Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by Globe magazine

An official police investigation into President Barack Obama's birth certificate has unearthed shocking information that his father may not have been the African-born Barack Sr. This issue of GLOBE reveals surprising secrets about the man in the Oval Office and names the person who may be Obama's REAL dad.

Originally Posted by kathyet

Anything to make him legal...

In spite of endless speculation about who is Mr. Obama's biological father, possible exhumations for DNA, etc., all that matters to the courts is who is the father of record, the man whom the mother named as the father.

[/b]I found out yesterday that the voting system is RIGGED! It doesnt matter what we do... The Sec. of State DECIDES who wins.
I had smoke comming out of my ears yesterday when I left the Registers office. These people have everything planned, things will go the way THEY want.

M. J. Blanchard has posted a letter to the Georgia Sec. of State, which is lengthy but worth it.

Originally Posted by M. J. Blanchard

Georgia Law Makes Ga. Sec. of State
Responsible for Vetting Candidates
BUT WILL THE LAW BE UPHELD?

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has not responded to a citizen's demand that the state and U.S. Constitutions be followed.

Dear Editor [of The Post & Email]: The following letter was sent to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp:

December 8, 2011

[To] Secretary of State Kemp, by certified mail:

Georgia O.C.G.A. Elections Title 21, Chapter 2 specifies the procedure for qualifying candidates. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(c) specifies that "The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified . . ."

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/12/...ng-candidates/

Read between the lines of this email from Sen. Coburn, R-OK.

Originally Posted by Atty. Orly Taitz

Please, read carefully this letter from Senator Coburn,
a member of the Senate Judiciary committee. He acknowledges
that I had a meeting with his chief of staff. He no longer claims
that Obama is legitimate and that Obama is a natural born citizen.
He simply says that he currently believes that removing him [from]
office during the election is a better strategy than impeachment.
Wait until September 2012. If the Republican nominee is behind
(be it Romney or Gingrich or someone else), the priority in
strategies might change and probably will change.

Orly
____________________________________

From: <Senator_Coburn@coburn.senate.gov>
To: [Richard Irish]
Subject: Correspondence from Senator Coburn
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:05:17 -0500

November 15, 2011

Mr. Richard Irish
redacted
Edmond, Oklahoma 73034-9077

Dear Mr. Irish,

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Obama's
eligibility for office and Dr. Orly Taitz. As always, it is good
to hear from you.

First and foremost, Dr. Taitz did meet with my Chief of Staff
when she was in Washington, D.C.. My Chief of Staff reported
back to me that the meeting went well, and that he and Dr.
Taitz had a meaningful discussion; however, my position on
the President's eligibility for office has not changed.

In closing, I would like to be rather frank with you. I believe
President Obama's own actions have demonstrated to the
American people that he should not be re-elected for another
term as president. I strongly recommend you focus your efforts
on promoting policies you agree with - such as a return to the
Constitution and a limited federal government - rather than con-
tinuing to push for impeachment. The high rate of unemployment
and our exploding national debt and deficit make a compelling
case for why President Obama's liberal agenda has not been
successful, and I believe focusing on these policies is a more
successful strategy than continuing to focus on the birth records.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=28862

Who is "continuing to push for impeachment?" We have acknowledged, from the 2008 election forward, that impeachment is not feasible with a Democratic majority in the Senate.

But it is feasible - and sufficient - to initiate an official House investigation of Mr. Obama's Kenyan father, his Kenyan birthplace, his Indonesian adoption by Lolo Soetoro, the non-amendment of his purported birth certificate, his Connecticut Social Security number and about 15 other stolen SSNs, his perjurious oath before the Illinois bar about having no aliases, his fraudulent Selective Service registration, etc., etc.. The resulting official announcement, that Mr. Obama does not qualify as a natural born Citizen and is not Constitutionally eligible for the Office of President, will be enough to make him resign or be faced with a no confidence vote.

All we need is official discovery by a U.S. Court or the U.S. House of Representatives. The disgrace of being exposed as a fraud and an impostor will force him to resign.

When will someone with media visibility and clout publicize the "amended birth certificate" defect, that
the adoption(s) of Barack Obama II has permanently SEALED any birth certificate which reads, "FATHER: Barack Hussein Obama"?

When Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack II - which, to comply with Indonesian law, had to have occurred before Aug. 4, 1966, when Barry turned 5 - that should have sealed any "FATHER: Barack Hussein Obama" birth certificate from Hawaii, Kenya, Canada, or any other country.

