From Conception...To Election

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Friday, January 7, 2011

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

. UPDATED 1/17/11
New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nominations for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 were to visit more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws, media accounts and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a private hearing with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from the Hawaiian ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.

by Pen Johannson
Editor, The Daily Pen

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

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

SETTING THE STAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE "O" CON

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHATZ' ASCENDANCE

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

In August, 2008, just two months before the election, the Democrat Party of Hawaii’s (DPH) chairman, Brian Schatz, had already refused to include legally required, explicit language in its sworn Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) that Barack Obama was qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The DPH's OCON document was allegedly submitted to the Hawaiian Election's office between August 27th and September 5th, 2008.
. Former DPH Chair, Brian Schatz, now serves as
Hawaii's Lt. Governor under Gov. Neil Abercrombie (2010).
As DPH Chair, Schatz authored the state's Democrat
Party OCON for Obama without including legally required
language stating that Obama was constitutionally
eligible to serve as president. Schatz won the Lt. Gov.
seat by a wide margin after two years of remaining
silent about his OCON controversy.

At first glance, one might think Schatz was simply acting with discretion and, if nothing else, upholding the appearance of legal prudence over political partisanship. However, a review of records held by the State of Hawaii reveals this document was not affixed with a "RECEIVED DATE" or "FILED DATE" stamp by the Hawaiian Elections office like the certification documents in the other 49 states were. Therefore, the possibility remains that the OCON submitted by Schatz may have actually been filed after the first "non-Constitutional" OCON was submitted from the DNC. This would indicate a possible violation of Hawaiian election law HRS 11-113(c)(1) which sets a precise deadline for the submission of this document by the party authorities to the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer.
.
Without, the "RECEIVED" or "FILED" date stamp, it is impossible to determine which document was produced first or whether both documents were submitted to the Hawaiian Elections office before the deadline. The fact that these documents do not contain this stamp raises serious suspicion about their authenticity and about the expected chronology of their chain of possession. To anyone not associated with election procedures, the absence of this stamp might appear like a simple administrative oversight, but to anyone with basic understanding of laws governing official records, this is a shocking dereliction. Compounding this unlawful omission by the Hawaiian Elections Office, the DNC's OCON submitted to Hawaii was also not affixed with this stamp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In order to avoid the destructive political consequences, Obama had to engage a private meeting away from the media. Such a private meeting would also have to be justifiable under Hawaii Revised Statutes Adminstrative Rules 91, 92-4, 92-5, and 3-170-11. Specifically, any correspondence or meeting between any candidate or representative of the candidate and members of the Hawaiian Election commission would have to be held in accord with these rules. However, it is HRS 92-5-8 which affords the permission to hold a secret meeting between members of the Elections Commission and Obama. The rules states:
92-5 Exceptions (a) A board may hold a meeting closed to the public pursuant to section 92-4 for one or more of the following reason(s):
.
(8) To deliberate or make a decision upon a matter that requires the consideration of information that must be kept confidential pursuant to a state or federal law, or a court order..

How does this Administrative Rule apply to Obama? Recall, the Hawaiian Department of Health (HDH) has stated that the public disclosure of information contained in vital records to anyone without tangible reasons for obtaining it is prohibited by state law HRS 338-18. For more than three years, employees of the HDH have repeatedly refused to disclose Obama's original natal records citing this law, which requires that vital information "must be kept confidential pursuant to state law." Therefore, based on this tenet, any justification for holding a private meeting for the purpose of reviewing and discussing Obama's natal information as it exists on file with the HDH would fall under the provisions of HRS 92-5-(8).

However, this only resolves the legality of the matter.

LAP DOGS & BLOOD HOUNDS

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

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

The implications are magnetic and compelling. The lasciviousness of the scheme makes it heart-wrenching. While the last living member of Obama's extended family clings to her final moments...or perhaps had already passed prior to Obama's arrival, the political scavengers and the ideologically afoul, having confiscated Obama's existence, were actually exploiting her pain and death for their political gain. Projecting a final thought in those moments in that woman's apartment, we gain understanding of the contemptible scene...
"If Obama waited too long to go to Hawaii, the old-bag might kick the bucket early and leave Obama with no "personal" reason to hide under. A premature death would prevent Obama from protecting his political image while he proliferated more lies about the unresolved facts of his epic illegitimacy. This would leave him exposed just 11 days before the most prolific, fraudulent Presidential election in history, and force him to answer for the actual reasons he was called to Hawaii, which was to rebut claims by the Democrat Party's state authority that he was, simply, an inferior candidate without legal qualifications...or, worse, if he went to Hawaii too early, before the wise medical doctors had a chance to deliver their scripted testimony of a media-approved "looming death decree" -- worthy of Obama's doting presence -- there would have been no way to hide the reasons for another trip there, yet again, in coming weeks, when the political deadlines demanding his presence finally arrived.".
.
"Never let a crisis go to waste", right? The entire affair is despicable and should impose shame on those involved, including everyone in Obama's family, his administration, the media, the State of Hawaii, and the Democrat Party...and, unfortunately, the American people for not violently protesting such disgraceful conduct. Is there any wonder why there is no decency in government today?
.
In summary, Obama sought a way to be in Hawaii at a time that would:

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

2. Allow him to cancel campaign events, but not miss prescheduled debates with McCain or televised town hall meetings.

3. Meet legal deadlines for ballot approval, but not violate deadlines to refute the findings of ineligibility by the DPH.

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

5. Exploit the story of Obama's grandmother's illness, allowing Obama to schedule the trip precisely while citing the doctor's assessment of his grandmother's condition as an excuse to be in Hawaii. However, if Dunham died too soon, or was "not sick enough" to warrant his cancellation of campaign events so close to an election, Obama would be left exposed to media investigation about the truth of all of his activities in Hawaii on October 24th, 2008.

On October 23rd, 2008, even the ultra-liberal New York Times took notice of Obama’s sheepish trip off the grid:

"On a whirlwind trip back to Hawaii, Senator Barack Obama spent more than an hour visiting his ailing grandmother late Thursday and is set to return to her bedside on Friday morning after arriving here on a nine-hour flight from the Midwestern battleground of the presidential campaign.

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

"...It was an unusual departure from the tug-of-war of the presidential campaign, with 11 days remaining in the race. While Mr. Obama is only going to be gone for one full day – Friday – it still is an unusual occurrence at this point in a presidential campaign."

“It’s not optimal, but there was never any debate or discussion or
anything,” David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Mr. Obama said in an
interview Thursday. “Barack’s grandmother is one of the formative people in his
life. He wants to go see her on the advice of her doctors. He had to do it now.
So we’ll just make do.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics

On October 25th, Star Advertiser reporter, Laurie Au gave this peculiar first hand account of Obama's evasive behavior.

The only exciting part of the day (Friday October 24th, 2008) occurred shortly after 10 a.m., when his campaign aides told us Obama would be taking a walk along Young Street in his old Makiki neighborhood. Apparently there was some confusion, though, because by the time we reached Young Street, Obama was already two blocks away, forcing about a dozen of us — media and staff — to chase after him. We stopped a respectful distance away, but he still appeared down and slightly unhappy to see us.


Our day ended just after 5 p.m. when Obama and more than 60 other staff and media boarded his private plane to Nevada for more campaigning.
http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/inside-obamas-press-bus/


Au’s account of Obama’s schedule on the morning of October 24th obviously
indicates that Obama was able to slip out of his grandmother’s apartment without
being noticed by the media. Thereafter, there is no accounting of presence
before or after this "solo stroll" until his appearance at the airport. Au then
reports that the next accounting of Obama's presence was when he boarded his
plane seven hours later at 5:00 p.m. So, the obvious question arising from the
media’s fallow account is where was Obama between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Friday, October 24th?

You have to hand it to the Obama political syndicate. They squirrelled this one to a tee. It's sad that it was so evil, sheepish and dishonest. Obama was able to pull an epic deception off on the American people, and most of them bought the entire story without any hesitation.


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


HAWAIIAN ELECTIONS 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 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 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 "MESS"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


THE "FIX"

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Cronin would have received Obama's request sometime around October 9th or 10th, 2008. However, like the OCON, Cronin is not obligated to record receipt of the document on the same day it arrives. Therefore, based on HRS 11-113(e), the latest Cronin was legally able to schedule a hearing for Obama was sometime between Monday, October 20th and Friday, October 24th, 2008.

