & BLOOD HOUNDS

Obama's presence in Hawaii in October, 2008 ignited suspicions which seemed to resonate among several high profile media sources. On the October 23 broadcast of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said:
"Who announces days in advance they're rushing to the side of aloved one who is deathly ill, but keeps campaigning in a race that's said to beover, only to go to the loved one's side days later? See, I think this is about something else. You know what's really percolating out there? And I've beenlaying low on this because it just -- it hasn't met the threshold to pass thesmell test on this program. But this birth certificate business, this lawsuitthat a guy named Phillip Berg filed in Philadelphia in August for Obama toproduce his genuine birth certificate, and he still hasn't replied, he hasn'tdone so.
When you first announced this, you're gonna rush, you're gonna hurry, you're gonna make tracks, you're gonna get over there because you don't want your grandmother to die before you got there like your mother did, but somehow you keep campaigning, you take three days to get over there, if he's left yet. And this birth certificate business -- I'm just wondering if something's up. I have no clue, and I -- folks, I'm telling you, this has not reached the threshold until now, and it's now popping up all over the place."
Mr. Limbaugh's premonitions are well oriented. He just didn't quite follow his instincts about the true motives for Obama's behavior and explicitly say the words...which was exploit the condition of this grandmother for political reasons while also giving the sentimental public appearance of being a family-oriented man who cared for his sick grandmother.
During an appearance on the October 22, 2008 broadcast of G. Gordon Liddy's radio show, WND reporter and author, Jerome Corsi said:


"I'm headed out to Honolulu. I am not convinced that Barack Obamais going because his grandmother is sick. I appreciate that his grandmother is sick and he wants to be with her. I do recall that Barack Obama's mother died of cancer, and he didn't go to be by her side when she died. He relates that in his autobiography, Dreams From My Father. And I'm going out to do what digging I can on the birth certificate.


I think I'll accomplish something in Hawaii, too. Obama's headed out there, and I believe there's a court challenge that if Obama does not dodge, he's gonna be forced to produce a birth certificate, and there's gonna be something damaging on that birth certificate, because even at the eleventh hour, Obama refuses to show us the hospital-generated birth certificate when he was born."
.

The implications are magnetic and compelling. The lasciviousness of the scheme makes it heart-wrenching. While the last living member of Obama's extended family clings to her final moments...or perhaps had already passed prior to Obama's arrival, the political scavengers and the ideologically afoul, having confiscated Obama's existence, were actually exploiting her pain and death for their political gain. Projecting a final thought in those moments in that woman's apartment, we gain understanding of the contemptible scene...

"If Obama waited too long to go to Hawaii, the old-bag might kick the bucket early and leave Obama with no "personal" reason to hide under. A premature death would prevent Obama from protecting his political image while he proliferated more lies about the unresolved facts of his epic illegitimacy. This would leave him exposed just 11 days before the most prolific, fraudulent Presidential election in history, and force him to answer for the actual reasons he was called to Hawaii, which was to rebut claims by the Democrat Party's state authority that he was, simply, an inferior candidate without legal qualifications...or, worse, if he went to Hawaii too early, before the wise medical doctors had a chance to deliver their scripted testimony of a media-approved "looming death decree" -- worthy of Obama's doting presence -- there would have been no way to hide the reasons for another trip there, yet again, in coming weeks, when the political deadlines demanding his presence finally arrived.".

.

"Never let a crisis go to waste", right? The entire affair is despicable and should impose shame on those involved, including everyone in Obama's family, his administration, the media, the State of Hawaii, and the Democrat Party...and, unfortunately, the American people for not violently protesting such disgraceful conduct. Is there any wonder why there is no decency in government today?

.

In summary, Obama sought a way to be in Hawaii at a time that would:


1. Occur as long after the OCON deadline as possible, but no later than October 24th.


2. Allow him to cancel campaign events, but not miss prescheduled debates with McCain or televised town hall meetings.
3. Meet legal deadlines for ballot approval, but not violate deadlines to refute the findings of ineligibility by the DPH.

