Obama Campaign - "If I Wanted America To Fail"

Total Pageviews

Daily Devotions


If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.

If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.

If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.

If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Obama's Economic Record

A dismal record!

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Newt Gingrich's attempt to save our US Constitution v. Sharia Law

Washington RINOs need to be replaced.  One of the major problems is our added left-wing Federal Judiciary. 
Newt has a plan to make even Republicans responsible for their continued support in voting to confirm radical left-wing Judges in the Federal Courts. – Oscar Y. Harward

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Mitt Romney may be a bit confused over words

While watching the Florida GOP Presidential debate on January 23, 2012, Mitt Romney seemed to have been in disarray as to Newt Gingrich’s official profession while working as a “consultant” with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  Mitt Romney erroneously claims that Newt Gingrich was “lobbying” or “peddling” while on the payroll for eight years.  Newt Gingrich’s own claim of “consulting” is backed up by a written contract as well as confirmed by Congressional leaders who were working closely with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. 

Newt Gingrich was attempting to correct the wrongs as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were approving unqualified home loan applicants.  Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank continued to approve home loans to applicants whom, otherwise, were not financially qualified.  Why would Mitt Romney now decide he could falsely blame Newt Gingrich for his efforts to clean up a mess? 

To assist in clearing the air for Mitt Romney, I checked with “Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary” for each description: 

Consulting: providing professional or expert advice. 

Lobbying: to promote (as a project) or secure the passage of (as legislation) by influencing public officials. 

Peddling: to travel about with wares for sale; broadly. 

From “Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary”, it appears Mitt Romney may have been a bit confused over words.  It is difficult to understand why Mitt Romney could or would have become so misguided. 

Oscar Y. Harward

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Can you believe Mitt Romney would duplicate Capitol Hill Democrats 1997 immoral and unethical activity?

Mitt Romney has joined the Capitol Hill Democrats to renew these falsified erroneous charges against Newt Gingrich.

In 1997 US House Democrat Whip David Bonior (D-MI-12) brought 75 ethics charges against Newt Gingrich; 74 which were found to have no merit.  The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class "Renewing American Civilization" properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.

Mitt Romney, on these falsified erroneous charges against Newt Gingrich, you will find it easier to get a bucket of water from a dried-up well as Newt’s record has been cleared.  Do not continue your immortal and unethical activity.- Oscar Y. Harward

Monday, January 23, 2012

Constitutional Topic: Separation of Powers



17 in. x 22 in.
Buy this print
Buy it framed

Bill of Rights
17 in. x 22 in.
Buy this print
Buy it framed

Declaration of Independence
17 in. x 22 in.
Buy this print
Buy it framed
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns the Separation of Powers. The concept of Separation of Powers is embodied in the Constitution in the 1st Article, in the 2nd Article, and in the 3rd Article. Another Topics Page, on The Government provides details about the make-up of the various branches and may also be of use.

Primary sources for this topic page are Comparative Politics by Gregory Mahler (Schenkman Publishing, 1983) and Comparative Politics by Gregory Mahler (Prentice Hall, 2000). Individual pages from Wikipedia and Canada in the Making were also helpful in keeping this page up to date.

The American Example

The United States Constitution is deliberately inefficient.

The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist.

Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances.

Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.

Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another branch.

For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.

All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.

The following are the powers of the Executive: veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

The following are the powers of the Legislature: Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

Historical Examples

Historically, the concept of Separation of Powers dates back as far as ancient Greece. The concepts were refined by contemporaries of the Framers, and those refinements influenced the establishment of the three branches in the Constitution.

Aristotle favored a mixed government composed of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, seeing none as ideal, but a mix of the three useful by combining the best aspects of each. In his 1656 Oceana, James Harrington brought these ideas up-to-date and proposed systems based on the separation of power. John Locke, in his 1690 Civil Government, second treatise, separated the powers into an executive and a legislature. Montesquieu's 1748 Spirit of the Laws expanded on Locke, adding a judiciary. The framers of the Constitution took all of these ideas and converted the theories into practical applications.