Cronin has been accused of being overly liberal with statutory deadlines in favor of democrats in the past. In early August, 2008, RPH Chair, Willes Lee filed a lawsuit against Cronin and the Office of Elections (Willes Lee v. Cronin, Civil No. 08-1-1609) challenging the candidacy of a local Democrat, Isaac Choy, to the state's House (24th Dist.). Lee contended that Choy had been unlawfully named a candidate by the DPH when his predecessor, Kirk Caldwell (D), left the post early to run for City Council. The suit alleged that Caldwell had notified the Elections Office on July 22, 2008 that he was leaving the seat. Cronin, however, after waiting until the next day to file the withdrawl, contended that the 72 hour deadline allowed by Hawaiian Election law was actually initiated on July 23rd, not the 22nd, allowing for the DPH's selection of Choy to occur on Saturday, the 26th, not Friday, the 25th.

Moreover, Hawaii Revised Statute, Administrative Rules, Chapter 91-9 (d), Contested Cases; notice, hearing; records states: “Any procedure in a contested case may be modified or waived by stipulation of the parties and informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default.”

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


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


On Monday, October 21, 2008, Reuters reported:

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


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


Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who will be 86 on Sunday, helped raise him along with his mother, Ann Dunham, and his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Gibbs would not discuss the nature of her illness.

The candidate is canceling events in Madison, Wisconsin, and Des Moines, Iowa, that had been scheduled for Thursday. He instead will go to an event in Indianapolis, Indiana, on Thursday, then fly to Hawaii to see his grandmother. He will return to the campaign trail on Saturday, Gibbs said."

On October21, 2008, ABC News reported:

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


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

ABC News then reported on October 24th, 2008:

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

KHNL News Hawaii Reported on October 24th:

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

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

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

Media coverage of Obama's campaign state that he was delivering a rally speech in Obelisk Square in Indianapolis at noon, EST on October 23rd. Private flight time on Obama's campaign jet, from Indianapolis to Honolulu, is approximately seven to eight hours. Indiana is the western-most state in the eastern time zone which means that if Obama left Indianapolis at 1:00 p.m. EST, subtracting times zones from flight time and adding an hour for a refueling stop in Sacramento at 3:00 PST, he would have arrived in Honolulu between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. that same day.

At least one major media network states that Obama spent an hour at his grandmother's apartment that evening beginning around 7:00, then he returned the next morning for about two hours departing at about 10:45 a.m. Obama's time is unaccounted for between about 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on October 24th, when he boarded his campaign jet for for a 5 hour flight to Reno where he arrived around midnight PST, October 25th.

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


THE FINALE


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

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

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

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

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


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

On the other hand, maybe, as one of the newest states, if Hawaii had a different name, like..."Alaska", we wouldn't even be having a discussion about eligibility.


SUMMARY


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

REVIEWING THE 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?

Posted by at 102 comments:

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

50 REASONS AMERICA SHOULD REEXAMINE OBAMA’S PAST


by Penbrook Johannson
Editor, The Daily Pen

If the American people are ever blessed to have Obama's secret biography deliberated by an unbiased authority, with higher intelligence, the following will have to be addressed on the merits of legitimacy.

1. The Definition of “Natural-Born Citizenship”. The U.S. Constitution requires that a presidential candidate be a Natural-Born Citizen in order to be eligible for the office of President.

In seeking to define the meaning of "natural born citizenship", those who support Obama take a minimalist view of the term. They desire to assume jurisdiction over its definition in the minds of as many as possible contending that "natural born citizenship" means the fewest, most remedial natal circumstances possible which will allow Obama just enough legitimacy to be eligible. Their definition allows Obama to merely meet what they consider the most easily argued characteristics of Obama's citizenry, in this case, his birth place.

However, the purposed intent of our founders was not so slight in this matter. They sought to make the meaning of being a Natural born citizen the highest, most laudable position of all forms of citizenry. All arguments seeking to diminish this truth are reprobate and defamatory, made in the interest of serving one's own political lust, not defending the sovereignty of our Constitution or people. Hence, logically, our founders induced that the highest form of eligibility for the highest office would be a lawful mandate.

Consider the following:

Taking survey of all possible circumstances
which, therefore, lend credibility to one's claim to legitimacy, and thereby,
eligibility to lead, there is much more to consider than simply one's location
of birth. In order to meet the highest standard intended by our founders, we
must also consider that biology must also meet this standard.
Not only is it essential that a presidential candidate be born under the
sovereign geographic protection of our Constitution, he must also be conceived
by two parents of native citizenry, possessing U.S. citizenship.

Moreover, let's consider further extension of this ideal
by commanding that a presidential candidate also be conceived
legitimately within the bounds of legal marriage of their parentage. Having been
measured and found wanton, those subservient to bias for persons over their
respect for the office would not embrace this noble ideal. For them,
uplifting the standard of the presidency remains an inferior cause to
diminishing the requirements in order to provide access for their inferior candidate. Therefore, they seek to minimize the standard, not maximize the person. Of course, this would disqualify many from being the President...as so it should!

However, let's not even stop there. We should also
assume that our founders sought to ensure that a presidential candidate had also preserved their Natural-born citizenship from "conception to
election", never having allowed it to be revoked, or never having it revoked
even against their will. For, even those who lose their eligibility to no fault
of their own should bear up in faith that this is the intention of higher power,
sacrificing for the sake of sovereignty of the office rather than opportunity
for the man!

Let all of these metrics define the standards of
Natural-born citizenship in America. Bannish minimalism and seek the highest
mark in the spirit of exceptionalism forged by our forefathers! Hold this mantle
lest that crown be stolen by any upon the earth without seeking the interests of
God and country first! Daringly and boldly, let these marks serve as the highest
definition of humanity's advanced citizenship and the prescribed metrics for
eligibility to be President of the U.S.!
We should set a higher bar, not lower it. It is impossible to choose one's own Natural-born citizenship because it is preeminent and incumbent to one's birth. Historical writings, along with related legal precedents strongly suggest this form of citizenship is achieved when natural circumstances make it impossible for that individual to have any citizenship or allegiances other than with the United States at the time they are elected as President. Research of America's founding culture reveals that a very heavy emphasis was placed on legitimacy at birth. Therefore, it is probable that one's most authentic degree of Natural born identity does not occur at birth, but at conception. With this in mind, we must consider that the framers of the Constitution assumed it was commonly understood that the definition of "Natural-born citizenship" for a presidential candidate to mean a citizenship status that was not just acheived by the event of birth but that it was a maintained status from "conception to election" in order to qualify a sovereign candidate. This is the most complete definition of Natural born citizenship possible. There is no other degree of more complete natural circumstances which can establish the status of one's existence.

Therefore, theoretically, Natural-born citizenship, in its purest, ineradicable form, could be measured by three metrics: 1.) Biological conception by two U.S. citizen parents, 2.) birth in a geographic region under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and 3.) maintenance of that citizenship status without any unnatural interruption of parentage, legal process or administrative procedure.

This means that their citizenship has never been achieved by any legal or administration process at or after birth. Dual citizens and expatriates are not Natural-Born Citizens. Those who lose their Natural-born status by taking the citizenship of another country or denouncing their Natural Born U.S. citizenship cannot regain it. A Natural-born citizen is one who was born within a geographic region under the protections of the U.S. Constitution AND to two U.S. citizen parents, they being either natural-born or legally naturalized through immigration or repatriation. Despite ongoing, unanswered questions about his geographic origins, Obama does not meet the requirements to be a Natural-Born citizen for two possible other reasons: 1.) because his alleged biological father, Barack Obama Sr., was not a U.S. Citizen and 2.) he was adopted by his muslim, Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in the mid 1960s thereby taking Indonesian citizenship, thus forfeiting Natural-born status.

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..."

2. The Suddenness of Obama. The American public was essentially made nationally aware of Barack Obama following his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. Obama’s emergence into national politics was not a gradual inception. It was a sudden, covert ascendance to power seemingly assisted by foreign-like forces as an assault on vintage American conscience.

Obama was elected to the U.S. Congress as a Democratic senator from Illinois in November, 2004, after his candidacy was promoted in the state by a vastly corrupt, liberal, Chicago-based political cartel and a conglomeration of burned-out, 1960's, radicals like Bill Ayers and Madeline Talbott. Then despite his lack of executive experience, in February, 2007, after only two years of serving at the federal level, Obama announced his candidacy for the 2008 Presidential election defeating Hillary Clinton, a 17-year veteran of federal politics and former First Lady, for the Democratic Party Nomination. Obama went on to then defeat John McCain, a decorated war veteran and a 34-year seasoned expert in federal politics as a longstanding Arizona senator, having been elected by a bowing consensus of ashamed white liberals, Bush-hating radicals and angry, racist minorities seeking reparative justice.