4. Give the media a "decoy" story to serve as his excuse for being in Hawaii, but not allow the public to discover that the real reason he was in Hawaii was because he was attending executive hearings with the Chief Elections Officer and the DPH per HAR 3-170, HRS 92-4 and 92-5 to contest the DPH's refusal to certify his nomination.

5. Exploit the story of Obama's grandmother's illness, allowing Obama to schedule the trip precisely while citing the doctor's assessment of his grandmother's condition as an excuse to be in Hawaii. However, if Dunham died too soon, or was "not sick enough" to warrant his cancellation of campaign events so close to an election, Obama would be left exposed to media investigation about the truth of all of his activities in Hawaii on October 24th, 2008.
On October 23rd, 2008, even the ultra-liberal New York Times took notice of Obama’s sheepish trip off the grid:
"On a whirlwind trip back to Hawaii, Senator Barack Obama spent more than an hour visiting his ailing grandmother late Thursday and is set to return to her bedside on Friday morning after arriving here on a nine-hour flight from the Midwestern battleground of the presidential campaign.

On the trip to Hawaii, Obama stayed in the secluded front cabin of his campaign plane, reading and rarely talking with a handful of aides who came along. The knot in his red tie was loosened as he walked down the aisle of his plane to stretch his legs, but he stayed a safe distance from a small group of reporters who accompanied him...

"...It was an unusual departure from the tug-of-war of the presidential campaign, with 11 days remaining in the race. While Mr. Obama is only going to be gone for one full day – Friday – it still is an unusual occurrence at this point in a presidential campaign."
“It’s not optimal, but there was never any debate or discussion or
anything,” David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Mr. Obama said in an
interview Thursday. “Barack’s grandmother is one of the formative people in his
life. He wants to go see her on the advice of her doctors. He had to do it now.
So we’ll just make do.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics
On October 25th, Star Advertiser reporter, Laurie Au gave this peculiar first hand account of Obama's evasive behavior.
The only exciting part of the day (Friday October 24th, 2008) occurred shortly after 10 a.m., when his campaign aides told us Obama would be taking a walk along Young Street in his old Makiki neighborhood. Apparently there was some confusion, though, because by the time we reached Young Street, Obama was already two blocks away, forcing about a dozen of us — media and staff — to chase after him. We stopped a respectful distance away, but he still appeared down and slightly unhappy to see us.

Our day ended just after 5 p.m. when Obama and more than 60 other staff and media boarded his private plane to Nevada for more campaigning.

http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/inside-obamas-press-bus/


Au’s account of Obama’s schedule on the morning of October 24th obviously
indicates that Obama was able to slip out of his grandmother’s apartment without
being noticed by the media. Thereafter, there is no accounting of presence
before or after this "solo stroll" until his appearance at the airport. Au then
reports that the next accounting of Obama's presence was when he boarded his
plane seven hours later at 5:00 p.m. So, the obvious question arising from the
media’s fallow account is where was Obama between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Friday, October 24th?
You have to hand it to the Obama political syndicate. They squirrelled this one to a tee. It's sad that it was so evil, sheepish and dishonest. Obama was able to pull an epic deception off on the American people, and most of them bought the entire story without any hesitation.

Members of the mainstream network media, on the other hand, have a special wrath stored up for themselves over this one. They were simply played like the fawning tools they have been ever since Obama tickled their fetish six years ago. This proves that today's journalists are a disgrace to their profession. They are not even journalists. They are nothing more than adoring propagandists for the Obama administration. Its disgusting, and they deserve to have this grand lie summarily forced down their gullet, suffering from all the infirmities as it putrifies inside them. They were used so efficiently by Obama it is laughable.