But let's conjecture that, for whatever reason, Vital Statistics in Jakarta did not then notify Vital Statistics in Honolulu, which notification should have happened but apparently did not. In the summer of 1971, Barry reentered the U.S. with his mother, probably as a dependent child on his mother's U.S. (or Indonesian) passport. He then moved in with his mother's parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, and resumed his prior identity as Barry (Barack) Obama as if he had never been adopted by Lolo Soetoro.

However, to enroll in school in the U.S., his status had to be normalized. Therefore, Barrack Hussain Obama, Sr., was ever so briefly retrieved from Nairobi, Kenya, to formally transfer to the Dunhams his percentage of the parentage of Barack Obama II. At that time, any prior birth certificate(s) would have been sealed and a new Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth issued, with "FATHER: Stanley Armour Dunham" and "MOTHER: {Madelyn | Madlyn | Madeline} Payne Dunham" (or conceivably, "FATHER: Lolo Soetoro" and "MOTHER: Stanley Ann Obama Soetoro") as the father and mother of record. But with Barry's birth mother living in Indonesia or parts beyond as a "citizen of the world," his assignment to the Dunhams would have made much more sense when it came time to register him at their neighborhood Punahou School.

After Barry was settled in Honolulu, his mother scratched out "Barry Soetoro (Soebarkah)" on her U.S. passport application of Oct. 21, 1971.



That indicates, though it does not prove, that she and Lolo Soetoro had surrendered Barry to her parents, his grandparents, in a second adoption.

But in either adoption scenario, Barrack Sr.'s name no longer appears on ANY Hawaii Certificate of Life Birth available to ANYONE, unless a court order were to unseal the pre-adoption original. No person, not even a person with a direct and tangible interest - neither Maya Soetoro-Ng, nor Michelle nor Malia nor Sasha Obama, nor even Mr. Obama himself, especially not Mr. Obama himself - can access any pre-adoption birth document in Hawaii which lists "FATHER: Barrack Hussain Obama, Sr.."

Any such document has been AMENDED and SEALED.

Any such document UNSEALED, whether published or
posted, is a Photoshopped FABRICATION and a FAKE.

Originally Posted by an unidentified poster at Hannity Forums

What if the Truth is already out and Obama was born in Hawaii? There's no evidence to indicate he was not.

How absurd. Evidence abounds that Barack Obama II was born in a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

There is also logical evidence to demonstrate that he was born anywhere BUT Honolulu, Hawaii.

1. On June 12, 2008, and April 27, 2011, Mr. Obama and the Obama Campaign released computer images, purportedly of hard copy documents stored at the State of Hawaii Dept. of Health, Office of Health Status Monitoring, Vital Statistics Section, formerly known as the Division of Vital Records.

2. To anyone willing to consider the facts, those computer images have been proven prima facie to be FAKES, FORGERIES, or sloppy FABRICATIONS, as evidenced by:

a. The computer image of a purported long form Certificate of Live Birth, supposedly printed in 1961, shows NO sign of aging. It might just as well have been printed yesterday.

b. The computer image from 2011 was presented in a .pdf file format. But the file was not merged or flattened before its release to the public. Therefore it still consisted of nine separately viewable, component images or layers which, when placed on top of each other, created a single fabricated image.

c. The computer image from 2011 originally had no State of Hawaii Dept. of Health embossed seal. That computer image has since been modified - and thus invalidated - by the addition of some manner of embossed seal, which is the wrong size and does not comport with Hawaii regulations.

d. The 2011 image is a cut-and-paste melange of typewriter type and computer printer type of differing typefaces, with pixel-identical characters that lack any variation of ink saturation or keystroke pressure.

e. The presence of computer printed kerned text, in which certain characters overlap into the space of adjacent characters, is glaringly malapropos on a supposedly typewritten document. Typewriters cannot print kerned text, which requires computing power to dovetail characters.

f. Magnification of the mother's signature exposes a conglomeration of handwriting, with shades of gray, and computer-drawn "handwriting", which is all black.

Your attention span might flag under all the other anomalies and textual inconsistencies; I spare you.

To verify or validate a document requires hands-on examination of the original. But anyone can debunk a $3 bill from just a picture, without handling it. These computer images of counterfeit birth documents are native to the $3 bill category.