By all observable metrics, Obama should have been considered nothing but a long shot to contend for the DNC nomination. Instead, he defied these odds and even his own advice when, in 2005, he said, “In order to run for president, a person needs to know what they are getting into…I am not confident I have that experience yet.”

3. The Foundations of Natural Born Citizenry. When the founders of America wrote the Constitution, they included the “Natural-born” mandate in order to ensure that no President would be subject to, or exercise, a plurality of political interests in their international relationships. Having experienced the corruption of a monarchy in Great Britain for generations, the founders of America, after declaring and defending their right to freedom from that corruption during the Revolutionary War, wrote the constitution within the legal framework of empowering inalienable rights and protection of the American people, not empowering the government. Upon declaring independence from the crown, after seeing the destructive consequences of an intermingling of international loyalty through forced Royal intermarriage, in-breeding, monarchal polytheism, power sharing, birthright subversion and support of covert insurrections of inferior nations, the founders made it a law that any President had to be a Natural-born citizen.

4. Logan Act Violated By Obama. With this mind, we learned, in October, 2008, that American author and columnist, Jerome Corsi was arrested while visiting Kenya during an investigation which revealed that Barack Obama had actively campaigned for and contributed money to Kenya’s Democratic Socialist Orange Party candidate, Raila Odinga, from 2006 to 2008. Corsi had traveled to Kenya and acquired correspondence and documented evidence showing that Odinga, a fellow Luo tribe descendant and alleged paternal cousin of Obama, had entered into a written agreement with the National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF), a highly influential and radical Kenyan Islamic foundation, seeking Odinga’s support for, among other things, Sharia Law, in exchange for the Islamic group’s support of Odinga’s candidacy. The evidence acquired by Corsi also shows that Obama was aware of this agreement even while he was raising more than a million dollars of American money to support Odinga’s campaign. The Orange Party Movement is the communist opposition party to President, Mwai Kibaki’s Party of National Unity (PNU). Obama’s involvement in the Kenyan election, while an elected official of the U.S., was clearly a violation the Logan Act which prohibits American politicians from influencing or participating in foreign elections. The Obama Administration’s U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has refused to pursue any investigation of Obama’s activities with Odinga in Kenya in 2006 until 2008. In 2008, video of Obama’s speeches on behalf of Odinga surfaced on YouTube and several other websites which clearly show Obama stumping for Odinga. In the aftermath of the December, 2007 election, which Odinga lost, the Orange party leadership and members of Kenya’s Luo tribe incited violence among his radical constituents. Kenyan Muslims engaged in a week long violent demonstration in which they burned nearly 1000 Christian churches and murdered almost 1000 of Odinga’s political opposition which are members of the predominantly Christian, Kikuyu tribe. Under the threat of this violence, with the support of Obama and the Bush administration, the Kenyan majority PNU Party was forced to take an unprecedented action in the history of its government by artificially amending its constitution in order to create a leadership position for Odinga who was ensconced as the country’s first Prime Minister in April, 2008. The tragic events and violence of the 2007 Kenyan election were the exact consequences the founders of America were trying to prohibit U.S. government officials from instigating or being influenced by. Obama’s geopolitical connections, along with his probable biological relationship with the Kenyan Communist party, now an active part of the Kenyan government, creates a relationship vulnerable to illicit influence. Obama has now brought that illicit relationship, and all of its consequences, with him into the office of the U.S. Presidency. The founders wisely understood that the mandate of Natural born citizenry for a President is the best possible protection against such vulnerability.

5. Suspicious Nomination Certifications. In July, 2009, documents were revealed showing that Obama was never officially certified to run for president under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, by the Hawaiian Democratic Party. On August 27, 2008, the Hawaiian Democratic Party created a customized Nomination Certification document for Obama containing the following words:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States 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."
In comparison, unlike the 2008 Hawaiian OCON for Obama, in every other previous Presidential election, the Hawaiian Democratic Party has certified the nomination of their state's Democratic candidate with the following words:
"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the United States Constitution..."
Notice that the wording of HDP's 2008 Official Certification of Nomination omits the words "...under the provision of the United States Constitution..."
Upon receiving Hawaii's State Nomination Certification for Obama, which omits the reference to the Constitutional legality of Obama's nomination, the National Democratic Party Office created two separate documents with the same header title, "Official Certification of Nomination", both versions were signed by Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the Democratic National Convention, and Alicia Travis Germond, Secretary of the Democratic National Convention and notarized by a Denver notary. One of these versions was sent from the National Democratic Party headquarters to each of the 49 states' Democratic Party headquarters. However, only the State of Hawaii received an Official Certification of Nomination from the DNC containing the words:
"...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 document then lists Barack Obama and Joe Biden as the candidates. However, the rest of the 49 states received a different Official Certification of Nomination containing the words:
"...the following were duly nominated as candidates of said party for President and Vice
President of the United States, respectively..."
Why was the state of Hawaii's local Democratic Party headquarters sent a different OCON document from the National Party headquarters than the other 49 states?
There is strong evidence suggesting that Hawaii's local Democratic Party officials refused to certify Obama's nomination as being Constitutionally eligible and, therefore, required that the National Party office take responsibility for declaring the eligibility of his nomination under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, even though his eligibility had never been vetted. This has never happened in the history of America’s vetting endorsement process and indicates that the Democratic National Party leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, was made aware that there was a legal problem with Obama's candidacy, however, the DNC certified it anyway!

6. State Ballot Fail! It is the responsibility of each states' party head office to certify that their candidate is Constitutionally eligible to serve. Since Obama was not Constitutionally certified to run in the state of Hawaii in 2008, no other Secretary of State, in any state, ever confirmed that Obama was vetted by federal or party authorities in their state prior to being placed on the 2008 Presidential ballot there. In fact, nearly a dozen Secretaries of State, including Hawaii’s, have officially refused to reveal any information about the vetting of Barack Obama in their state.

7. PUMA: The First Birthers. In early summer, 2007, the so called “Birther” conspiracy theory was first created by renegade members of an ultra leftist group known as the PUMAs. (That’s right! They were leftists). They were a splinter group of hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters who did not want to surrender the Democrat party nomination to Obama after a hard fought campaign leading to the 2008 Democratic nomination. In June, 2008, PUMAParty.com began promoting the idea that their party’s nomination of Barack Obama could be overturned on constitutional grounds that he was not eligible to be president based on the fact that he may not be a natural born citizen. Thus, the Birther movement actually began in the minds of liberals, not “right-wing nuts” as Obama zealots love to claim.

8. Hawaiian Certi-Fiction. Shortly after PUMAparty.com began clamoring for a more thorough review of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, the image of a document containing sparse information about Obama’s alleged birth was posted on the internet by undisclosed sources, from an unknown origin. The image appeared on extreme leftwing websites like the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and later on two websites claiming to be non-partisan reviewers, Factcheck.org and politifact.com. One of the fact checking sites is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation from which the Chicago Annenberg Project received a large educational grant. Obama served as the chair on the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Project in 2002.

9. CertificaTION Of Identity, not Natural Birth. The 2008 document image was determined to be created by an unknown source from a digital template form of a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” which is a surrogate, independently published, municipal cover document issued to those applying for copies of birth certificates in the state of Hawaii since 2000. In response to Y2K system updates the State of Hawaii began migrating from paper copies of original birth records to digitally created printed documents. The state of Hawaii openly admits to changing its document format under the guise of preventing identity theft.

10. Cartoon Fun. In 2009, it was demonstrated by three separate document specialists that an image of the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” was easily constructed and falsely authenticated using two different medical imaging software programs. This demonstration discredited the State of Hawaii’s claims that its “Certification of Live Birth” provided better protection against identity theft than old paper copies of the Certificate of Live Birth.