HAWAIIAN ELECTIONS AUTHORITYThe Constitution gives authority of determining candidate eligibility and to establish relationships enabling candidate placement on each state ballot to each respective state's Elections authority. This evolved out of the the founder's understanding that placing the enforcement of voting security in the hands of local authorities enabled fair access to the residents of the state they apportion and to confirm voting registration information. National party authorities do not have the jurisdiction, resources or logistic capacity to ensure voter apportionment in and between states. The intrusion of the national party authority upon a state party authority during an election is akin to a federal agency, like FEMA, taking over for a local fire department in putting out a house fire or rescuing a cat from a tree. It is a complete misallocation of resources and a violation of jurisdictional laws governing the assurance of voting security. However, this is exactly what the DNC did in Hawaii in 2008.
Just because the DNC determines that a candidate is eligible in, for example, New York, does mean they can force the state of Hawaii to also find that same candidate eligible. The founders understood that by endowing this to a national authority made the people of states who oppose a particular party vulnerable to under-representation and party intimidation.
Under the Electoral College system, according to election laws in every state, Electors from each state are only qualified by the Constitution to cast votes for President and Vice President. They do not participate in certifying the eligibility of the candidates prior to the election. Inexplicably, the certification of each candidate’s eligibility falls under the autonomous authority of each candidate’s state affiliated political party authority, with support of the national party authority, while the approval of the candidate’s placement on each state’s ballot then becomes the responsibility of the Chief Elections Officer of each state. The state’s electors must rely on the relationship between these authoritative bodies to review qualifications, certify the legal eligibility of each candidate and approve ballot placement of each candidate nominated by each qualified party.

In August, 2008, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer (CEO) was Kevin Cronin. He was appointed by the eight-member Hawaiian Elections Commission on December 10, 2007 and took over the position from Interim CEO, Rex M. Quidilla. By statute, Cronin’s term began on February 1, 2008 and is set to end on February 1, 2012. Cronin is a 30 year veteran of government service and is licensed to practice law in Hawaii and Wisconsin. The fully staffed Hawaiian Elections Commission is made up of the following individuals. Cronin served as the CEO in Hawaii for only two years before resigning amid a series of controversial lawsuits and lapses in administrative accountability, including a failure by Cronin to register as a Hawaiian voter immediately upon assuming the office of the CEO.

Name, Position and Date of Term ExpirationKevin B. Cronin, Senior Elections Officer 02/01/12
Daniel Young , Chief Justice, Oahu 06/30/12
Warren Orikasa , House Speaker, Maui 06/30/14
Margaret Masunaga, Senate President, Hawaii 06/30/14
Zale Okazaki , Senate Pr
esident, Oahu 06/30/12
Patricia Berg , Senate Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14
Brian Nakashima, Chief Justice, Hawaii 06/30/12
Donna Soares, House Minority Leader, Maui 06/30/12
Charles King, House Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14


It was Cronin's constitutional authority to oversee elections in the state of Hawaii under the advisement of the Election Commission. It is his responsibility to maximize registration, equalize registration among districts; and maintain data related to registration, elections, districting and apportionment; educate the public on voting and elections; set up procedures and rules governing elections per HRS 11, AR 91 and Arts. II & IV of the U.S. Constitution. Cronin does not have the authority to certify the Constitutional eligibility of a candidate, however, his most powerful authority is his ability, according to HRS 11-113, to mediate conflict over eligibility and, as a result of mediation, officially approve candidates for placement on the state’s ballot even when the state party's vetting authority refuses to certify the legal qualifications of that candidate.