When discussing Separation of Power, is it helpful to contrast the American System to the governments of other nations. This list below is far from a representative sample of nations or systems. The United States, Britain, France, Canada, and Mexico are actually more similar than they are different, especially when the whole range of nations is taken into account. However, sometimes the smaller differences between similar systems can be interesting and illustrative. It is left to the reader to conduct studies of more disparate systems.

The British Example

The British Parliamentary system works like this: There are two houses of the legislature. The upper house, the House of Lords, has traditionally consisted of the nobility of Britain: dukes, earls, viscounts, barons, and bishops. As of 2005, the very existence of the House of Lords is in question. There are some calling for its abolition, but a combination elected/lifetime appointment system seems more likely. A popular proposal calls for 80% of the body to be elected and the name to change to the "Second Chamber." In 1999, the House of Lords had over 1300 members. Today, there are just over 700 members. The House of Lords serves a judicial function as a court of final appeal, but as a legislative body, is widely regarded as ineffectual. It can delay passage of bills issued by the lower house, though it cannot veto them.

The lower house, the House of Commons, consists of MPs (Members of Parliament) elected from one of 646 electoral districts. In the Commons, majority rules. The majority party makes all the laws. The minority has little voice. The Prime Minister, Britain's closest approximation of the American President, is an MP chosen by the majority. The judiciary has no power of review as in the U.S. Since Britain has no formal, written constitution, no law can be unconstitutional.

The head of state, analogous still with the American President, is the monarch (King or Queen). The monarch must approve of all bills, though the process today is little more than a rubber stamp. The Speaker of the House of Commons, elected by the House, acts as the referee in debate between the majority and the minority. The MPs in the House of Commons sit for five years, or until the monarch (at the Prime Minister's behest) dissolves Parliament and calls for new elections. The Prime Minister also heads the Cabinet.

In Britain, the majority party in the House of Commons holds all of the power. The judiciary has no power of review. The House of Lords holds little more than delaying powers. By tradition, the monarch does not veto bills passed by the Parliament. And the de facto head of state, the Prime Minister, is a member of the Commons.

The French Example

In France, the President is elected for five year terms by the people to a powerful position. The President can, and has, dissolve Parliament and call for new elections. The President appoints the Prime Minister. Together, the President and Prime Minister head the executive branch. The President does not have veto power over legislation, but can ask Parliament to reconsider a bill. The Prime Minister heads The Government, akin to the American Cabinet. Most bills passed into law originate with the Government. The President presides over the Cabinet, and has vast emergency powers. The French President, de jure does not have many powers, but because of the French election system, he usually has great popular support and is able to leverage that into political power. When the President's party holds power in the legislature, he is quite powerful, but it is quite diminished when the legislature is not controlled by his party.

The Prime Minister, chosen by the President from the majority party in the National Assembly (the lower house), has power that varies in direct correlation to that of the President. The Prime Minister chooses the members of the Government and is head of the military and the civil service. Deputies of the Assembly are elected by the people for five year terms. There are currently 577 deputies. The Assembly can vote to dissolve the Government, but in reality, such a move is unlikely.

The Senate, the upper house, is more powerful than the House of Lords in Britain, but not by much. Senators are elected by the various local officials from across the country to six year terms. There are currently 321 senators.

There is a written French Constitution. Laws, after passage but before enactment, can be reviewed by the Constitutional Council. Review is either requested (for most laws) or mandatory (for laws affecting the Constitution). Its nine members consist of three appointed by the Government, three by the Assembly, and three by the Senate. The Council is designed almost like the U.S. Supreme Court, but it has little of the power of that court.

For the French, the majority of the power lies in the hands of the Government. If the President is of the same party as the Government, he can also wield considerable power. The Assembly is highly limited to legislate on topics specifically spelled out in the Constitution; the Senate has far less power than the Assembly. The Constitutional Council has not proven to be the force in French government that it appears to have been designed to be.