11. Department of Hawaiian Native Homelands. The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” was found to be so unreliable in clarifying the bearer’s legal and demographic identity that the State of Hawaii’s own Department of Native Homelands refused to accept it as a primary source of identification for its applicants seeking to purchase Hawaiian land reserved for genealogically native Hawaiians. Before 2010, the agency’s website stated:

"In order to process your application for identification as a native Hawaiian, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands utilizes information that is found only on the Original (Long Form) Vault Birth Certificate (‘Certificate of Live Birth’, not ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’), which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of birth than the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Long Form Birth Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ requires additional verification…"

Only after it was determined that the Department of Hawaiian Homeland’s policy against the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” conflicted with another Hawaiian state agency, the Department of Health’s, political endorsement of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, was the policy changed and the wording against the credibility of the document scrubbed from its website. This led many to accuse the State of Hawaii government of selling out to protect against exposing the ineligibility of Obama rather than upholding the eligibility of thousands of potential native land owners in Hawaii. Some actually accused Hawaii’s land management of selling out to a liar while native Hawaiians were at risk of being deprived of their right to purchase native lands because non-natives could now use a less credible version of identification when applying for a land purchase.

12. Hawaii Denies COLB Image. After all was said and done, the State of Hawaii has refused to ever confirm that it issued the 2008 document image. In light of sophisticated, digitally based document imaging technology, the authenticity of the image remains highly questionable, especially without the official endorsement of the Hawaiian Health Department. Some independent reviewers have, unequivocally, determined the image to be a forgery.

13. The Million Dollar Birth Cerificate. On August 21, 2008, Philadelphia based attorney, Philip Berg, filed the first of several high profile cases attempting to force Obama to show authentic, legal, original documentation proving that he is eligible to be president of the U.S. Berg is a lifelong, registered Democrat with a history of running for Democratic office in Philadelphia. Following Berg’s case, other plaintiffs have filed similar suits including Alan Keyes and several military officers, all of which have been dismissed by irresponsible judges refusing to weigh the merits of evidence in the cases. Some judges have even gone on record as saying the reason they dismissed their case was because “Questions about Obama’s eligibility had already been answered on Twitter.” Since then, Obama has paid more than 1.6 million dollars to the Washington law firm, Perkins Coie to prevent the release of his original birth certificate, which costs about 20 dollars to order from the State of Hawaii.

14. Executive Order No. 13489. Obama was ensconced as President on January 20, 2009. Just one day after his inauguration, he signed Executive Order No. 13489 which essentially violates the Freedom of Information Act and prohibits the release of Obama’s personal and presidential records, during and after his presidency, by the National Archives without first being consulted by the National Archives Director and the Attorney General. Seven days later, Obama gave his famous “Transparency Will Be the Touchstone of This Administration" speech in which he hypocritically admonished previous administrations for what he feels are "too many secrets kept by government in Washington". Obama vowed to change how government deals with secret information by making his administration more open. Since this dishonest, landmark speech, the Administration has fought to keep Obama’s past secret more than any other President in American history.

15. LTC Terry Lakin. In April, 2008, after the fraudulent dismissal of more than two dozen civilian court cases which had been filed against Obama attempting to force him to produce original documented evidence of his natal identity, a highly decorated officer with more than 17 years of unblemished service in the U.S. Army brought the Obama eligibility into the active military ranks. Lieutenant Colonel, Dr. Terrence Lakin, an active duty flight surgeon serving the President's Chief of Staff and working as a commanding ranked physician of a critical care facility, refused to deploy for duty in Afghanistan under his legal right to refuse orders that he, as an officer, believes are illegal. According to Lakin, Barack Obama has not demonstrated provable, documented evidence that he is eligible to hold the office of President and is, therefore, not legally qualified to issue orders to the United States military as Commander In Chief. Lakin’s oath upon becoming an officer is to defend the constitution, not the president. His duty, as an officer to refuse deployment orders he believes are illegal, are legitimate based on clear and concise legal grounds. Despite this fact, however, Lakin pleaded guilty to a circus court under the command of the Obama administration’s military staff, and was sentence to six months in prison and dismissal from the service. He has since been lauded and exalted for his sacrifice and commitment to his duty to defend the Constitution. Supporters may contribute to his fund at http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/

16. The History Of Standard U.S. Certificates of Live Birth. As census and vital statistics documentation methods evolved, the U.S. Department of Health has utilized a document template with the header title, “Certificate of Live Birth” since the early 1900’s. The U.S. National Vital Statistics Division, since its first published data report in 1915, refers to the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” as “The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, issued by the National Vital Statistics Division, has served for many years as the principal means of attaining uniformity in the content of the documents used to collect information on this vital event.” This document has evolved throughout a 110 year process with input from the National Conference on Vital Records and Statistics, the National Vital Statistics Division, The Census Bureau and the municipal state agencies assigned with the responsibility of gathering, storing and reporting natal statistics to the U.S. Department of Health. Although it has undergone state specific revisions to support municipal laws and identity protection, it is important to note that it has never undergone a reduction in vital data content.

17. Hawaii’s Rogue Document. The standard, U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” document template has been slightly revised by various states for the purpose of meeting identification and formatting needs, such as concealing the social security numbers of the parents. However, no state, except one, has ever reduced the overall quantity of information contained about the bearer’s natal identity, such that it is now impossible to determine their natural-born status, and then used that reduction of vital information in an endorsed document form. Only the State of Hawaii has created this form of independently published, digital documentation.

18. Hawaii Violates Federal Guidelines. In the entire 110 year history of the standard, official, federal, U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” document’s existence, only the state of Hawaii has gone astray from the standard version to such a degree that it actually conceals one’s full natal identity rather than reveals it. When comparing document forms, the use of the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is an unauthorized reduction of content otherwise prescribed to confirm the bearer’s natal identity and, essential to verifying one’s eligibility to be a candidate for president, the bearer’s natural born status.

19. Exploitation of Hawaii’s Lost Culture. Because of its remote, water-locked, geographic characteristics; its tumultuous indigenous history; and a vulnerable culture altered by a transference of sovereignty in the late 1800’s, the Hawaiian islands gained a reputation for maintaining a vague process for documenting immigration, vital events and indigenous population. Historical archives dating between 1890 and 1941 reveal that the Hawaiian Islands served as an unofficial, but widely pursued, sanctuary for thousands of foreign expatriates seeking protection from political persecution in China, Japan, Southeast Asiatic nations, the Middle East and, later, the United States. This multicultural instability resulted in the implementation of less than thorough procedures for recording and differentiating native born, immigrant and indigenous populations. One example of this surrogate nativity was granted to a Mr. Sun Yat Sen, a Chinese expatriate who received an official Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1904 stating that his birth had taken place in Hawaii in November, 1870. However, later evidence revealed that Mr. Sun’s birth had actually occurred in China in 1866. Archives reveal that the state of Hawaii has provided similar documentation to thousands of immigrants over the years without ever confirming their age, the birth place or their actual identity.This murky process was further complicated when Hawaii became a state of the U.S. which demanded that it begin implementing the federal documentation standards for U.S. citizens as well, in 1959. Vulnerabilities in Hawaii’s documentation process created passive conditions which allowed unidentified inhabitants to later proclaim any identity, or multiple identities, they desired to serve their individual interests.

20. Hawaii’s Communist Past. Based on investigations in the 1950’s and 1960’s, a disproportionate concentration of pro-communist activity became a part of Hawaiian culture. This is substantiated by an increase in the population and activity of communist sympathizers identified by the House Committee on Un-American Activities hearings conducted after WWII, during the beginning of the cold war between the U.S. and communist Russia. Evidence of pro-communist presence in Hawaii can be found in publications like the Honolulu Record in which one of Obama’s communist mentors, Frank Marshal Davis was a columnist. Obama Sr. would later return to Kenya sometime in the mid 1960’s to promote his communist economic theories and work in government with his friend and leader of Kenya’s communist KANU party, Tom Mboya.

21. Hawaiian Document Proven Deficient. In August, 2008, a former U.S. Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics Registrar stated that the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” cannot be considered an original birth certificate created at the time of occurrence of the birth because “…it does not contain the signature of the licensed medical professional qualified to determine the characteristics of a live birth in accordance with administrative requirements established by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division, and it does not contain the name and location of the hospital which issued the original record, which would be a U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” if the child was born in the United States.” Further investigation of Hawaii’s revised statutes reveal that the Hawaiian Department of Health not only contends with federal law, it also contradicts its own self-declared authority to issue falsified birth nativity under HRS 338-17.