An investigation of Hawaii Revised Statutes, along with documented evidence, reveals that, Cronin, being bound by law from partisan participation, still had the legal authority to circumvent the vetting process for Obama and simply approve his placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot without ever verifying that he was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Moreover, the evidence presented herein further confirms that the legal tactics employed by the Obama machine actually allowed him to fill Hawaiian legal requirements, behind the lies of the media, without actually having to ever present authentic documentation.
Shockingly, adminstrative procedures employed by the Elections Office in the State of Hawaii actually helped Obama avoid public scrutiny by simultaneously allowing him the opportunity to personally attend a hearing about his eligibility while visiting his sick grandmother in late October, 2008. The chronology of available deadlines and correspondences reveal that Obama would have been able to hide this eligibility hearing under the headline of visiting his dying grandmother. HRS 11-113, in coordination with Chapter 91 administrative rules, and differences in time zones (that's right, Hawaii's geographic location may have helped Obama meet legal deadlines), gave Obama the linkage needed to preserve both legal and political appearances by affording him almost 45 days between the Certification deadline and his trip to visit his dying grandmother.
As absurd as this seems...it actually happened in Hawaii in 2008.
Cronin resigned from his position in December 2009 amid the controversies plaguing the Hawaii elections office and Obama's OCON saga. Sources say that he was not forced to resign but evidence shows a pattern of circumstances under Cronin's management in which his "autonomous" approach to managing election procedures may have violated Hawaii election laws. He faced at least two lawsuits challenging the manner in which he made decisions about election procedures, deadlines and vending contracts. However, Cronin's resignation is suspicious because it occurred immediately after the OCON controversy went public in Fall of 2009. The public exposure of the OCON documents revealed that the Elections Office, under Cronin, had violated Hawaiian election laws by failing to properly document and record the chain of possession of these legal documents. The order of records and filing date of Obama's Hawaiian OCONs with the Office of Elections remains unknown, even to this day.
.THE SCENE OF THE CRIMEOn August 27, 2008, the Democratic Party of Hawaii (DPH), led then by Chairman, Brian Schatz and acting Secretary, Lynn Matusow, signed and had attested by notarization, an Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Some time between August 27, 2008 and 4:30 p.m Hawaiian Time (9:30 p.m. Eastern Time) September 5, 2008, the DPH filed the document with Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy provided for public review does not contain a Hawaiian Elections Office "RECEIVED DATE" stamp, which is a suspicious omission because the date of reception by the Elections Office initiates the succession of correspondence and deadlines for review, response and possible hearings available to those opposing the findings of the CEO.
The OCON sent to Cronin by the DPH contained the following words in the body of its content:
"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (Obama and Biden) are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado."


The only proclamation this document makes is that Democrat Party of Hawaii asked a group of Democrats who they preferred as their nomination for President. However, unfortunately for Obama and the Democratic voters of Hawaii, Hawaiian Revised Statute 11-113 (c)(1)(B) specifically requires that this statement must explicitly state that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Hawaiian Elections Commission and the Chief Elections Officer to be able to approve the candidate for ballot placement.
Specifically, the wording of each party’s Hawaiian OCON must adhere to the requirements of HRS §11-113 (c)(1); Presidential Ballots, which states:
(c) All candidates for president and vice president of
the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under the following procedures:...

...(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

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

(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The content of this second OCON from the DNC raises some serious questions about the motives of its author. The fact that the same typo remains on this second version is an indication that it was not independently published but rather amended, suddenly. The fact that there was a typo, at all, in both versions indicates haste on the part of the DNC.
Also, notice the key language is tacked on the final sentence in this second version of the DNC OCON rather than included in the mid-body of the paragraph as with previous DPH OCONs. The inclusion of the language previously omitted by the DPH's OCON and the DNC OCON sent to every other state, indicates nothing less than a conspiracy on the part of the DNC and the DPH to force a confirmation of Barack Obama’s eligibility by the state of Hawaii, without actually verifying it. This is apparent because if either party authority had actually verified it, the other would have also included the legally required language, especially since both OCONs were notarized with seven days remaining in the deadline to submit them to Hawaii CEO, Kevin Cronin, unless, of course, the document was actually submitted to the Hawaiian Elections Office too late for revisions, which is likely the case. Therefore, the DNC was forced to amend its Hawaiian OCON specifically for Obama as a means of creating a direct contradiction with the DPH’s legitimate omission of legal language which, if included, would certify Obama’s constitutional eligibility in accordance with Hawaiian law.
Finally, as discussed previously, there is no FILING DATE stamped on this document! The OCON submitted to the Hawaiian Elections Office was one of fifty authored by the DNC and submitted after August 28, 2008. Yet, the OCON received by the State of Hawaii from the DNC is the only one with no filing date or RECEIVED DATE stamped on its face. A review of OCONs submitted to every other state reveals the Elections Office in those states affixed this stamp on their document. The omission of this date stamp by the Hawaiian Elections Office is particularly suspicious because, in accordance with HRS 11-113(c), (d) and (e), the RECEIPT DATE initiates a roster of deadlines and correspondence between the Chief Elections Officer, the applicant and the candidate, the first of which is a written notification from Kevin Cronin informing the candidate if they were either approved or denied for inclusion on the ballot. The absence of this RECEIPT or FILING DATE suspiciously obscures the time line which would reveal if the second OCON submitted by the DNC was in violation of Hawaiian law or if it was actually submitted BEFORE the DPH's OCON.