The Canadian Example

Canada was a subject of Britain for several centuries, and its system has many similarities with the British system. Until 1982, Canada did not have full control over its own constitution. Prior to 1931, the British Parliament could still legislate for Canada, but in 1931, much of that control was passed to the Canadians. More control passed in 1949, but full control was not gained until 1982, when the Constitution Act of 1982 gave Canada full control over its own constitution. Officially, the monarch of Canada (also the monarch of the United Kingdom) remains the Canadian head of state and is represented in governmental affairs by a governor-general. De facto, however, the monarch has no real control of any kind over Canada. In an interesting circular system repeated throughout the former British commonwealth, the governor-general is "recommended" to the monarch by the Canadian Prime Minister and the governor-general in turn de jure appoints the Prime Minister from the members of the House of Commons.

Canada is a federal system akin to that of the United States, with each of its ten provinces having a great deal of control over internal policy. Canada's three territories have less autonomy. Canadian federalism differs from American federalism, however, in that the provinces have specific powers reserved to them and all other powers belong to the federal government. The federal government has veto power over all provincial law-making. The branches of government are a mix of the British and American systems. The legislature is parliamentary and bicameral, split between the House of Commons and the Senate. The members of the Senate are recommended by the House of Commons and appointed by the governor-general. Appointment is for life or until age 75. There are currently 105 members. Members of the House of Commons are elected by the people; elections must be held at least once each five years. There are currently 308 members. The executive is composed of a Prime Minister and a cabinet.

A privy council is in place that works to supplement and support the Prime Minister and the cabinet. The members of the council include the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; the staff is comprised of career public servants, ensuring continuity even when there is a change in the leadership party in the parliament. The Privy Council Office is separate and distinct from the Prime Minister's Office. The former is concerned with the efficient running of the government and is generally considered non-partisan. The latter is completely partisan and is concerned with the advancement of the platform of the Prime Minister and the ruling party.

The judiciary is more powerful in Canada, much like that of the United States; the Supreme Court has nine members which serve for life or until age 75. Each province has its own judicial system as well; these provincial courts work at the lowest level in the system, with the Supreme Court at the highest level and with superior courts in between. Each province has a Court of Appeal, and in all cases, the Supreme Court is a final court of appeal. The federal courts also act as the sole courts of Canada's three territories. The constitution allows the Supreme Court to be used as an advisory court, issuing opinions on the constitutionality of laws without any actual dispute needing to be in play.

The Mexican Example

Mexico has had a tumultuous history, as it has had to deal with foreign invaders, poverty, and its strong neighbor to the north. What Mexico has for a political system has evolved with all of these influences. Its current constitution has been in force since 1917 and it has been amended at least 450 times since its enactment. The Constitution is divided into two major parts, the Individual Guarantees and the definition of the structure of the government. One notable feature of the Guarantees is that the freedoms enumerated therein are reserved "by any individual," regardless of citizenship or status. The Mexican government is explicitly divided into the same three branches as the United States, legislative, executive, and judicial. It is a federal republic like its North American neighbors, with 31 states dividing the varied geography, plus one Federal District. Like U.S. states and Canadian provinces, much of the everyday law is left to the Mexican states' jurisdiction.

The Mexican legislature, the General Congress, is bicameral and divided between a 128-member Senate and a 500-member Chamber of Deputies. The members of the Chamber are elected every three years. 300 members are elected in an at-large election where seats are distributed to parties on a national proportional basis. The remaining 200 are allocated to the states in proportion to their population. Deputies cannot serve more than one term in succession.

Senators are elected every six years. Each state has four Senators as does the Federal District. Two of the four are allocated to the majority political party; a third is allocated to the next highest minority party; the fourth is selected based on proportional representation. Senators may not be reelected to a seat.