3. Stanley Ann or Madelyn Dunham could easily have called in a home birth to the newspapers, so the purported newspaper birth announcements carry no weight. Some researchers suspect tampering with the microfilms of the newpapers, so they demand independent expert forensic examination of the microfilms for splicing or other alterations. Whether the announcements were valid or not, they were certainly in error. Obama Sr. never lived with Stanley Ann as husband and wife, neither at Stanley and Madelyn Dunham's residence in the 400 sq. ft. guesthouse at 6085 Kalaniana'ole Hwy., nor anywhere else. He lived by himself at 625 11th Ave., both then and until he left Hawaii on June 22, 1962.

It should be self-evident that if Mr. Obama and the Obama Campaign had genuine, valid documentation of Barack Obama II's birth on U.S. soil, they would have presented it by now. There would have to be something very embarrassing on any such hypothetical document for them to spend millions in Campaign funds and millions more of taxpayer money on attorneys, just to prevent the release of a valid document.

Mr. Obama and the Obama Campaign have released computer images of one sloppily forged counterfeit birth document after another. They obviously would have released a valid birth document if they had one. But they haven't, and they don't.

The 2008 elections were massively fraudulent, so much so that the usurper came to power even while many of us were screaming to high heaven that as a Kenyan son of a Kenyan, he was Constitutionally ineligible.

Now that the Democratic Socialists, SPLC, Act Ups, Move Ons, CAIR/ISNA/NOI/NBPP, and the Chicago Way are running the "game", the outcome in 2012 is inevitable and predetermined.

Please, please do not count on elections in 2012 to restore Constitutional government to Washington, D.C..

These people in power are criminals, communists, and anarchists, cooperating with Is|amist enemies of the United States, the U.S. Constitution, and America’s Christian heritage and way of life. The socialists and communists have been working since at least 1920 to overthrow the U.S. government and take control. Now they have control, with a Kenyan communist dictator in the Oval Office, the Conman-in-Chief ordering the U.S. Armed Forces to remove from the Arab states every obstacle to the Mus|im Brotherhood, a Democratic Socialist stronghold in the Senate, and everyone else afraid to say “Boo” for fear of being isolated, ostracized, persecuted, and sidelined from the political process (a.k.a. sausage-making).

They did not work and struggle and fight for 88 years to gain control, only to risk losing it in order to maintain an illusion of democracy and a facade of free and fair elections of representatives to govern the country as We the People’s stewards.

The Occupy demonstrations and trouble brewing withing the SEIU and other unions, along with
the AG Holder DOJ policy of not prosecuting non-white violators of election civil rights laws,
the DHS/ATF Fast & Furious project arming Mexican drug cartels with assault weapons and sniper rifles,
and the de facto amnesty of untold millions of illegal aliens - these are all signs that
the present usurpation is supporting riots and Katrina-style chaos to be unleashed during 2012.

On Nov. 28, 2011, the Senate began discussion and debate about S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were promoting the section of the Defense Authorization Act which permanently suspends posse comitatus, as opposed to the present rule, which requires Congressional authorization for each incidence of the suspension of posse comitatus to allow the military to police or fight against U.S. civilians. On behalf of S.1867, “Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will ‘basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield’ and people can be imprisoned [by the military] without charge or trial, ‘American citizen or not.’”

When Nov. 6, 2012, draws near, we can expect martial law and suspension of the 2012 elections.

DO NOT, DO NOT COUNT ON FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN 2012
TO REMOVE THE FOREIGN USURPER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
HE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT WITHOUT A FIGHT.

The NDAA for FY2012 includes Sec. 1032, the "indefinite detention of civilians -
U.S. citizens or legal residents - without trial or due process" section.
Can tyrants abuse that? Certainly. Will Mr. Obama abuse it? Time will tell.
But in an Alinskyite regime where intimidation rules, it's a very big stick.

Originally Posted by U.S. Senate and House of Representatives

Sec. 1031(b)
COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

• (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
• (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Sec. 1032(a)(2)
COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined—

• (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
• (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

Sec. 1032(b)
APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

• (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
• (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

The operative word is "requirement", which is to say that the military is not required to detain U.S. citizens or legal residents. But nowhere does this bill deny that it "authorizes" and "permits" the military to detain any U.S. citizen or legal resident suspected of supporting hostilities by al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.

For the Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU, Chris Anders wrote:
Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a
“Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window
Nov 23rd, 2011 10:46am
by Chris Anders

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and [on whether] any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday [Nov. 28th]. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto [if the bill does not give the President the authority to choose whether to try each belligerent as a civilian or dispatch him to Gitmo]. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that [S. 1867] will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial, “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

The solution is [to revise the provisions that permit the U.S. military to act against U.S. civilians.]