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

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

THE "FIX" Was the opportunity available for Obama to personally engage a meeting to discuss the matter of his lack of legal qualifications to appear on the Hawaiian ballot? Was it possible that he actually attended such a hearing?
The following account demonstrates the logistic and legal opportunity as well as the fact that Obama was present and unaccounted for during a period of several hours in Hawaii on October 24th, 2008.
This documented contradiction was intentional by the party authorities because the very presence of this conflict activates a series of lawful empowerments to the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to make autonomous decisions about ballot content. However, Adminstrative procedure law in Hawaii dictates that certain correspondence and deadlines must be met first:
HRS 11-113(d) provides that “…Each applicant and the candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant's or candidate's eligibility or disqualification for placement on the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth business day after filing. The chief election officer may extend the notification period up to an additional five business days, if the applicants and candidates are provided with notice of the extension and the reasons therefore.”

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

HRS 11-113(e) then provides that “…(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question.”
Therefore, if Cronin notified Obama that he was not qualified to be placed on the ballot in Hawaii, this means that Obama had until approximately October 7th, 2008 to respond in writing and request a hearing.
HRS 11-113(e) then also provides that “…A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91.”
Cronin would have received Obama's request sometime around October 9th or 10th, 2008. However, like the OCON, Cronin is not obligated to record receipt of the document on the same day it arrives. Therefore, based on HRS 11-113(e), the latest Cronin was legally able to schedule a hearing for Obama was sometime between Monday, October 20th and Friday, October 24th, 2008.
Cronin has been accused of being overly liberal with statutory deadlines in favor of democrats in the past. In early August, 2008, RPH Chair, Willes Lee filed a lawsuit against Cronin and the Office of Elections (Willes Lee v. Cronin, Civil No. 08-1-1609) challenging the candidacy of a local Democrat, Isaac Choy, to the state's House (24th Dist.). Lee contended that Choy had been unlawfully named a candidate by the DPH when his predecessor, Kirk Caldwell (D), left the post early to run for City Council. The suit alleged that Caldwell had notified the Elections Office on July 22, 2008 that he was leaving the seat. Cronin, however, after waiting until the next day to file the withdrawl, contended that the 72 hour deadline allowed by Hawaiian Election law was actually initiated on July 23rd, not the 22nd, allowing for the DPH's selection of Choy to occur on Saturday, the 26th, not Friday, the 25th.
Moreover, Hawaii Revised Statute, Administrative Rules, Chapter 91-9 (d), Contested Cases; notice, hearing; records states: “Any procedure in a contested case may be modified or waived by stipulation of the parties and informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default.”
Essentially, this HAR allows Obama to request a reasonable modification of procedure in order to accommodate a reasonable schedule and effort needed to attend a contesting hearing. Therefore, Obama could have have sought extra time after the hearing began in order to accommodate a pressing personal matter…like a sick grandmother.

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

On Monday, October 21, 2008, Reuters reported:
“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will leave the campaign trail to go to Hawaii this week to visit the ailing grandmother who helped raise him, an aide said on Monday.

Recently his grandmother has become ill and in the last few weeks her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious," said Obama aide Robert Gibbs.

Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who will be 86 on Sunday, helped raise him along with his mother, Ann Dunham, and his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Gibbs would not discuss the nature of her illness.
The candidate is canceling events in Madison, Wisconsin, and Des Moines, Iowa, that had been scheduled for Thursday. He instead will go to an event in Indianapolis, Indiana, on Thursday, then fly to Hawaii to see his grandmother. He will return to the campaign trail on Saturday, Gibbs said."
On October21, 2008, ABC News reported:

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

Although a candidate has never before stopped campaigning this close to Election Day, Obama's running mate and surrogates will remain on the trail, and more important, his ads will continue to run. Obama decided Monday night to cancel campaign stops on Thursday and Friday and fly to Hawaii
to see his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham...
ABC News then reported on October 24th, 2008:

"After spending about two hours with his ill grandmother in her apartment this morning, Sen. Barack Obama , D-Ill., took a short walk alone in the Makiki neighborhood of Honolulu outside his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham’s, apartment."
KHNL News Hawaii Reported on October 24th:

