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.
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.
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 AUTHORITY
The Constitution gives authority of determining candidate eligibility and to establish relationships enabling candidate placement on each state ballot to each respective state’s Elections authority. This evolved out of the the founder’s understanding that placing the enforcement of voting security in the hands of local authorities enabled fair access to the residents of the state they apportion and to confirm voting registration information. National party authorities do not have the jurisdiction, resources or logistic capacity to ensure voter apportionment in and between states. The intrusion of the national party authority upon a state party authority during an election is akin to a federal agency, like FEMA, taking over for a local fire department in putting out a house fire or rescuing a cat from a tree. It is a complete misallocation of resources and a violation of jurisdictional laws governing the assurance of voting security. However, this is exactly what the DNC did in Hawaii in 2008.
Just because the DNC determines that a candidate is eligible in, for example, New York, does mean they can force the state of Hawaii to also find that same candidate eligible. The founders understood that by endowing this to a national authority made the people of states who oppose a particular party vulnerable to under-representation and party intimidation.
Under the Electoral College system, according to election laws in every state, Electors from each state are only qualified by the Constitution to cast votes for President and Vice President. They do not participate in certifying the eligibility of the candidates prior to the election. Inexplicably, the certification of each candidate’s eligibility falls under the autonomous authority of each candidate’s state affiliated political party authority, with support of the national party authority, while the approval of the candidate’s placement on each state’s ballot then becomes the responsibility of the Chief Elections Officer of each state. The state’s electors must rely on the relationship between these authoritative bodies to review qualifications, certify the legal eligibility of each candidate and approve ballot placement of each candidate nominated by each qualified party.In August, 2008, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer (CEO) was Kevin Cronin. He was appointed by the eight-member Hawaiian Elections Commission on December 10, 2007 and took over the position from Interim CEO, Rex M. Quidilla. By statute, Cronin’s term began on February 1, 2008 and is set to end on February 1, 2012. Cronin is a 30 year veteran of government service and is licensed to practice law in Hawaii and Wisconsin. The fully staffed Hawaiian Elections Commission is made up of the following individuals. Cronin served as the CEO in Hawaii for only two years before resigning amid a series of controversial lawsuits and lapses in administrative accountability, including a failure by Cronin to register as a Hawaiian voter immediately upon assuming the office of the CEO.
Name, Position and Date of Term ExpirationKevin B. Cronin, Senior Elections Officer 02/01/12
Daniel Young , Chief Justice, Oahu 06/30/12
Warren Orikasa , House Speaker, Maui 06/30/14
Margaret Masunaga, Senate President, Hawaii 06/30/14
Zale Okazaki , Senate President, Oahu 06/30/12
Patricia Berg , Senate Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14
Brian Nakashima, Chief Justice, Hawaii 06/30/12
Donna Soares, House Minority Leader, Maui 06/30/12
Charles King, House Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14
It was Cronin’s constitutional authority to oversee elections in the state of Hawaii under the advisement of the Election Commission. It is his responsibility to maximize registration, equalize registration among districts; and maintain data related to registration, elections, districting and apportionment; educate the public on voting and elections; set up procedures and rules governing elections per HRS 11, AR 91 and Arts. II & IV of the U.S. Constitution. Cronin does not have the authority to certify the Constitutional eligibility of a candidate, however, his most powerful authority is his ability, according to HRS 11-113, to mediate conflict over eligibility and, as a result of mediation, officially approve candidates for placement on the state’s ballot even when the state party’s vetting authority refuses to certify the legal qualifications of that candidate.
An investigation of Hawaii Revised Statutes, along with documented evidence, reveals that, Cronin, being bound by law from partisan participation, still had the legal authority to circumvent the vetting process for Obama and simply approve his placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot without ever verifying that he was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Moreover, the evidence presented herein further confirms that the legal tactics employed by the Obama machine actually allowed him to fill Hawaiian legal requirements, behind the lies of the media, without actually having to ever present authentic documentation.
Shockingly, adminstrative procedures employed by the Elections Office in the State of Hawaii actually helped Obama avoid public scrutiny by simultaneously allowing him the opportunity to personally attend a hearing about his eligibility while visiting his sick grandmother in late October, 2008. The chronology of available deadlines and correspondences reveal that Obama would have been able to hide this eligibility hearing under the headline of visiting his dying grandmother. HRS 11-113, in coordination with Chapter 91 administrative rules, and differences in time zones (that’s right, Hawaii’s geographic location may have helped Obama meet legal deadlines), gave Obama the linkage needed to preserve both legal and political appearances by affording him almost 45 days between the Certification deadline and his trip to visit his dying grandmother.
As absurd as this seems…it actually happened in Hawaii in 2008.
Cronin resigned from his position in December 2009 amid the controversies plaguing the Hawaii elections office and Obama’s OCON saga. Sources say that he was not forced to resign but evidence shows a pattern of circumstances under Cronin’s management in which his “autonomous” approach to managing election procedures may have violated Hawaii election laws. He faced at least two lawsuits challenging the manner in which he made decisions about election procedures, deadlines and vending contracts. However, Cronin’s resignation is suspicious because it occurred immediately after the OCON controversy went public in Fall of 2009. The public exposure of the OCON documents revealed that the Elections Office, under Cronin, had violated Hawaiian election laws by failing to properly document and record the chain of possession of these legal documents. The order of records and filing date of Obama’s Hawaiian OCONs with the Office of Elections remains unknown, even to this day.
.THE SCENE OF THE CRIME
On August 27, 2008, the Democratic Party of Hawaii (DPH), led then by Chairman, Brian Schatz and acting Secretary, Lynn Matusow, signed and had attested by notarization, an Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Some time between August 27, 2008 and 4:30 p.m Hawaiian Time (9:30 p.m. Eastern Time) September 5, 2008, the DPH filed the document with Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy provided for public review does not contain a Hawaiian Elections Office “RECEIVED DATE” stamp, which is a suspicious omission because the date of reception by the Elections Office initiates the succession of correspondence and deadlines for review, response and possible hearings available to those opposing the findings of the CEO.
The OCON sent to Cronin by the DPH contained the following words in the body of its content:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (Obama and Biden) are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.”
The only proclamation this document makes is that Democrat Party of Hawaii asked a group of Democrats who they preferred as their nomination for President. However, unfortunately for Obama and the Democratic voters of Hawaii, Hawaiian Revised Statute 11-113 (c)(1)(B) specifically requires that this statement must explicitly state that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Hawaiian Elections Commission and the Chief Elections Officer to be able to approve the candidate for ballot placement.
Specifically, the wording of each party’s Hawaiian OCON must adhere to the requirements of HRS §11-113 (c)(1); Presidential Ballots, which states:
(c) All candidates for president and vice president of
the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under the following procedures:…
…(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.
The Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCON for Barack Obama clearly did not meet the requirement of HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), which clearly states that the (DPH) party official (Brian Schatz) shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer (Kevin Cronin) which explicitly includes “…a statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…” and is to be filed not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day (September 5, 2008) prior to the general election (November 4, 2008).
Let’s mete out the scenerio giving the benefit of doubt to the DPH, first. Perhaps this was simply an omissive error. Maybe the DPH “forgot” to include legally required language in its OCON for Obama on August 27, 2008 and didn’t realize the error for another nine days until after the September 5th filing deadline had passed.
Or, despite the fact that the DPH OCON states that Obama was chosen by the DPH Preference Poll and Caucus back in FEBRUARY of 2008, nearly six months earlier, we are to believe there just wasn’t enough time to include the required statement that Obama was legally qualified by the constitution for approval for ballot placement by the Chief Elections Officer, and therefore the DPH simply ignored the requirement hoping to sneak it by the Election Commission.
However, comparing documented evidence of OCONs from previous elections reveals that the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCONs for both Al Gore/Joe Lieberman in 2000 and John Kerry/John Edwards in 2004 both had the following identical language:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll
and Caucus held in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National
Democratic Convention held in…”
The Democratic Party of Hawaii included the explicit statement required by HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B) that the 2000 and 2004 candidates were legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution, but the DPH did not do the same for Obama. Also, in another comparison, the Hawaiian Republican Party’s 2008 OCON, signed by RPH Chairman, Willes K. Lee, for John McCain and Sarah Palin, states:
“We do hereby certify that at a National Convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the City of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the United States were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008…”
The Republican Party of Hawaii’s Official Certification of Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin clearly includes the words “…meeting the Constitutional requirements…” and is dated September 4, 2008, and is notarized by Sheila Rae Motzko, notary of Minnesota. Therefore, the RPH obviously had no reservations in certifying the eligibility of McCain and Palin.
Given the indisputable facts that the DPH had included the language in previous OCONs, indicating officials were fully aware of the legal requirement, and that the selection of Obama took place more than six months prior to the submittal of the OCON, indicating they had ample time to review any evidence, if it exists, of Obama’s eligibility, it becomes impossible that the DPH either forgot about the need for the specific language or that the DPH simply ignored it. Therefore, the DPH intentionally omitted the language stating that Obama is legally qualified under the provisions of the U.S. constitution because he is not.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC), chaired by Nancy Pelosi, signed and had attested by notarization, its national Official Certification of Nominations with all fifty states on August 28th, 2008. We conclude this based on the “RECEIVED DATE” stamp provided on multiple states’ DNC OCONs of “AUGUST 29th, 2009″, and the notarization date of August 28. This sworn application was filed sometime between August 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008 with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy provided by the Hawaiian Election office for public review, however, does not contain a RECEIVED DATE stamp like other states’ OCONs do.
However, a review of the Democratic National Committee’s OCONs for Obama reveals a shocking irregularity in the composition of its Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii. On December 19, 2008, Hawaii’s Chief Elections officer, Kevin Cronin, in response to a written request by a Colorado resident for a copy of the Official Certification of Nominations, sent a letter and a copy of the DPH’s OCON and the DNC’s OCON. However, analysis of the DNC OCON sent to Hawaii in comparison with the DNC’s OCON sent to other states, reveals that they did not match. In fact, Hawaii’s version of the DNC’s OCON contained specific wording not included in the versions sent to ALL the other states, which directly contradicts the Democrat Party of Hawaii’s OCON. All the states’ Election Commissions, except for Hawaii’s, were sent one Official Certification of Nomination with the following statement:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively”
The typo “though” is not a mistake. It actually exists in the official document. Notice, in this version of the DNC’s OCON, there is no mention of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. However, in the version sent separately to Hawaii’s Election Commission, it states the following:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:”
The content of this second OCON from the DNC raises some serious questions about the motives of its author. The fact that the same typo remains on this second version is an indication that it was not independently published but rather amended, suddenly. The fact that there was a typo, at all, in both versions indicates haste on the part of the DNC.
Also, notice the key language is tacked on the final sentence in this second version of the DNC OCON rather than included in the mid-body of the paragraph as with previous DPH OCONs. The inclusion of the language previously omitted by the DPH’s OCON and the DNC OCON sent to every other state, indicates nothing less than a conspiracy on the part of the DNC and the DPH to force a confirmation of Barack Obama’s eligibility by the state of Hawaii, without actually verifying it. This is apparent because if either party authority had actually verified it, the other would have also included the legally required language, especially since both OCONs were notarized with seven days remaining in the deadline to submit them to Hawaii CEO, Kevin Cronin, unless, of course, the document was actually submitted to the Hawaiian Elections Office too late for revisions, which is likely the case. Therefore, the DNC was forced to amend its Hawaiian OCON specifically for Obama as a means of creating a direct contradiction with the DPH’s legitimate omission of legal language which, if included, would certify Obama’s constitutional eligibility in accordance with Hawaiian law.
Finally, as discussed previously, there is no FILING DATE stamped on this document! The OCON submitted to the Hawaiian Elections Office was one of fifty authored by the DNC and submitted after August 28, 2008. Yet, the OCON received by the State of Hawaii from the DNC is the only one with no filing date or RECEIVED DATE stamped on its face. A review of OCONs submitted to every other state reveals the Elections Office in those states affixed this stamp on their document. The omission of this date stamp by the Hawaiian Elections Office is particularly suspicious because, in accordance with HRS 11-113(c), (d) and (e), the RECEIPT DATE initiates a roster of deadlines and correspondence between the Chief Elections Officer, the applicant and the candidate, the first of which is a written notification from Kevin Cronin informing the candidate if they were either approved or denied for inclusion on the ballot. The absence of this RECEIPT or FILING DATE suspiciously obscures the time line which would reveal if the second OCON submitted by the DNC was in violation of Hawaiian law or if it was actually submitted BEFORE the DPH’s OCON.The obvious crime in this intentional dissemination of misinformation is that if the DPH was unable to verify Obama’s eligibility, the DNC would have also not been able to verify it. Why would the DNC not share its verification documentation of Obama’s candidacy with the Democrat Party of Hawaii’s official? If the DNC was actually able to verify Obama’s eligibility, the DPH would have also acquired the same documentation to verify it. If the eligibility of Obama candidacy was provable and verifiable, both party authorities would have included the same appropriate language in accordance with Hawaiian law. Hawaiian law also allowed for seven more days from the dates appearing on both OCONs to be filed if more time was needed for the DPH and the DNC to corroborate the verification of Obama’s eligibility.
Also, if the original version of the DNC’s OCON had been authored with language confirming Obama’s constitutional eligbility, the DNC had no rational motive for submitting two different versions. The inclusion of such language only reinforces perception of Obama’s eligibility in every state. Therefore, the submittal of different documents indicates an act of deception on the part of Nancy Pelosi and the DNC in an effort to contradict the Democrat Party of Hawaii’s OCON.
Was the opportunity available for Obama to personally engage a meeting to discuss the matter of his lack of legal qualifications to appear on the Hawaiian ballot? Was it possible that he actually attended such a hearing?
The following account demonstrates the logistic and legal opportunity as well as the fact that Obama was present and unaccounted for during a period of several hours in Hawaii on October 24th, 2008.
This documented contradiction was intentional by the party authorities because the very presence of this conflict activates a series of lawful empowerments to the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to make autonomous decisions about ballot content. However, 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.
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.
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 FACTS
1. Electors from each state rely on each party’s state authority in that state to certify the nomination of their candidates and verify their legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Hawaiian election law specifically requires each state’s party authority to file a sworn application (Official Certification of Nomination) with Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer certifying the eligibility of each candidate to serve as President and Vice President of the United States.
3. Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113(c)(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?