Jueves, 14 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

An Elaborate Hoax and Conspiracy

??
?

WHY WAS REQUIRED ELIGIBILITY WORDING OMITTED FROM THE HAWAII DEMOCRAT PARTY?S NOMINATION CERTIFICATES IN 2008?

by Arnie Rosner

Brian Schatz was Chairman of the Hawaii Democrat Party in 2008 and is now the Lt. Governor. The Post & Email has contacted him by letter and telephone to ask why eligibility wording was removed from the party's nomination certificates in 2008, but his office refuses to respond.

(Apr. 14, 2011) ? We are constantly reminded of the dignity of our fellow man. ?As humans the highest honor one human can pay another is the simple act of recognition. So I expect it is not surprising that, in my opinion, one of the most despicable crimes against our fellow humankind is to deprive our trusting fellow Americans of our dignity.

Throughout history many people have seen examples of where those in whom high levels of trust have been placed turn out to sadly betray that trust. ?In many cases the people are betrayed by those who were elevated to exalted levels of admiration.

How sad and painful it must be for many Americans to learn that indeed, once more, they must bear the sad disappointment and realization of having to ultimately acknowledge that their trust and adulation were misguided and that one more time, their trust has been abused.

In this case for many Americans, great pride had been taken that as a society we had evolved to a point where recognition for an individual was based on merit, above all other considerations, to be elected to the highest position of responsibility of the free world. ?It is indeed too bad this high level of human evolution, to which we had aspired, ?to which we had believed we had achieved, was marred by an elaborate hoax and conspiracy.

Ladies and Gentlemen of America?there appears a very strong case that indicates we have been had!

Now as to your comments, Mr. Boehner?are you still maintaining it is good enough for you?

And there is more.

QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS

QUESTION 1: Why, after including the legally-required language for previous Democratic candidates in elections past, did chairperson Brian Schatz, acting on behalf of 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?

One more question for Representative Rohrabacher, Speaker Boehner, ?Representative Bachmann, Representative Lofgren and Senator Leahy


? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

------------------------------
?
Read related:
?
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.html
?
New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nominations for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 were to visit more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws, media accounts and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a private hearing with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from the Hawaiian ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:35
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Comentarios