22. Hawaii’s Permission To Violate Federal Law. Hawaii Revised Statute HRS 338-17.8 states:

“Certificates for children born out of State.(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

The law permits anyone born to parents who claimed Hawaii as their residence within one year of their birth, at any time before or after the enactment of the law, regardless of the actual location of the birth, to receive an original birth record which states that the location of birth is Hawaii, and, therefore, occurred in the U.S. Hawaiian lawmakers have confirmed that the law is not constrained to the date of birth. It is applicable to the date of application for the certificate. This means this law would enable Obama, anytime after the age of 21 to apply for and receive a newly created original Hawaiian birth certificate after providing evidence that his mother or father merely resided in Hawaii for one year prior to his birth. He could have applied for this certificate any time since is parents are known to have resided in Hawaii since 1960. He could have been born outside of the U.S., however, the State of Hawaii is obligated by law to grant him an original birth certificate stating that Hawaii is his birth place simply because he was able to show that his parents claimed Hawaii as their residence. Moreover, the evidence provided with Obama’s application may not be reviewed by any third party under this law. Only the Director of the Department of Health is granted with the authority to determine the validity and deadlines required in providing such evidence. In essence, under Administrative Rule 91, the state of Hawaii has empowered a state-level, municipal employee to determine the federal, natural-born status and therefore, the Constitutional eligibility, of any individual, even a sworn enemy of the United States, seeking the most powerful office in the world.

23. Obama’s Own Words. On page 26 of his 1995 Autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama admits to possessing a copy of his original birth certificate in the late 1970’s. This document was a copy of an original vital record assumed to still be filed with the office of Vital Statistics in Hawaii. Why does Obama not still possess this copy and where is the original used to produce it?

24. Obama Loses Natural-Born U.S. Citizenship. Barack Obama claims to have lived in Indonesia with his mother from approximately 1967 to 1971 where he assumed the surname of his step father, Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. Since Obama became a citizen of Indonesia, he forfeited any claim he may have had to Natural-born citizenship in the U.S. Recall, a Natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is achieved by natural circumstances which, if unrevoked, make it impossible for them to have citizenship loyalties to any other governing power. If a Natural-born citizen becomes a citizen of another country at any time prior to running for the office of the president, he or she is no longer eligible. Because of this forfeiture, Obama is not eligible to be president because his Natural-born status cannot be reclaimed once legal or administrative procedures are employed to repatriate him in the U.S. Also, despite Obama’s claims that he remained in Indonesia during this time, there is photographic evidence placing him in Hawaii in 1969. Questions remain how and why Obama may have traveled to Hawaii at this time, including any documentation he used, which raises doubts about the validity of his origins narrative, and therefore, doubts about his identity.

25. What’s In a Name? Barry or Barack, Soetoro or Obama, or Subarkah? Records from his time in Indonesia reveal that Barack Obama has used at least one other alias and possibly two. He was registered for school under the name Barry Soetoro as a muslim student. When Obama applied for state bar license in 1992 to practice law in Illinois, the application asked if he had ever used an alias. He stated that he had not at that time. There is evidence that suggests Obama was not honest about his use of other names throughout his life. Recent passport application information submitted by his mother in the 1960’s reveals that Obama may have had a third surname of “Subarkah” which his mother had written on the application.

26. Dunham’s Secret Absence. Many records exist confirming Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii from late summer of 1960 until February of 1961. However, from February until September, 1961, there are no records or eyewitness accounts of her presence in Hawaii. In fact, the void is quite stark. Obama was allegedly born during this void of time in Dunham’s documented life. The next record indicating her possible location is a class registration record showing that she had enrolled in classes for fall term of 1961 at the University of Washington, just two weeks after allegedly giving birth to Obama in Hawaii.

27. Dunham Too Young To Confer Citizenship. Ann Dunham turned 19 years old in November, 1961, almost four months after Obama was allegedly born in August, 1961. Citizenship laws in effect in the U.S. in 1961 required the mother of a child born outside the U.S., to a foreign father, to have lived in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years, five of which had to be after the age of 14. Since Dunham had not yet turned 19, she was not legally able to confer citizenship to Obama if the birth occurred outside the U.S. Therefore, Obama is, at a minimum, a citizen of Great Britain. The founding fathers, in writing the eligibility mandate, having fought a Revolutionary War against Great Britain, would have rejected Obama as a presidential candidate for this reason.

28. Hospital Mystery. No official records have ever been provided from any authoritative source to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children. As a testament to the longstanding controversy over Obama’s birth hospital, in the original ‘Early Life’ section of Barack Obama’s Wikipedia biography, beginning on March 3, 2004, it was stated that he was born in Queens Hospital. It was later clarified as Queens Medical Center. In 2006, it was omitted and remained blank until June, 2008 when editors stated that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center. On January 24, 2009, Kapi’olani Medical Center, on the occasion of the hospital’s centennial celebration, allegedly received a letter in which Obama wrote, “As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi’olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your voice of supporters.” It was later admitted by administrators at Kapi'olani that the letter was a facsimile created in a digital format. To date, no administrator, or official of the Obama administration has ever confirmed that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center.

29. Obama’s Use of Multiple Social Security Numbers. In 2010, Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John Sampson revealed that President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state. In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, not 1961 at the time of Obama’s birth. Moreover, Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins in Oahu, Hawaii. The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his SSN are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses and start with 040 through 049.

“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains, “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

30. Obama’s Father Not a U.S. Citizen. Obama’s alleged father was a Kenyan national with citizenship in Great Britain. His birth registration is recorded in the British National Archives, General Register Office "Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates of Africa and Asia, 1895-1965". Obama's children are also contained in these registers. He attended the University of Hawaii from 1959 to 1961 before abandoning Obama Jr. and Dunham to attend graduate school at Harvard in 1962. Since Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, it is impossible for Obama to be a natural-born citizen.

The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" which has been misrepresented as the federally accepted, official document issued by the state of Hawaii for Barack Obama's birth shows Obama's father's race as "African". Unfortunately, this term violates the U.S. Department of Health's acceptable classifications of race for official birth certificates. According to NVSD protocols, Obama Sr. is classified as a "Negro" in 1961, not "African". The term "African" is not even an option in the NVSD manual. Africa is a continent not a race. For example, there are white people from Africa, but they would not be categorized as "African". Using this premise, we could argue that Obama's Certification of Live Birth should also list his mother's race as "North American"? If using geographic association in describing Obama's mother's race is so ridiculous, why is it acceptable to explain his father's?

The use of the term "African" to describe the race of Obama's father is yet another diminishment to the credibility and authenticity of Obama's natal records. The inclusion of such a non-specific, vague, unclassifiable, misrepresentative term to describe an individual's demography only raises yet more doubts about the ability of the Hawaiian Health Department to convey accurate vital statisics documentation.

31. Obama Marriage Mystery. To date, no documented evidence exists proving that a legal marriage between Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham ever occurred in the U.S. The two were allegedly married in Hawaii in early 1961, after Obama Jr. was allegedly conceived sometime in November, 1960. However, no public announcement, or eyewitness of the marriage or marriage license has ever been found.

In Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father”, he states, “In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky. A bill of particulars I have never quite had the courage to explore. There is no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No family members were in attendance. It is not even clear that people back in Kansas were even informed."



Obama's admission that 'There is no record of a real wedding', raises yet another doubt about his long disseminated, life biography with regard to the status of the relationship between his parents. The unanswered questions about his parents marriage contradicts the accuracy of testimony and records declaring Obama's identity, such as his birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers which undeniably state that his parents were married, and divorce documents which do not contain any reference to a legal marriage license. There are fundamental questions about the relationship between Obama's parents which no one has been able to answer. If they were married in Hawaii, what is the name of the officiate presiding at the wedding? Where did it take place? Does the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office possess a copy of the Obama's marriage license which they used to determined their marital status for the birth announcements? If so, why was the Obama marriage never announced in those same papers? Why was the wedding kept secret? Was the marriage even legal given the evidence that Obama Sr. was already married to a woman in Kenya?



32. Divorce Decree and Custody Documents. In 2009, a set of what appears to be authentic document images of a Divorce Decree shows that Stanley Ann Dunham was awarded an uncontested divorce from Obama Sr. in March, 1964. The Divorce was granted in a Hawaiian civil Court on March 5, 1964 after a hearing to determine custody rights of the parents of Barack Obama Jr. According to the document images, Dunham had filed for divorce in January, 1964. The set of documents posted on the internet in 2009 are suspiciously missing the official birth certificate of Barack Obama Jr. which was requested by the court in order to confirm parentage.


33. Obama Sr. Already Married. Obama’s father was apparently a bigamist. He was allegedly already married to a woman in Kenya when he allegedly married Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Obama’s other wife’s name was Kezia Aoko (also found as other spellings). This would nullify any marriage to Dunham because it is illegal in the U.S. to be married to more than one person.

34. Suspicious Death. Obama Sr. died in 1982 after an alleged car accident. Recent investigations into his death reveal unanswered questions about his declining professional status and his strained relationship with his friend, Tom Mboya after he published a scathing report called, “The Problem with Our Socialism”, criticizing Mboya’s economic development plan for Kenya.

35. Birth Announcements. In early 2009, researchers discovered announcements of Obama’s birth in two separate Honolulu-based news papers. An investigation of the procedures used to publish birth announcements reveals that the information used by the news papers came directly from the Hawaiian Department of Health’s bi-weekly birth registration lists. These birth announcements are typically published for registrations over a two week period and do not contain the location of the birth. The announcements always assume, without exception, that the parents are married, despite the fact that the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Vol. 1 – Natality” reveals that of the 17,616 births in Hawaii in 1961, there were 1044 illegitimate births in which the father was not identifiable. An average of three per day!


In every case, without exception, both papers publish all announcements with the surname of the father as if they are always married and with the assumption that two parents always exist at the time of birth, even when the father is dead. The announcements do not publish the first names of the parents or child, nor do they identify the name of the registrant. They publish the sex of the child, the address of the registrant and the day and month of the birth. The announcements do not print the location of the birth, the name of the attending physician, the name of the hospital, the time of birth or the given name of the child.

36. The Paper Chase. An analysis of all of the birth announcements published along with Obama’s announcements in both newspapers reveals that both papers published the exact same announcements, including quantity of birth announcements, in the same exact order and in the same exact contextual format in both papers. The announcements are not published in alphabetical or chronological order which begs the question: What system was used to determine their order? They are obviously not randomly ordered since they appear in the same order in both papers. The possible answer: Geographic birth registration numbering. An investigation of the U.S. Department of Health’s archived natal data reports reveals that birth registration numbers are assigned based on the location of the registration office they are received in.

37. Obama’s Other Address. The birth announcements were published containing the registrant’s address at 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., Honolulu, HI. This address has been proven by investigators to be the residence of Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madeline Dunham, as well as Obama’s mother. Directory records available in 1961 show that Obama’s father, Obama Sr., resided in an apartment at 625 11th Avenue, near the University of Hawaii. Why would a married man list an address for the birth of his son that was not his address?

38. Birth Registration Protocols. An investigation reveals that birth registration numbers are assigned based on their associated location to the regional vital statistics registration office in which the vital event is recorded. There were four such offices available in Hawaii in 1961, two of which served immigration processing and vital events originating outside the Hawaiian Islands. Obama’s alleged birth registration number, 151-1961-010641, indicates that his birth was registered in one of these regional offices.

39. Non-Sequential Birth Registration. Obama’s birth registration number appears to be non-sequential with other births recorded at the time of his birth. One example cites the standard “Certificate of Live Birth” records of twins born to Eleanor Nordyke, whose births occurred 19 hrs after Obama’s alleged birth in Kapi’olani Medical Center. The twins were assigned birth registration numbers ending in 037 and 038, respectively. Obama’s birth was assigned number 041 despite the fact that his birth allegedly occurred before the twins in the very same hospital. If no other births occurred between Obama’s and the Nordyke’s, one would expect that Obama’s birth registration number would end in 036, not 041. If other births did occur in the 19 hours between Obama’s and the Nordykes’, Obama’s registration number would be expected to be even lower.

40. Chiyome Fukino. On October 31st, 2008, and, again on July 27th, 2009, the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health released the only two official statements by the government of the State of Hawaii about Obama’s natal records. In her October, 2008 statement she release the following:

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

The statement does not specify the type of original birth certificate on record and directly contradicts statements made by an official of the Hawaiian elections Office that the State of Hawaii does not possess an original birth certificate for Obama. Fukino further clarified her statement eight months later with the following:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

The problem with this second statement is, first, she, again, does not identify the title of the “original vital records” documents she has seen. Notice she uses the word “records”, plural. Whether they are a U.S. Certificate of Live Birth, a Delayed Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Foreign Birth accompanied with testimonial documents, medical records or other evidence is not disclosed by Fukino.


Second, she violated Hawaii’s identity protection law, the very same HRS 338-18 she cited in her first statement, by disclosing information from the vital records about Obama’s unverified birth place. If she is so willing to provide this private information, why not disclose the rest of it? Answer: Because this information serves the bias of the State of Hawaii's endorsement of Obama's legitimacy. Otherwise, Fukino would also disclose the other information that perhaps is NOT so favorable to Obama, as well, such as the title of the 'original vital records' or whether the certificate had been amended.


Third, and most grievous, as a state-level, municipal employee way out in the State of Hawaii, Fukino neither has the federal authority, nor the qualifications to determine the Natural-born status of a candidate for federal office. In fact, Fukino's audacious, bizarre proclamation is laughable and only exposes the State of Hawaii's fragile confidence in their documentation procedures, let alone its ability to declare the historical meaning of Natural-born citizenship. That job falls under the federal authority of the Secret Service, the State Department in coordination with the state Elections Offices.

41. Hawaii’s Amazing Legitimate Birth Rate. Both papers also published the nearly two dozen announcements assuming that every child was born to married parents living at the same address, despite the fact that the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Vol. 1 – Natality” shows that there were 1044 illegitimate births in Hawaii in 1961 in which the father was not identifiable. This is an average of three illegitimate births per day! Over the nine day period of births covered by the announcements in these two issues, one would expect to see at least one single mother, or unmarried couple, giving birth among the more than two dozen announcements surrounding Obama’s birth from late July to early August, 1961. In fact, a review of every issue of the newspapers in the entire year of 1961 shows that all birth announcements were published by “married parents”. If the newspapers indeed printed accurate announcements based on testimony from the actual parents or family members there should be some information which does not conform to this cookie-cutter identical format when comparing each announcement between newspapers. However, the rigidity of the format, and the possibility of inaccuracies, led investigators to conclude that the originating information used to publish birth announcements in 1961 was not conveyed from the parents or family directly to the newspapers, but instead was first processed by a single municipal source, before being provided to the news papers. Therefore, since we know Hawaii registers foreign births as being native births, the announcements would be published without the location of the birth, or marital status of the parents, as a consideration. This then would suggest that if there is any inaccuracy originating with the source information, which occurs in the transference between the registrant and the municipal authority, the newspapers would never see the necessity to confirm the accuracy of the information. Why would a newspaper take official information certified from a government agency in the form of a list and then expend resources to get a second opinion about its accuracy from the original registrant? They wouldn’t. The newspapers print announcements without ever knowing if they are accurate or not when the information comes from the local municipal authority. Therefore, since the municipal authority does not create its birth list discerning between native birth and foreign birth registrations it employs the policy of only publishing the address of the registrant, not the location of the birth. Since the municipal authority treats all births as legitimate, by default, it would construct the birth registration list as though the parents are married in every announcement and submit the list to the newspapers who would publish what appears to be all local, native births to married couples. The problem with this flawed procedure is that the announcements are not an accurate account of the actual facts of the natal event. Unfortunately, there is no legal requirement that a birth announcement in a newspaper must match the metrics of an official birth certificate.

42. The Welfare of Baby Obama. Upon analyzing the procedures used to publish birth announcements, we discover vulnerabilities in the assumptions about the accuracy and content of the birth announcements. With a simple explanation, it becomes much more reasonable to assume that Obama’s birth announcements were never a part of some crazy-minded conspiracy but, instead, were simply the result of being included in the Hawaiian Health Departments birth registration lists after Obama’s birth was registered by Obama’s grandparents, more than likely, for the simple reason of making sure their daughter and grandson could receive state benefits as resident citizens of the U.S. Obama’s grandparents were indeed residing at the published address found in the announcements. However, ignorant, hostile Obama supporters enjoy the opportunity to claim that so-called “birthers” believe a conspiracy of such magnitude that Obama’s birth announcements were planted in the Hawaiian papers in 1961 just in case Obama might run for president some day. This is a ridiculous canard. Only a blind ideologue would fail to realize that birth announcements do not verify Constitutional eligibility in the first place. Therefore, both sides of the argument, either lauding birth announcements or ridiculing them, as a viable part of any conspiracy to promote the legitimacy of Obama is idiotic. If Obama's birth announcements were not automatically conveyed by the registrar, they were more than likely submitted in collaboration with his mother or grandparents as a practical matter in order to simply share the news of Obama's birth with the community and to, possibly, act to secure Obama’s eligibility for welfare and baby formula, not a nomination to the presidency. However, without publishing the identity of the registrant, the editors of the newspapers printed all of the week’s announcements based on typically practiced protocols after receiving the official birth lists from the Hawaiian Department of Health. There was nothing premeditated or fraudulent about this. Municipal laws were followed and journalistic standards were correctly assumed considering the official source in the newspapers’ view. The possible breakdown in accuracy occurred as a result of the Department of Health’s legal ability to include foreign births in the Hawaiian birth registration lists and the registrant omitting birth location information, while the papers did not print it any way.

43. Obama’s Secret Natal Data. According to the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of theU.S. Volume 1 – Natality”, natal statistics were harvested using a “50% sampling method” and, furthermore, statistics were taken only from “even-numbered birth records” in 1961. Since Obama’s birth registration was allegedly an odd number, his unique natal statistics would remain ureported by the State of Hawaii, and unpublished as part of the U.S. Department of Health's annual natal data report. This is relative in the fact that, since Obama was a bi-racial, (categorized as non-white) baby allegedly born to an 18-year old, white mother and a non-white, non-citizen father, in an urban hospital in Hawaii in August of 1961, his natal statistics would be extremely notable and rare for this time and place. In fact, statistics show that less than 1 in 20000 births occurred under these circumstances within the demographic classifications used by the National Vital Statistics Division in 1961. The unconventional circumstances surrounding Obama's birth are very conspicuous.

44. No Witnesses of Obama’s Birth Still Alive. To date, no living eyewitness of Obama birth exists. It is assumed that his birth was witnessed by at least three people including his doctor and his mother. However, no documentation of the birth has been provided containing the name of the doctor or eyewitnesses.

45. Obama’s Radicalism. Obama has lived a life wrought with radicalism. In his book, “Dreams From My Father”, Obama writes, “…I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

In the late 1970’s a teenaged Barack Obama met Frank Marshall Davis while the two were both living in Hawaii. Davis, an avowed member of the Communist Party and one of the era’s poetic pioneers of fierce anti-American radicalism, developed a paternal-like relationship with Obama, which Obama acknowledges in his book, “Dreams From My Father”. The 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) member. Obama has maintained lasting relationships with radicals throughout his entire life. He worked with ACORN activist and chapter leader, Madeline Talbott in 1992. He had a close personal relationship with domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers and served with Ayers on the board of the Woods Foundation, a radical Chicago-based education activism organization. Obama attended a church for 20 years where radical pastor, Jeremiah Wright, still maintains an anti-American ministry under the guise of Black Liberation Theology. As the Obama presidency rampaged through its first year, Senior Environmental Advisor, Van Jones, resigned in early September, 2009 amidst a firestorm of controversy over his criminal and communist past. Then, in November, Anita Dunn resigned her position as White House Communications Director when video surfaced which exposed her as being in favor of the communist philosophy of Chinese dictator and mass murderer, Mao Tse Tung. Dunn admitted her communist inclinations in a speech to a group of high school students.

46. The Deaths of Lt. Quarles Harris and Donald Young. Quarles Harris was a key witness in a federal probe into charges that Obama’s passport information was stolen from the State Department, when he was fatally shot in front of a Washington D.C. church. Harris had been working as a contractor at the State Department and was cooperating with federal investigators when he was murdered. In December, 2007, Donald Young was a choir leader at Obama’s church, First Trinity Baptist, and school teacher, who many believe had carnal knowledge of Obama’s past. Young was found shot to death in his Southside Chicago apartment.

47. Larry Sinclair’s Bizarre Story. Of all the sordid stories circulating about Obama’s past, the one told by Larry Sinclair is the darkest. Sinclair posted a YouTube video alleging that he and President Barack Obama engaged in sexual acts and drug use together in 1999, when Obama was an Illinois State Senator. He claims that then-State Senator Obama procured powdered cocaine for Sinclair, and crack cocaine for himself, which Obama allegedly smoked. Sinclair also alleges that their drug use was followed by sex acts that included Sinclair performing fellatio on Obama. These acts were alleged to take place in a limousine from which Sinclair provided cell phone records to prove his location on the dates in question. Testimony from the limosine driver has never been publicly published. Sinclair was asked to provide "intimate details" about Obama's physical features which would prove Sinclair's claims. His testimony has never been published or made public. Sinclair confesses openly that he is a convicted felon having served time for check fraud and drug possession. Sinclair repeated his claims about his relationship with Obama in a highly publicized press conference at the National Press Club on June 18, 2008.

48. Passport Documents Released. Documents released in July, 2010, and posted on the Scribd.com website, show that Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, applied for a passport in 1981, the same year Obama traveled to Pakistan. Dunham’s applications show that she had applied for and received three separate passports and a renewal between 1965 and 1981. However, in yet another example of convenient government complicity to obscure Obama’s actual past, the Hillary Clinton-led State Department claims that a General Services Administration directive in the 1980s resulted in the destruction of passport applications and other "non-vital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for, or held, prior to 1965. The released records also document that on Aug. 13, 1968, Ann Dunham applied to have her 1965-issued passport renewed for two years, until July 18, 1970. The documents also reveal yet another possible name used to identify Barack Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro. According to the application for Dunham’s 1976 passport she uses the parenthetical name of (saebarkah), or perhaps “Subarkah”, which is a surname commonly found among Indonesian citizenry. The existence of records of a passport or travel documents prior to 1965 would reveal information on Dunham’s circumstances at the time of Obama’s birth. Therefore, we can now add Ann Dunham’s original passport to the litany of records and documents now missing from Obama’s biographical history.

49. Tim Adams. In July, 2010, Tim Adams, a senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu Elections Office in 2008, made the stunning claim Barack Obama definitely was not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, based on information he was told by the Vital Statistics office in Hawaii that there is no original birth record on file for Barack Obama. In a televised interview, Adams reported that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State. Adams' statements conflicted directly with repeated affirmations by public officials in Hawaii that they had seen or had inspected Obama's birth records that would document his representations that he was born in the state."There is no birth certificate," said Adams after leaving his position with the Elections Office and now teaches English at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this. I managed the absentee-ballot office. It was my job to verify the voters' identity.

50. Hawaiian Governor Offended. In December, 2010, newly elected Hawaiian Democratic governor, Neil Abercrombie proclaimed that he is undertaking an effort, in consultation with the Hawaiian Attorney General, to make Obama’s original birth documentation available to the public. In making his proclamation, Abercrombie claims that since he was a friend of the Obama’s during their attendance at the University of Hawaii and thereafter, he is personally offended by accusation from doubters that the Obama’s were involved in nefarious dealings with regard to Obama’s natal identity. Abercrombie said he also feels it is disrespectful to the office of the presidency to question Obama’s eligibility. Despite being an alleged friend of the Obama family, Abercrombie was not invited to the couple’s alleged Hawaiian wedding in 1961, nor was he present at the alleged 1961 Hawaiian birth of Obama.

In response to Abercrombie’s proclamations, both Fox and MSNBC, while reporting on the story, admitted for the first time that Obama had not yet released an original version of his official, 1961, federal, U.S. Certificate of Live Birth signed by the attending physician bearing the name and seal of the hospital.

This story is never going to go away until Obama simply stops the deception and comes clean with the American people about his secret past.


Posted by at 32 comments:

Monday, January 3, 2011

Gaping Holes In Obama’s Bio Remain Anemic Story For Big Media

Overall, the media remains pathetic, however, Fox and MSNBC actually share a miraculous moment when their primetime competitors both admit Obama has never released his original 1961 natal documentation.

by Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen

New York, NY - After nearly four years of weakening attempts to dismiss the subject, the media’s coverage of the actual details and essential questions about Obama’s legitimacy to be President remains pathetically wanton on every news network and publication in the world.

On its December 30, 2010 broadcast of “America Live”, Fox News, the self proclaimed “fair and balanced” network, with the help of legal maven Megan Kelly, tried, futilely, once again, to present the reality about the gaping voids in Barack Obama’s ambiguously documented biography. Fox may have a trademark claim on equilibrium but the network is vastly inaccurate when it comes to this subject.

Credit to Fox, although Kelly piggy-backed an excuse to talk about the mythology of Obama’s legitimacy on the lead-in that newly elected Hawaiian Democratic Governor, Neil Abercrombie, claims that he is currently working with the Hawaiian Attorney General to determine if there are legal channels which could allow him to release more original, biographical information about Barack Obama and, as Abercrombie says, “…put an end to the offensive claims of birthers.” Fox did talk about it.

Miracle number one!

While Kelly fumbled through the clumsy dialogue with her two guests, Fox’s ugly, evil cousin network from the other side of the tracks, MSNBC, made a fool of itself a few days earlier during its December 27th broadcast of “Hardball” when Chris “Leg Tingle” Matthews interviewed two southpaw guests, Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, and Mother Jones bureau chief David Corn.

MSNBC is so biased for Obama it can no longer discern between news reporting and propaganda.

See videos here:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4478615/will-birther-debate-end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baH0fi2oVHs

If Fox’s indifference hasn’t been bad enough, MSNBC has taken a position on the other extreme of super-bias in favor of Obama’s secrecy…with an equal degree of inaccuracy. Matthews' opening introduction indicates the myopic perspective poisoning MSNBC's capacity for objectivity. While displaying a copy of an image of what appears to be a photo static version of an original, standard U.S. "Certificate of Live Birth" (probably one of two containing information about the Nordyke twins posted last year), Matthews said, "This is an actual birth certificate, the long-form Certificate of Live Birth in the State of Hawaii..."

Miracle number two!

This is the very first time anyone at MSNBC has ever broadcast its endorsement of this 110 year old document format! For the first time in more than four years of unacknowledged reality, MSNBC admitted the single most important fact about Obama's natal documentation!

However, don't expect the ultra-liberal delusional minions to be cured in one shrink session. Matthews, then held up a copy of an image of an independently published, post-2000, Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, (the document commonly associated with Obama), continued, "...this, on the other hand, is what they release, generally, to the public, a 'thinner' form...I'm not sure if it has less information, but it is digital, of course it doesn't have signatures on it, and to the 'birthers', is evidence he really ain't one of us!"

Also, just so Matthews knows we all are aware of his passive aggressive, snarky comment, no one has ever said that Obama's lack of standard, original documentation means that 'he ain't one of us'. It just means his legitimacy to be president has not been clarified based on the evidence. Apparently, according to MSNBC and Matthews, everyone not automatically qualified to be the U.S. President is a victim of racism. If Matthews had his way, America could be led by genocidal fascists as long as they were not white.

Matthews ignorance about the Constitution is so absurd, its laughable.

That leg tingle is fading for Matthews. He's had more fun at the dentist. Even while the reality of the disparity between these two massively different documents is being held in his very hands, he still had difficulty accepting the facts.

"I'm not sure if it has less information.."??!! Is Matthews serious? Look at the document content, man! Can he count? He is so blinded by his leftist delusion, he still is unable to behold the painful truth, even while holding it in his own hand.

While main street conservatives push the essential questions about Obama’s deception, the San Fransicko-liberal establishment has mounted a ridiculous mock-fest at anyone with any question doubting Obama’s suspiciously vacant past. The true evil in both sides of this derision is the claim that the facts are already known. They are not. Anyone who says so is a liar.

Fox and MSNBC are two sides of the same coin. Their viewers may be diametrically opposed, ideologically, but they both need to make sure their proximity to the Obama administration remains legitimate in order for them to remain legitimate. Ironically, what drives the media's inability to objectively address the facts about Obama's documentation is the unknown risk the subject's revelations have on their access to government.

If Obama is found illegitimate or ineligible, all the debates about his policies can no longer be framed within the viability of legitimacy. If Fox and MSNBC are ever forced to embrace the reasons for Obama’s covert identity, they are afraid it will remove their capacity for sustainable ideologically oriented debate. If Obama is found to be a usurper, his politics no longer matter…and therefore, Fox and MSNBC no longer matter.

Recall, just eight years ago, as the Bush administration presented its original documentation, for its legal case for war against Saddam Hussein to the U.N., presenting slide shows, illustrations and testimony about the threat of Saddam’s weapons-of-mass-destruction, liberal network and cable media failed then to mete out the applicable facts of that drama. Many maintain, even today, that Bush's decision to depose Hussein was never based on legitimate evidence, even though it was an undeniable fact that Saddam Hussein had violated 17 U.N. security council resolutions regarding it's lack of disclosure about his possession, or not, of WMD's. The inconvenient fact that Saddam had actually used nerve gas against northern Kurds in Halabja in 1988 seemed to remain a hidden truth among biased media drones. Some liberal pundits actually said that since Saddam only used WMDs inside the borders of Iraq, he was not a threat to the world.

Of course, Bush had a legal right based on U.N. resolutions, but did he have the credibility of legitimate documentation to support his argument that Saddam was behind the attacks of 9-11? Likewise, of course, if you ask any lawyer,Obama has a legal standing based on Hawaiian municipal laws to release a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, but does he have the credibility to ensure that a lack of the original, legitimate documentation should be excused while he lays claims that he is a legitimate president?

Why did the media not report these facts supporting the legal reasons Bush cited for invading Hussein? For the same reason it refuses to report the facts about Obama's biographic information. Because it doesn't benefit the media milkers to butcher their cash cow.

Just as the medical industry understands there is no profit in curing a disease in lieu of extended treatment, the media understands there is no money in revealing the truth in lieu of exploiting a mystery. Voracity for controversy drives the media’s choice to avoid investigating the truth about Obama and, instead, justifies the daily dosage of avoidance as long as the deception can survive.

As long as the media is able to exploit vague information to make Obama look like a mere symptom of change rather than investigating evidence that he is the carrier of a disease destroying our sovereignty, it can continue to milk the Obama cow many times instead of butchering it all at once.

The dilema facing Obama, however, is that America is a severely lactose intolerant carnivore.

For example, the media has profited much from the narrative that the 2008 election of the first “black” president was a positive sign of a progressing society. The media adopted this liberal message without ever looking at the probable corruption and possible criminal activity in that President’s past. There is a lot of smoke, and fire, in that investigation.

Therefore, in defense of itself, American society was forced to fill the gaping orifice that used to be responsible journalism with unified national movements like the Tea Party, concerned with government spending and taxation, and the so-called “birthers”, concerned with the lack of standard records and Constitutional legitimacy of the Obama administration.

These unification movements are not irrational. In fact, they are the natural consequence when government threatens inalienable rights; particularly the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

Without the media protecting the people, holding their government accountable, the people had to prepare itself for the possibility that the election of Obama was actually the usurpation of power by an illegitimate rogue, radical, communist, puppet-leader acting in coordination with an international and domestic leftist agenda to undermine the stronghold of longstanding, vintage American exceptionalism by redistributing white, judeo-christian wealth toward the ultimate goal of global economic justice.

There is no longer any doubt that Fox and MSNBC have hindered a resolution to the controversy over Obama’s undocumented identity. However, it was joyous to see them agree with the American public for once.

Let’s make something very clear. Those who denounce Obama’s credibility based on his lack of biographical transparency are not claiming, specifically, that he was not born in Hawaii. They are protesting the covert treatment of what are considered common documentation, which every other American must present for reasons far less significant than being the President, demonsrating that he was indeed born under the geographic, biographic and demographic circumstances he has claimed.

For monetary and political reasons, Obama’s natal biography has become a part of some weird media black-out. Reporters and pundits all look like scared little kids waiting for some guidance from Obamaland. In fact, the majority of people questioning Obama’s identity actually believe he was born in Hawaii. However, the media is not willing to accept the fact that his birth place is not what people are concerned about. The primary concerns about Obama exist because he was not thoroughly vetted, his records remain hidden and he has simply not been honest in his disclosure about is biographical information.

However, Kelly on Fox, and Matthews on MSNBC did get one fact right for the first time in the last four years of evasion. They both finally admitted that Obama has yet to produce a standard U.S. 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth”, which is the only document available to natural-born citizens of the U.S.

At one point, Kelly said, “Abercrombie is going to try to do more to release an actual, tangible birth certificate…which has yet to be produced.”

Chris Matthews likewise nearly choked during his show in saying, “Why has the president himself not demanded that they put out the initial documents (an original 1961 birth certificate)?”

Miracle number three!!!

Finally! Good job, guys. Welcome to the party! It’s nice to see the two fringes of the big media spectrum come out their hypnosis for once.

Reality is a lot better than clucking like a chicken, huh? Let's hope Fox and MSNBC can remain lucid and unsusceptible to Obama's spellbinding suggestions.




Posted by at 10 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)