In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote [to amend] the National Defense Authorization Act.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being
_________________________________________

Or we can turn loose on the streets of WDC and NYC many tens of thousands of troops
armed with M4s, Flash-Bang grenades, and tear gas, battle-hardened and hyper-alert,
who shoot first and ask questions if the targets live. Collateral damage, anyone?

Pardon me for the following diversion into the NDAA, but the implications of
a Communist, Mus|im-sympathizing, Kenyan-born son of a Kenyan having
unchecked power over U.S. citizens and legal residents are truly staggering.

Originally Posted by Joe Wolverton, II, for "The New American"

AG Holder: Obama Will Add Signing Statement to NDAA
Written by Joe Wolverton, II
Friday, 23 December 2011 11:02

In a story published by the Talking Points Memo Muckraker, Attorney General Eric Holder (left) has confirmed that before President Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 into law he will append a signing statement.

Although the President initially signaled he would veto the measure, the TPM Muckraker continued:

Holder said the language of the NDAA had been moved in a "substantial way" from some of the original language which led the president to issue a veto threat.

"So we are in a better place, I think the regulations, procedures that will help, and we’ll also have a signing statement from the president" which will help clarify how they view the law, Holder said.

This type of “stroke of the pen, law of the land” despotism is nothing new to President Obama. More on that in a moment. In the present case, the President’s original opposition to the NDAA had nothing to do with preserving liberty, but with preserving the President’s preeminence in matters relating to who has the final say on the tracking and torturing of those suspected of threatening the security of the homeland.

It is likely, therefore, that President Obama’s signing statement will give the Federal Bureau of Investigation plenary power over the disposition of issues related to the custody and prosecution of all terror suspects detained domestically.

The Obama administration warned earlier that cutting out the FBI would reduce the overall effectiveness of investigations, as well as hamstring the efforts of intelligence officers to gather reliable intel from those believed to be fighting against the United States in Afghanistan or Iraq. That will undoubtedly be prevented in the terms of his unconstitutional interpretations tacked onto the NDAA.

The bottom line is, the President was just satisfied enough with the acquiescence of congress to let the bill get to his desk, but he wants to make sure everyone knows (especially the legislative branch) just who is the arbiter of who is and is not an “enemy combatant” and just how “critical intelligence” will be wrung from those suspects and by whom.

Interestingly, during his campaign for President in 2008, Barack Obama criticized (and rightly so) former President Bush for his dictatorial usurpation of legislative power via the signing statement. Upon ascendng to his seat of power, however, President Obama found that his own personal experience with the mounting congressional resistance to his agenda has given him second thoughts, and now he is as keen as his predecessor to sidestep congressional impediments to the achievement of his legislative goals by using executive orders and signing statements.

A presidential signing statement is a pronouncement that the President appends to a bill he signs into law. Nowadays, this executive addendum sets forth the President’s understanding of the law and gives guidance to the myriad departments under the executive branch umbrella on how to carry out the requirements of the new legislation.

Signing statements change the laws, revoking parts of them or adding provisions to them, at the same time redefining the Constitution and nullifying its checks and balances. Using them, the President assumes all power — executive, legislative, and judicial — unto himself and does so in a manner that is beyond question, beyond debate, beyond vote, and thus beyond the reach of the American people.

Constitutionally speaking, if a President does not like a piece of legislation, the only recourse allowed him is a veto. Modern Presidents, however, have two self-perpetuating habits that obviate the use of veto: engorging themselves with power not delegated to them by the Constitution and disregarding the Constitution altogether.

Given the recent run of success that previous Presidents have enjoyed with the “signing statement as law of the land” gambit, it is easy to understand why a President zealous for the codification of his own vision would not want to risk the public scrutiny which would accompany a veto. After all, why go to all that bother when a President can accomplish the same end by issuing a signing statement that will never be discussed?

President Obama has learned well the lessons taught him by his hero and founder of the modern American welfare state, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Roosevelt, facing perhaps the most milquetoast Congress of the modern era, removed all obstacles which impeded his program to drag the United States into the mire of his socialistic New Deal scheme. In a signing statement attached to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, which contained a provision he opposed that was intended to protect American farmers, Roosevelt adamantly declared, “There is nothing contained therein which can be construed as a limitation upon the existing powers of governmental agencies, such as the Commodity Credit Corporation, to make sales of agricultural commodities in the normal conduct of their operations.”