HONOLULU (KHNL) - Barack Obama's quick visit to the islands came to an end today. He is the first presidential candidate in history to take two days out of the campaign, this close to the general election. But he says, this move is all about family. Senator Obama's jet took off from Honolulu International Airport this evening. His motorcade escorted by Honolulu Police made its way down Lagoon Drive, to the runway. The democratic presidential candidate's plane left Honolulu at about 5 o' clock. Earlier today, the presidential candidate visited with his beloved tutu, which was his main objective on this trip.
Multiple blog and media accounts say that Obama was in Hawaii for approximately 22 hours over two days, an eternity for a Presidential candidate in the final days of a campaign. Yet, he spent only approximately two hours with his gravely ill grandmother, allegedly alone, with no other immediate family members, except his sister, Maya. Except for his reported "stroll about the neighborhood", no other accounting of Obama's time in Hawaii has ever been made known during these hours.
If we accept Robert Gibbs' and the media's account of Obama's "leisurely" time during these days, then it appears he would have been free to attend to eligibility matters in Hawaii during Friday afternoon, at which time it is highly likely he met privately with Cronin, the DPH, the Hawaiian Attorney General and members of the Election Commission. He also would have signed a sworn affidavit falsifying that he was Constitutionally eligible to serve as president, letting Schatz and the DPH off the "legal hook", in exchange for Schatz' silence, of course.
Media coverage of Obama's campaign state that he was delivering a rally speech in Obelisk Square in Indianapolis at noon, EST on October 23rd. Private flight time on Obama's campaign jet, from Indianapolis to Honolulu, is approximately seven to eight hours. Indiana is the western-most state in the eastern time zone which means that if Obama left Indianapolis at 1:00 p.m. EST, subtracting times zones from flight time and adding an hour for a refueling stop in Sacramento at 3:00 PST, he would have arrived in Honolulu between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. that same day.
At least one major media network states that Obama spent an hour at his grandmother's apartment that evening beginning around 7:00, then he returned the next morning for about two hours departing at about 10:45 a.m. Obama's time is unaccounted for between about 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on October 24th, when he boarded his campaign jet for for a 5 hour flight to Reno where he arrived around midnight PST, October 25th.
Reno is in the Pacific Standard Time zone, two hours ahead of Honolulu. He appeared at a rally on the Nevada-Reno University campus at 10:15 a.m. where he spoke for 30 minutes to a crowd of 11,000, on Saturday, October 25th.

THE FINALE

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps, someday, the politically poisoned, liberal creatures of the defunct American media might engage their responsibility as journalists and serously inquire as to what other grand proclamations the State of Hawaii has made about this strange and ambiguous character referred to as "President Barack Obama."
On the other hand, maybe, as one of the newest states, if Hawaii had a different name, like..."Alaska", we wouldn't even be having a discussion about eligibility.

SUMMARY

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

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

Obama's time in Hawaii from the afternoon of October 23rd through October 24th remains largely unnaccounted for, except for the brief time he spent with his sick grandmother.

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

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

The lack of a "RECEIVED DATE" stamp on the DNC's Hawaiian OCON, which is present on other state's version, also prevents an accurate determination of the latest possible date on which Cronin was able to schedule a CONTEST HEARING with Obama after finding Obama uncertified by the DPH. Obama would not have wanted to give the appearance of dealing with an ineligibility issue so close to the election, but he also would not want to allow anyone to know their was a legal problem with his inclusion on the ballot so near the date when Hawaii received the Certifications of Nomination there. Cronin was permitted to record his receipt of the OCON as late as Sept. 5, 2008, 60 days prior to the election, which would have allowed the hearing to begin sometime between October 10, 2008 and October 24, 2008, after exhausting the legally permitted time and personal allowances in the process for scheduling according to HRS 11-113(d) and (e).
Obama cancelled several campaign appointments, just weeks before the election, and suddenly traveled to Hawaii on October 23, 2008 without his family, to visit his ill grandmother.