Certain subjects are the exclusive domain of one house of the Congress; others must be agreed to by both houses. Legislation may be introduced by any member of Congress, the President, or a state legislature. A Permanent Committee, comprised of 15 Deputies and 14 Senators, meets when the Congress is in recess.

The Mexican executive is the President, elected to a single six-year term. The President is directly elected by the people. In the case of disability, the Congress can designate an interim President and call for new elections. The President is the head of state and head of government. Constitutionally, he is held to the will of the Congress - he cannot leave the country, for example, without the permission of the Congress.

The judicial system of Mexico divides the national courts into four hierarchical parts. At the top is the Supreme Court of Justice, followed by the Electoral Tribunal, Circuit Courts, and District Courts. The Supreme Court is made up of eleven Ministers; the Court can operate en banc (as a whole) or in divisions of five ministers. The Chief Minister is elected every four years by the ministers from within the Court; no one person can be immediately reelected to the Chief position. Ministers are appointed to the Court for 15 year terms. The federal courts act as courts of appeal for the state courts, and act as courts of appeal for themselves according to the previously noted hierarchy. Only through special rulings known asjurisprudencias can the decision of a higher court become legally binding on all lower courts.


Is the American system superior to any of these, or to any other, system of government? That depends on where you sit. The French and the British might scoff at the fact that our head of state, the President, has no power to make laws. They might cringe at the thought that judges can render the will of the people, in the form of a duly passed law, null and void. Canadians might think that state powers ought to be enumerated; Mexicans might marvel at the longevity of some career American politicians.
Americans might look with amusement at the institution of the British monarchy, and its continued hold, if only on paper, on Canada. Americans might cringe at the British thought of majority rule with no written constitution to be used as a guide or rule book. We might worry that the French Presidency has the potential to turn tyrannical by the misuse of emergency powers. We might worry that a Mexican judiciary, without lifetime tenure or a solid stare decisis system might lead to incoherent judicial policy.

But recall that each of these nations, and the hundred others in this world, have political and social traditions that sometimes date back a thousand years. Despite what Americans might think are odd institutions and traditions in France, Britain, Canada, Mexico, and elsewhere, these are all prosperous nations. The systems work in the context of each nation, even if the details could not work in some others.

Judge Rules Obama Must Prove Presidential Eligibility In Georgia Courtroom On Thursday

How will President Obama respond to answering a State of  Georgia “order” that he appear in this Georgia Court, along with the original form of his Hawaii birth certificate and information on his myriad Social Security numbers will remain in force, on January 26, 2012 to prove he is a “natural born citizen” of the United States?- Oscar Y. Harward

barack obama slide8372 Judge Rules Obama Must Prove Presidential Eligibility In Georgia Courtroom On Thursday

For those who have waited 3 years for a judge to finally rule that Barack Hussein Obama must prove that he is legally and Constitutionally qualified to run for or serve as President of the United States, the day may have come at last.

For on Friday, Georgia State Office of Administrative Hearings Judge Michael Malihi ruled that subpoenas demanding the presence of Barack Obama in his Georgia courtroom on January 26th along with the original form of his Hawaii birth certificate and information on his myriad Social Security numbers will remain in force.

Obama ‘s attorney Michael Jablonski had filed a motion to quash those subpoenas, arguing if Obama were made to answer questions before the court it would “…[require] him to interrupt duties as President of the United States…” (1)
It was also Obama’s claim that “presidential electors and Congress, not the State of Georgia, hold the Constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates.” (1)

Well Judge Malihi did not agree with Obama’s arguments that the laws of the State of Georgia were somehow irrelevant to the process, or that his presence in the court would materially interfere with his ability to discharge the duties of his office.

In his decision to allow the subpoenas to remain in force, Malihi wrote, “…Defendant (Obama) has failed to cite any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that testimony…is irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’ ” (2)

In short, as Judge Malihi so eloquently put it, “”Defendants motion to quash is denied.” (2)

The process before Judge Mahili began when a number of Georgia residents filed 3 separate lawsuits demanding that Barack Obama provide evidence of having met State of Georgia election law requirements before being placed on the ballot. Malihi agreed with the plaintiffs, quoting in his ruling Georgia law which states “…every candidate for federal office shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (3)

In that ruling, Mahili stated “the court finds that the defendant (Barack Obama) is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (3)

Though Obama has managed to ooze his way out of legal responsibilities and requirements in the past, this time it really might be a bit thick for the acting president. Even the radically leftist Southern Poverty Law Center has decided to weigh in, giving vent to a typically childish attack of spleen in its “Hatewatch” column no less, where it snivels “…Malihi’s decision has been heralded far and wide as a defining moment for those who have hounded Obama about his lineage.” (4)

Apparently demands that Barack Hussein Obama actually abide by the laws of the land and the Constitution of the United States make for a clear case of “hounding” to an organization known to file suit at the drop of a conservative hat.

Here’s hoping Judge Malihi’s courtroom turns liberal petulance to leftist rage on January 26th. For Malihi’s ruling that day will determine whether or not Barack Hussein Obama may be certified by the Democrat Party to appear on the Georgia ballot in November. And as the Liberty Legal Foundation explains it, “without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election.” (5)

To read more use these links: To read more use these links:

(1) http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-v-Obama-motion-to-quash-subpoenas.pdf
(2) http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama,OrderonMotiontoQuashSubpoenas,GeorgiaBallotChallenge.pdf
(3) http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/
(4) http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/01/18/georgia-court-to-hear-arguments-on-obamas-eligibility-for-primary-ballot/
(5) http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1209/no-certification-without-verification/

Send in your support to this brave judge:
Email his Case Management Assistant, Valerie Ruff here.
Call: Tel: (404) 651-7595
Fax: (404) 818-3751

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Newt Gingrich has a plan to save (y)our economy and our Constitution

General Election 2012 must produce a government unrestrained, private sector environment for producing jobs for our working Americans to save our economy, our nation, and our citizens’ investments. 

A working America with lower taxes, a smaller government with less controls and less intervention will produce an expanding economy with added government revenues to balance the budget.  This economic expansion in the private sector will further protect the personal investments in homes and retirement programs; especially for those in the retirement populations.

Are the deceitful White House, Capitol Hill Democrats, and/or others in this election going to continue an erroneous witch-hunt on Newt Gingrich?  It may be easier to get a bucket of water from a dried-up well as Newt’s record has been cleared.

In 1997, House Democrat Whip David Bonior (D-MI-12) brought 75 ethics charges against Newt Gingrich; 74 which were found to have no merit.  Will the anti-Newt Gingrich folks please accept the IRS “finding” that found Newt Gingrich was cleared?

Republicans must nominate a candidate with experience, intelligence, wisdom, and vision who can defeat President Obama on November 6, 2012.  Newt Gingrich is one candidate with working solutions available in creating jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

Oscar Y. Harward

Saturday, January 21, 2012

BREAKING! MILITARY EQUIPMENT Filmed 1\19\12 near Santa Cruz, Southbound

Where are these military weapons going?  Under the current Obama administration, there is a concern.

Friday, January 20, 2012

O-Con Had Legal Help From Non-Partisan Hawaiian Election Commission

How the Democrat National Committee may have “falsely reported” to Americans that now President Obama qualified under law and must be a “natural born citizen” as defined in the US Constitution. Oscar Y. Harward

Via The Daily Pen and Some; - O-Con Had Legal Help From Non-Partisan Hawaiian Election Commission - by Pen Johannson, Editor of The Daily Pen - [Revised 1:22 PM]

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

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 power held by too few unaccountable people. The evidence shows that agents, working within the jurisdiction of state law, opened shadowy legal channels enabling Obama an opportunity usurp presidential power and assault the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people.

Recall, over the past two years, we became familiar with the controversy over the Democratic National Committee’s submittal of two separate sworn Official Certifications of Nomination (OCON) for Barack Obama, containing different legal language. One version of the OCON was sent to the Hawaiian Office of Elections while another version was sent to the other states' Election authorities. Not only was this deceitful and a covert maneuver by Nancy Pelosi and DNC to sneak Obama's unverifiable candidacy onto Hawaii's presidential ballot, it arguably violated Constitutional election law affording each state with the authority to grant or deny candidacy based on their own standards. Most people would never know that this very act enabled the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii to invoke an obscure law and approve Obama's inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot...even though he was not constitutionally eligible to be on the ballot.

The Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) is a legally required document submitted by each party's officials in every state prior to each presidential election. It affords the Chief Elections Officer in each state with the documented legal assurance that the candidates seeking inclusion on their particular state's ballot are indeed certified to be constitutionally eligible to serve the office they seek. The DPH's OCON was submitted to the Hawaiian Election Commission, led by Cronin, for approval of the placement of Barack Obama and Joe Biden on the 2008 Hawaii Presidential Election Ballot.

Compounding this controversy, in August, 2008, only two months before the election, the Democrat Party of Hawaii’s (DPH) chairman, Brian Schatz, now serving as the Lt. Governor of Hawaii, refused to include legally required, explicit language in its sworn Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) that Barack Obama was indeed legally qualified to serve as President under the provision of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to legally certify Barack Obama as that state’s Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

This was not some prudent effort to prevent the inclusion of an ineligible candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot. As this investigation shows, it was done to protect the political careers of Schatz and the DPH while relying on more inane, anti-constitutional Hawaiian statutes to clear the way for Obama's candidacy.

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

Here's what happened. An investigation of Hawaii Revised Statutes, along with documented evidence, reveals that the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin 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 are specifically designed with legal complexity meant to discourage challenges to Obama’s fraudulent occupation of the White House.

The specificity of the following account is somewhat daunting. However, in the interest of seeking the truth sometimes it is necessary to win the battle less fought. In order to set the story up, we need to go into the weeds a little bit, but, remember, the self-serving members of our corrupt ruling-class spend their lives in places the rest of us can’t, or won’t, go.

Therefore, our momentary visit into the plausible serves well the value of our newly 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 ambigous, allegiances. Casting out the idea peddlers is an essential first step in physically removing influences which undermine the intended goodness of our founders.


The election of a President and Vice President in the United States relies on the Electoral College. Within this system, electors are authorized by the U.S. Constitution through their state laws to cast votes which represent their respective states’ popular vote for the appropriate candidates. Article II of the Constitution specifies the number of electors each state is entitled to have and it delegates the authority for nominating and choosing its electors to each state’s legislative body. Some states pick electors by legislative appointment while others employ a nomination and voting process.

Electors from each state are only qualified by the Constitution to cast votes for President and Vice President. They do not participate in certifying the eligibility of the candidates prior to the election. Inexplicably, the certification of each candidate’s eligibility falls under the autonomous authority of each candidate’s state and national affiliated political party authority, while the approval of the candidate’s placement on each state’s ballot then becomes the responsibility of the Chief Elections Officer of each state. The state’s electors must rely on the relationship between these authoritative bodies to review qualifications, certify the legal eligibility of each candidate and approve ballot placement of each candidate nominated by each qualified party.

In August, 2008, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer (CEO) was Kevin B. Cronin. He was appointed by the eight-member Hawaiian Elections Commission on December 10, 2007 and took over the position from Interim CEO, Rex M. Quidilla. By statute, Cronin’s term began on February 1, 2008 and is set to end on February 1, 2012. Cronin is a 30 year veteran of government service and is licensed to practice law in Hawaii and Wisconsin. The fully staffed Hawaiian Elections Commission is made up of the following individuals.

Name, Position and Date of Term Expiration
Kevin B. Cronin, Senior Elections Officer 02/01/12
Daniel Young , Chief Justice, Oahu 06/30/12
Warren Orikasa , House Speaker, Maui 06/30/14
Margaret Masunaga, Senate President, Hawaii 06/30/14
Zale Okazaki , Senate President, Oahu 06/30/12
Patricia Berg , Senate Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14
Brian Nakashima, Chief Justice, Hawaii 06/30/12
Donna Soares, House Minority Leader, Maui 06/30/12
Charles King, House Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14

It is Cronin's 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. However, Cronins most powerful authority is his ability, according to HRS 11-113, to 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.


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 did not contain a Hawaiian Elections Office "RECEIVED DATE" stamp and it 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."

However, Hawaiian Revised Statute 11-113 (c)(1)(B) 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).

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.

However, just one day after the Democrat Party of Hawaii (DPH) filed its sworn, but legally omissive OCON with the Hawaiian election commission, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), chaired by Nancy Pelosi, filed its national Official Certification of Nominations with all fifty states. This sworn application is filed by each party’s national committee with each state’s election commission alleging that their respective candidates have been vetted and approved for ballot placement for federal office.

A review of the Democratic National Committee’s applications 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 inclusion of the specific language previously omitted by the DPH's OCON 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. The DNC amended its Hawaiian OCON for specifically for Obama as a means of creating a direct contradiction with DPH’s legitimate omission of legal language which, if included, would certify Obama’s constitutional eligibility in accordance with Hawaiian law.

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.

This contradiction was intentional 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.

HRS 11-113 (1)(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 filed the OCON as late as September 5, 2008. This means that, if Cronin granted the optional five business day extension to the mandated 10 day notification deadline, the notification could have been provided to Obama in writing a maximum of September 26, 2008.

HRS 11-113 (1)(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 6, 2008 to respond in writing and request a hearing.

HRS 11-113(1)(e) then 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 6th or 7th, 2008. Based on HRS 11-113(e), the latest Cronin was legally able to schedule a hearing for Obama was sometime between October 20th and 23rd, 2008.

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 around October 20th, 2008? On Monday, October 20, 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."

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?

Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113 (b) 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 this corrupt Hawaiian law 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.


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.

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 21, 2008 without his family.

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.

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.


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) 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, the Democrat Party of Hawaii (DPH) filed a sworn Official Certification of Nomination with the Chief Election Officer, Kevin Cronin.

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.

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.

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 presidential ballot.

9. Since the DPH did not provide legal certification of Barack Obama's constitutional candidacy, Kevin Cronin, was required to send at least one, and possibly two, written notices 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 date appearing the DPH's OCON, the DPH still had eight more days to file the OCON and perhaps request verification documentation from Obama.

11. However, on August 28th, 2008, just one day after the DPH allegedly filed its OCON, the Democratic National Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi, its 2008 Official Certification of Nomination. However, documented evidence shows that the DNC also authored a separate version of its OCON at some other 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.

23. AR 91 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.


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,... ...Continue reading the great report and the rest of the questions here; http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.html -snip-
[UPDATED 1/17/11 here]

FLASHBACK: Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President. -Source- DPH/DNC Certifications embedded below.

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and the long list of people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].

2000/2004/2008 Democratic Party of Hawaii Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates -
2008 DNC Presidential nomination certificate with constitutionally eligible provision - Hawaii
2008 DNC Presidential nomination certificate without constitutionally eligible provision - Georgia
Obama Ineligible/Support LTC Terry Lakin - Wash Times Natl Wkly 2011-01-03 2 Pg Ctr Fold-pgs 20&21

Thursday, January 19, 2012

1944 “American Heroes” v. 2012 “Democrat Party associated supported bums”

Is America changing that much?

Occupy Party vs. Tea Party Comparison 

The Democrats and the liberal media have said that the Occupy Party was a civic group "just like" the Tea Party. 

The facts......you decide.......




Do you see the similarities now.

Do you see the potential for Martial Law yet?

How about a self proclaimed Dictator for the Republic?