| This item is from the Daily Pen's "OCON DOCS: Hawaii Ballot Chief...Grandma, Called Obama To Hawaii In 2008" . . . |
| Angles And Tricks: A.K.A. Laws And Politics |
| Obama's campaign drones knew that if any state Elections Officer, let alone one overseeing the legality of election procedure in the very state where the candidate grew up, was forced to disqualify Obama's candidacy on the grounds of him being found ineligible there, by his own party authority, the issue would have exploded into a firestorm of mainstream inquiry. Imagine the explanation that would have been demanded by the Hawaiian government if Obama actually failed to appear on their ballot. 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 cower behind political justifications. Not in Hawaii, however. The most troubling aspect of this drama is, quite simply, the irregularity of behavior by the Democrat party, specifically Obama's entourage, when faced by something as routine as an eligibility certification. This should have sounded a warning throughout the known universe of journalism. Yet, it was met with a bizarre and cowardly silence by the mainstream media. 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 indictment against Obama. His 2008 campaign and, possibly, his political career, would not have survived the revelation of the devastating documentable evidence against him. Therefore, we can conclude, with confidence, that there was unimaginable pressures to engage is less than honest contortions in order to prevent such ramifications for Obama. However, the media's dereliction in the wake of such obvious illicit behavior has injured the confidence of the American people for elections 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 suppress any public knowledge about Obama's legal requirement to meet specific deadlines or personally attend to proceedings in Hawaii attributed directly to countering claims of his ineligibility. Especially if Obama was required to meet with party authorities in Hawaii and the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to refute their findings between the OCON filing date of September 5, 2008 and November 4, 2008. So, let's ask the most obvious question first. Did Obama make an unscheduled or sudden trip to Hawaii between September 5th and November 4th, 2008? Before answering, let's remember, Obama was operating on a very tight campaign schedule between mid-August and Election day, 2008. A review of his schedule reveals more than 50 events in the final two months. He had several town hall meetings and debates which could not be cancelled or rescheduled because they involved John McCain too. The only way to free himself and cover up his motives was to exploit some personal issue which could serve as a "front story" for his presence in Hawaii. Complicating the logistical, legal and political nightmare was the fact that Obama had already attended campaign rallies and fundraisers in Hawaii in early to mid-August. He visited his grandmother on August 7th. Therefore, justifying another visit to Hawaii amid the maelstrom of campaign rallies, debates, forums and town hall meetings scheduled in the other 49 states would require a personal reason that Obama's campaign could justify to the public while putting him in Hawaii to secretly attend to his legal matters. Given the weight of Obama's lack of legitimacy, if he appeared in Hawaii too close to his previous visit, it looks very suspicious and invites media inquiry. 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 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:
Recall, we have already been told by the Hawaiian Department of Health (HDH) 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, 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. Politically, if Obama made another unscheduled appearance in Hawaii too close to the OCON filing deadline of September 5, 2008, it would have brought too much attention, as well. The question bears too much weight, "Why is Obama returning to Hawaii at such a critical time leading up to the most prolific Presidential election in American history?" If he waited until too close to the election, he would miss the deadline of October 24, 2008 Hawaii imposes for inclusion on the ballot. Therefore, Obama needed to find a way to be in Hawaii at a time that would: 1. Occur as 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. Obama was provided with such circumstances on October 23rd-24th, 2008.  Former Democrat Party of Hawaii (DPH) Chairman, Brian Schatz, now serves as the state's Lt. Governor photo courtesy: hawaii.gov An investigation of Hawaii Revised Statutes, along with documented evidence, reveals that the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, being bound by law from partisan participation, still had the legal authority to circumvent the vetting process for Obama and simply approve his placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot without ever verifying that he was Constitutionally eligible to serve as president. Moreover, the evidence presented herein further confirms that the legal tactics employed by the Obama machine actually allowed him to fill Hawaiian legal requirements, behind the lies of the media, without actually having to ever present authentic documentation. Shockingly, administrative 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. Hawaiian Elections Authority Many people falsely believe that the national party committee for each party has certification jurisdiction over state party officials. This is not true. The DNC and RNC are not the primary constitutional authority in vetting candidates. The Constitution gives authority of determining candidate eligibility and to establish relationships enabling candidate placement on each state ballot to each respective state's Elections authority. This evolved out of the the founder's understanding that placing the enforcement of voting security in the hands of local authorities enabled fair access to the residents of the state they apportion and confirm voting registrations. National party authorities do not have the jurisdiction, resources or logistic capacity to ensure voter apportionment between states. Just because the DNC determines that a candidate is eligible in, for example, New York, does mean they can force the state of Hawaii to also find that same candidate eligible. The founders understood that by endowing this to a national authority made the people of states who oppose a particular party vulnerable to under-representation and party intimidation. Under the Electoral College system, according to election laws in every state, Electors from each state are only qualified by the Constitution to cast votes for President and Vice President. They do not participate in certifying the eligibility of the candidates prior to the election. Inexplicably, the certification of each candidate’s eligibility falls under the autonomous authority of each candidate’s state and national affiliated political party authority, while the approval of the candidate’s placement on each state’s ballot then becomes the responsibility of the Chief Elections Officer of each state. The state’s electors must rely on the relationship between these authoritative bodies to review qualifications, certify the legal eligibility of each candidate and approve ballot placement of each candidate nominated by each qualified party. In August, 2008, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer (CEO) was Kevin B. Cronin. He was appointed by the eight-member Hawaiian Elections Commission on December 10, 2007 and took over the position from Interim CEO, Rex M. Quidilla. By statute, Cronin’s term began on February 1, 2008 and is set to end on February 1, 2012. Cronin is a 30 year veteran of government service and is licensed to practice law in Hawaii and Wisconsin. The fully staffed Hawaiian Elections Commission is made up of the following individuals. Name, Position and Date of Term ExpirationKevin B. Cronin, Senior Elections Officer 02/01/12 Daniel Young , Chief Justice, Oahu 06/30/12 Warren Orikasa , House Speaker, Maui 06/30/14 Margaret Masunaga, Senate President, Hawaii 06/30/14 Zale Okazaki , Senate President, Oahu 06/30/12 Patricia Berg , Senate Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14 Brian Nakashima, Chief Justice, Hawaii 06/30/12 Donna Soares, House Minority Leader, Maui 06/30/12 Charles King, House Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14 It is Cronin's constitutional authority to oversee elections in the state of Hawaii under the advisement of the Election Commission. It is his responsibility to maximize registration, equalize registration among districts; and maintain data related to registration, elections, districting and apportionment; educate the public on voting and elections; set up procedures and rules governing elections per HRS 11, AR 91 and Arts. II & IV of the U.S. Constitution. Cronin does not have the authority to certify the Constitutional eligibility of a candidate, however, his most powerful authority is his ability, according to HRS 11-113, to mediate conflict over eligibility and, as a result of mediation, officially approve candidates for placement on the state’s ballot even when the state party's vetting authority refuses to certify the legal qualifications of that candidate. As absurd as this seems...it actually happened in Hawaii in 2008. |
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.