In addition to this edict, Roosevelt promised Congress that if it did not remove the “offensive” portion of the bill, he would ignore it and treat it as nonexistent and inapplicable to his administration. Congress capitulated, and the protection for American farmers was removed from the bill. Roosevelt was supported by a sympathetic legal adviser who assured him that if he decided “that a certain course of action is essential as a war measure, it supersedes congressional action.”

Signing statements gained teeth with the aid of a lackluster, inattentive Supreme Court. In the case of United States v. Lovett (1946), the Court agreed with Roosevelt's signing statement that the Urgency Deficiency Appropriations Act of 1943 contained restrictions on his management of the executive branch and struck down the restrictions citing the signing statement; the Court accepted Roosevelt’s signing statements as persuasive and held in dictum that presidential signing statements merited consideration and mention in their decision.

Presidential signing statements amount to “cherry-picking” the parts of a law that Presidents wish to follow or ignore. The uses that signing statements have been put to since they began to flourish in earnest during the Reagan administration show that no matter the “getting things done” tenor used to pronounce them by an ostensibly frustrated President, their clear intent is to subvert the law and slam the weighty wrecking ball of “executive discretion” into the paper barricades that divide the three provinces of power.

With all due respect to Attorney General Holder and his boss in the White House, ruling by fiat is not historically sound, and another more appropriate focus of historical research would be to ponder the words and warnings of our Founding Fathers and their political and philosophical influences regarding the primacy of the separation of powers in a good government.

James Madison, writing as "Publius," wrote in The Federalist, No. 47: "The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." Madison himself was restating in his inimitable style, one facet of federalism that was universally considered to be an essential pillar of liberty.

If the opinions of these men are a worthy metric of the size of the impending threat of despotism, then President Obama is filling the shoes of a tyrant heel to toe.

His latest decision to unilaterally demolish the walls of history, law, and constitutional barriers that separate the executive and legislative powers demonstrates his intent to persist down the path of despotism by decree so well trodden by many of his forerunners.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...tement-to-ndaa

Also view the reader comments at TPMMuckraker.

On June 29, 2011, blogger and thorough researcher jbjd posted this analysis
of HDP Chairman Brian Schatz's letter to the Hawaii Elections Office.

THERE COULD BE a LOGICAL EXPLANATION

© 2011 jbjd

Not every procedural inconsistency that occurred between the 2008 election cycle and previous elections, is definitive evidence of fraud, let alone proof that such fraud occurred.

I received this comment today from HawaiiSurfer, bemoaning the fact that HI Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz (D), formerly Chair of the HI Democratic Party in 2008; has gotten away with election fraud in relation to the wording of the 2008 D Certification of Obama’s Nomination. But, HawaiiSurfer got it wrong; and those of you who regularly read my blog know s/he got it wrong. Here’s that comment, in its entirety.

Originally Posted by HawaiiSurfer

Brian Schatz should not be allowed to waltz scot-free on his signature and wording on the 27 August 2008 memo in question. Our country has gone down a road where our children look up and wonder if anyone in leadership has integrity. Few leaders have touched an honest approach to the shadowy skullduggery surrounding the 2008 election…And the world is just suppose to be okay with it. Someone needs to call Brian out publicly for signing this form and the wording he knew was in it. As now our Lt Governor in Hawaii, Brian needs to come clean on why he approved and authorized this release. Where has the ethical conscience and compass of our government gone? Forget what the media calls the birth issue, this has to do with why Brian validated for our state the national democratic presidential candidate while “clearly omitting” the authentication that the candidate was Constitutionally qualified. In stark contrast, two predecessors from Brian’s party, Brikwood Galuteria and Alfred Lardizabul, did the right thing by clearly certifying John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 as Constitutionally qualified candidates. If we went back further in time, we’d probably find Brian’s actions as Democratic Party Chair here are in clear contrast to far more than just documentation of the last few presidential elections. Brian most likely is not to fault in everything related to this. Many hands across our nation appear to have been deep in the cookie jar. The democratic party was fed a bad deal with what is most likely one of the biggest frauds in American history. Good people should have stopped it. Brian Schatz seems like a wonderful person. I’m sure Brian has done many great things for our communities and state, but that does not excuse any elected or appointed leader from actions of this weight and consequence.

Brian Schatz signs official campaign document showing missing statement that presidential candidate was Constitutionally qualified.
(link omitted by jbjd)

Our children and neighbors deserve much better. Our country dies when we let go of our conscience. Unfortunately, Brian may end up like Blago. Behind bars.