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

Madelyn Dunham's death was reported on November 3rd, 2008. It allegedly occurred at about 3:00 a.m. on November 2nd. No official medical documents, death certificate or coronor's report of her passing has ever been publicly revealed..

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

By undermining the provisions of the constitution, Barack Obama has injured the American people by illegally circumventing their right to the protections against domestic threats and ineligible usurpation of their sovereign liberties, which include the right of trust and confidence in those presenting themselves as legitimate candidates for government office.

The fact that very specific, and rational questions remain unanswered about Obama's past, including the actions by officials working within the government agencies of the State of Hawaii, reveals nothing less than a web of legally knitted deception in order to conceal the obviousness of Barack Obama complete lack of Constitutional standing to be President of the United States. As such, Obama's entire Presidency has been built on an epic lie of such grand proportions no remedy remains except that which can only come from the common-men and descendants of our vintage American founders.

REVIEWING THE FACTS1. Electors from each state rely on each party’s state authority in that state to certify the nomination of their candidates and verify their legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

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

3. Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113(c)(1)(B) specifically requires that this sworn application from each state party authority contains explicit language stating that all candidates are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Chief Elections Officer to approve the candidate for placement on the state’s presidential ballot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. The DPH's OCON is dated August 27th, 2008. However, HRS 11-113 provides that OCONs may be filed by 4:30 p.m. on no less than the 60th day prior to the day of the election. In this case, based on the alleged notarization date appearing the DPH's OCON, the DPH still had eight more days to file the OCON and perhaps request verification documentation from Obama. Therefore, Obama received his notification of the Hawaiian CEO's findings no later than September 29th, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22. Hearings to contest candidate eligibility findings are conducted under Administrative Procedures governed by HRS AR 91, 92 and 3-170.

23. AR 91-9 allows a petitioner for a hearing to request reasonable scheduling accommodations in order to attend the hearing based on travel, personal matters and/or financial issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS

QUESTION 1: Why, after including the legally required language for previous Democratic candidates in elections past, did chairperson, Brian Schatz and the Democrat Party of Hawaii, refuse to include the legally required language upon submitting it for the approval of that state party’s 2008 Official Certification of Nomination when they submitted it to Kevin B. Cronin and the Hawaiian Election Commission?

QUESTION 2: Did Kevin Cronin, Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer in 2008, approve the placement of Barack Obama’s name on the presidential ballot for the 2008 federal election, in spite of the fact that explicit language stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to run for president was omitted from the Official Certification of Nomination submitted by the Democrat Party of Hawaii?

QUESTION 3: Did Kevin Cronin, Chief Elections Officer, in coordination with the Hawaiian Election Commission, and HRS 11-113 (1)(d), notify Barack Obama in writing, of his eligibility or disqualification for placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot and what date did he provide this notification?

QUESTION 4: If a notice of disqualification was sent to Obama, upon receiving this notice from the Hawaiian Elections Commission, did Barack Obama file a request, per HRS 11-113 (1)(e), in writing to Mr. Cronin and what date did he submit this request?

QUESTION 5: Did Cronin schedule Obama to a hearing and what date was this hearing scheduled?

QUESTION 6: Where was Obama between October 20th and 24th, 2008?

QUESTION 7: Was Obama present in Hawaii during the time when a hearing was conducted with the Hawaiian Elections Commission regarding his disqualification from the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot?

QUESTION 8: Why did the Democratic National Committee author two separate Official Certifications of Nomination for Barack Obama, sending one version to Hawaii but not the other 49 states?

QUESTION 9: Did The DNC send two separate versions of its OCON to the Hawaiian Election Commission, and if so, why did it do this?

QUESTION 10: What secret evidence, which was obviously not accessible to the Democrat Party of Hawaii (the very state Obama was born in), did Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Committee acquire to determine Barack Obama’s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and, thereby, include such language in its OCON?

QUESTION 11: When it was determined that the state and national party authorities of the Democratic Party did not agree on the status of Barack Obama’s eligibility, did the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin Cronin, determine to include Obama on the Hawaii presidential election ballot with authority provided by HRS 11-113(b).
QUESTION 12: What documented evidence was used by the DNC, which was not available to the Democrat Party of Hawaii, to determine that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution?