Viernes, 14 de enero de 2011

Share on Facebook

?

OCON Docs: Hawaii Ballot Chief...Grandma, Called Obama To Hawaii In 2008

?
. UPDATED 1/13/11
New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nomination for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 was to visit more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a hearing with Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.
.
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 people and their capacity to override the U.S. Constitution. The evidence reveals that municipal agents, working within the jurisdiction of state law, opened shadowy legal channels enabling Obama an opportunity to usurp presidential power and assault the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people.
.
?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 charge of requesting, reviewing and verifying the legal qualifications of a candidates eligibility in compliance with Hawaiian election laws.
.
?
The DPH's refusal to certify Obama was due to a failure by Obama to make available the original documented evidence confirming his eligibility. This rightful, justified lack of certification was followed by a covert attempt by the Democratic National Committee to artificially declare 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. As stated by Hawaii's Office of Elections website in 2008:
.
"The Official Certification of Nomination is a legally
required document submitted by each party's state and national authority to
every state elections committee authority prior to each presidential election. It affords
the Chief Elections Officer in each state with the documented legal assurance
that the candidates seeking inclusion on their state's ballot are indeed
certified as constitutionally eligible to serve the office they seek."
.
??
The violation committed with the DNC's falsified certification is that there was no evidence to support claims of Obama eligibility. If the state party authority refused to certify a candidate due to a lack of legal qualifications, the national party authority cannot then simply certify the same candidate without ignoring that same lack of documents. That's absurd! The 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 within their own party will eventually refuse to endorse their candidacy.
.
?
Not only was the dual OCON a deceitful maneuver by Nancy Pelosi and DNC to force Obama's unverifiable candidacy onto Hawaii's presidential ballot, it arguably violated Constitutional election law requiring that each state maintains the authority to grant or deny candidacy based on their own standards. Most people would never know that this very intraparty conflict enabled the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii to invoke an obscure law and approve Obama's inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot...even though he was never determined to be constitutionally eligible to be on the ballot.
.
Compounding this controversy, in August, 2008, just two months before the election, the Democrat Party of Hawaii?s (DPH) chairman, Brian Schatz, now serving as the Lt. Governor of Hawaii, 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. This document was allegedly submitted to the Hawaiian Election's office between August 27 and September 5, 2008, however, it was also not affixed with a "RECEIVED DATE" stamp by the Hawaiian Elections office. As a result, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer was forced to disqualify Obama from the presidential ballot in Hawaii until a lengthy administrative process reconciled the disparity. Then, based on the fact the conflict was not able to be resolved, the Hawaiian CEO was forced to exercise an obscure, rarely applied law in order to force Obama's illegitimate candidacy onto the 2008 Hawaiian ballot.
.
?
Also raising skepticism is the ongoing, rebranding of the relationships between these entrenched individuals. Schatz, the former DPH Chairman has now become the Lt. Governor essentially making him the administrative boss of Cronin. Prior to the 2008 election, Cronin was essentially in the position to establish rules governing the administrative requirements influencing the DPH. Regardless of Schatz' current executive role, 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 Democrat party politics, not the interests of the population 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 Hawaii look like some annexation of Obama's administration. Like some kind of municipal secret service agency in charge of Obama's personal documents and information.
.
?
ANGLES AND TRICKS
.
?
?Driving this suspicious conduct was the knowledge held by Obama's campaign drones that if any state Elections Officer, let alone one overseeing the legality of election procedure in the very state the candidate was raised in, was forced to disqualify Obama's candidacy on the grounds of him being found ineligible there, by his own party authority, the issue would have exploded into a firestorm of mainstream inquiry. This could not be allowed to happen so close to the election, no matter how valid the accusations. 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.
.?
However, this was not the only bad consequence "Team Obama" needed to prevent in the wake of the Hawaiian OCON disaster. They also needed to conceal the facts about his illegitimacy, overall, as well as suppress any public knowledge about Obama's legal requirement to meet specific deadlines or personally attend to proceedings in Hawaii attributed directly to countering claims of his ineligibility. Especially if Obama was required to meet with party authorities in Hawaii and the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to refute their findings between the OCON filing date of September 5, 2008 and November 4, 2008.
.
?
So, let's ask the most obvious question first. Did Obama make an unscheduled or sudden trip to Hawaii between September 5th and November 4th, 2008?
.
?
Before answering, let's remember, Obama was operating on a very tight campaign schedule between mid-August and Election day, 2008. A review of his schedule reveals more than 50 events in the final two months. He had several town hall meetings and debates which could not be cancelled or rescheduled because they involved John McCain too. The only way to free himself and cover up his motives was to exploit some personal issue which could serve as a "front story" for his presence in Hawaii.
.
?
Complicating the logistical, legal and political nightmare was the fact that Obama had already attended campaign rallies and fundraisers in Hawaii in early to mid-August. He visited his grandmother on August 7th. Therefore, justifying another visit to Hawaii amid the maelstrom of campaign rallies, debates, forums and town hall meetings scheduled in the other 49 states would require a personal reason that Obama's campaign could justify to the public while putting him in Hawaii to secretly attend to his legal matters. Given the weight of Obama's lack of legitimacy, if he appeared in Hawaii too close to his previous visit, it looks very suspicious and invites media inquiry. ?
.
?
However, if Obama made another unscheduled appearance in Hawaii too close to the OCON filing deadline of September 5, 2008, it would have brought too much attention as well. If he waited until too close to the election, he would miss the deadline of October 24, 2008 Hawaii imposes for inclusion on the ballot. Therefore, Obama needed to find a way to be in Hawaii at a time that would:
.
1. occur as far from 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.
3. meet legal deadlines for ballot approval, but not violate deadlines for his requested hearing 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 let the public discover the real reason he was in Hawaii was because he was attending eligility hearing with Chief Elections Officer and the DPH.
.
?
Obama was provided with such circumstances on October 22nd-24th, 2008.
.
?

Former Democrat Party of Hawaii
(DPH) Chairman, Brian Schatz, now serves as the state's Lt. Governor
photo courtesy: hawaii.gov

An investigation of Hawaii Revised Statutes, along with documented evidence, reveals that the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, being bound by law from partisan participation, still had the legal authority to circumvent the vetting process for Obama and simply approve his placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot without ever verifying that he was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Moreover, the evidence presented herein further confirms that the legal tactics employed by the Obama machine actually allowed him to fill Hawaiian legal requirements, behind the lies of the media, without actually having to ever present authentic documentation.

Shockingly, 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.

SETTING THE STAGE

?

The details of the following account seem somewhat daunting, and even overly exhaustive. However, it is more important to remember that Obama's agents engaged the prerequisites of his illegitimacy with exhaustive investigation and extreme premeditation long before they pushed him onto his present stage. They looked at all the angles. They weighed all the 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 radical, liberal globalists, in concealing Obama's illegitimacy, were to endow political power to a like-minded, radical agent who would be willing to "push" extreme doctrine enabling the governmental confiscation of advanced American invidualism. Or, should we simply consider the massive five TRILLION dollars of added indebtedness upon our children and grandchildren the cost of being America? Obama was tactically positioned not to make American a better nation but to confiscate the value of America's superior heritage and give it to those he thinks are more deserving of it. There was a day when people sought to prosper from their work. Now, the definition of a new "American Dream" is being hijacked by liberals lusting to call themselves prosperous by the blood and sacrifice of others.

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. Casting out the idea peddlers is an essential first step in physically removing foul influences which undermine the intended goodness of our founders.

HAWAIIAN ELECTIONS AUTHORITY
?
Many people falsely believe that the national party committee for each party has certification jurisdiction over state party officials. This is not true. The DNC and RNC are not the primary constitutional authority in vetting candidates. The Constitution gives authority of determining candidate eligibility and to establish relationships enabling candidate placement on each state ballot to each respective state's Elections authority. This evolved out of the the founder's understanding that placing the enforcement of voting security in the hands of local authorities enabled fair access to the residents of the state they apportion and confirm voting registrations. National party authorities do not have the jurisdiction, resources or logistic capacity to ensure voter apportionment between states. Just because the DNC determines that a candidate is eligible in, for example, New York, does mean they can force the state of Hawaii to also find that same candidate eligible. The founders understood that by endowing this to a national authority made the people of states who oppose a particular party vulnerable to under-representation and party intimidation.

?

Under the Electoral College system, according to election laws in every state, Electors from each state are only qualified by the Constitution to cast votes for President and Vice President. They do not participate in certifying the eligibility of the candidates prior to the election. Inexplicably, the certification of each candidate?s eligibility falls under the autonomous authority of each candidate?s state and national affiliated political party authority, while the approval of the candidate?s placement on each state?s ballot then becomes the responsibility of the Chief Elections Officer of each state. The state?s electors must rely on the relationship between these authoritative bodies to review qualifications, certify the legal eligibility of each candidate and approve ballot placement of each candidate nominated by each qualified party.
?
In August, 2008, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer (CEO) was Kevin B. Cronin. He was appointed by the eight-member Hawaiian Elections Commission on December 10, 2007 and took over the position from Interim CEO, Rex M. Quidilla. By statute, Cronin?s term began on February 1, 2008 and is set to end on February 1, 2012. Cronin is a 30 year veteran of government service and is licensed to practice law in Hawaii and Wisconsin. The fully staffed Hawaiian Elections Commission is made up of the following individuals.
?
Name, Position and Date of Term Expiration
Kevin B. Cronin, Senior Elections Officer 02/01/12
Daniel Young , Chief Justice, Oahu 06/30/12
Warren Orikasa , House Speaker, Maui 06/30/14
Margaret Masunaga, Senate President, Hawaii 06/30/14
Zale Okazaki , Senate President, Oahu 06/30/12
Patricia Berg , Senate Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14
Brian Nakashima, Chief Justice, Hawaii 06/30/12
Donna Soares, House Minority Leader, Maui 06/30/12
Charles King, House Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14

?
It is Cronin's constitutional authority to oversee elections in the state of Hawaii under the advisement of the Election Commission. It is his responsibility to maximize registration, equalize registration among districts; and maintain data related to registration, elections, districting and apportionment; educate the public on voting and elections; set up procedures and rules governing elections per HRS 11, AR 91 and Arts. II & IV of the U.S. Constitution. Cronin does not have the authority to certify the Constitutional eligibility of a candidate, however, his most powerful authority is his ability, according to HRS 11-113, to mediate conflict over eligibility and, as a result of mediation, officially approve candidates for placement on the state?s ballot even when the state party's vetting authority refuses to certify the legal qualifications of that candidate.
?
As absurd as this seems...it actually happened in Hawaii in 2008.

.
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: ?

?

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, 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.....?
?
??????????????????? READ FULL ARTICLE


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:32
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Comentarios