I began responding to this comment when I realized, I had written all of this before. After a brief search I found BACK UP, BIRTHERS! which contained a well-developed explanation of the inconsistencies related to the 2008 HI Certification, none of which lends itself to a presumption of fraud, certainly not on a state level.
***********************
Not understanding my work or the context of these Certifications, she, too, invented a cottage conspiracy industry related to the mistaken uniqueness of the HI Certification of Nomination, with a twist. See, she uses the fact the DNC Certification of Nomination contains the line that Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job; to support her argument, the HI D Party refused to put that line in their state Certification because they knew Obama is not a NBC. How does she know this? Well, she retrieved both the DNC and the HI D Party Certifications for 2000, 2004, and 2008. In 2000, the DNC document began without the eligibility line, which was obviously typed in after the original document was completed. The HDP document in 2000 contained the same eligibility line. In 2004, the DNC document did not contain the eligibility line; the HDP document did. In 2008, the DNC document did; the HDP document did not.

butterdezillion points out all of the variables were the same – the election law was the same, Brian Schatz was the HI D Party Chair; and Joseph Sandler was the General Counsel to the DNC – and argues, on this basis, one would expect that the Certifications would have been processed in the same manner. Since they were not, she concludes, Mr. Schatz “refused” to swear to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President because he knew the man was not a NBC.

Only, she is wrong. For one thing, all of the material variables were not the same. But that fact has not stopped the ‘usual suspects’ from piggy-backing on her mistakes. Even worse, her work now specifically contains a reference to research done by “jbjd,” thus arguably giving the false impression, again, my work is the basis for her soon-to-be-exposed-as-discredited findings.

Basically, here is her argument. Looking at the dates of these Certifications, she found, in 2000, the DNC Certification was dated 08.17.00; HDP 09.08.00. In 2004, DNC 07.29.04; HDP 08.31.2004. In 2008, DNC 08.28.08; HDP 08.27.08. Following is her invented rationale as to what happened in 2008:

Originally Posted by butterdezillion

So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.

Let me just point out one of butterdezillion’s most glaring mistaken presumptions. Joseph Sandler did not submit both the DNC and the HDP documents “together” to the HI Elections Office. (This probably explains why his cover letter only references the DNC Certification and not the HDP Certification, and why he uses the word “Certification,” in the singular.) And how do I know this? Because way back in January 2009, I asked the HI Election Office. That is, I asked Justin Riggs to ask them.

See, in December 2008 I learned that Justin Riggs had been corresponding with elections officials in various states asking them to provide the paperwork submitted by the D and R parties to get their respective Presidential nominees on the general election ballot. Justin posted his paperwork. I looked at the HI documents – these are now posted on my web site, along with Justin’s correspondence – and had questions. So, I asked Justin to ask HI election officials, since he had already established a rapport. Especially I was interested in learning when they had received these Certification documents. Because among those documents I got from him were just the DNC Certification; the HDP Certification; and the HDP cover letter. Joseph Sandler’s cover letter was missing. And as you can see from the documents posted on butterdezillion, his cover letter is the only one with a ‘date received’ stamp.

(Actually, the 2008 documents butterdezillion posted on her blog in September 2010 are linked to this blog, http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpres...i-response.pdf, where they were first posted almost 2 (two) years ago. The date, January 06, 2009 01:17p in the upper left corner, designates a FAX transmission.)

Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, dated August 28, was stamped received by the HI Elections Office on September 03. And that cover letter was the only one of those DNC/HDP Certification documents received by the HI Election Commission for Obama that received a Date Stamp. Consequently, as the documents I received from Justin did not contain Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, none of his documents had a stamp evidencing it had even been received by the HI Elections Office! But obviously, the documents were received, as election officials did print Obama’s name on HI’s general election ballot. (The date these documents were received didn’t matter, for the same reason, that is, I knew they had been received in time.) Just to satisfy my curiosity, I asked Justin to ask officials how they received these DNC and HDP documents. Here is his reply to me.

Originally Posted by Justin Riggs

jbjd,
Here you go… it looks like the HI Democratic party forwarded both documents to the Elections Office.
Hope that helps. Keep me posted on your progress.
Justin—
On Fri, 3/6/09, Carolyn.L.Roldan@hawaii.gov wrote:
From: Carolyn.L.Roldan@hawaii.gov
Subject: Response to December 12, 2008 Request
To: “Justin Riggs” <juriggs@.xxxxx.com>
Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 1:44 PM
Dear Mr. Riggs,
Both documents were forwarded by the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

Sincerely,

Kevin B. Cronin

http://jbjd.org/2011/06/29/could-be-...l-explanation/

(Continued...)