State of Hawaii has emerged as the primary co-conspirator in Obama’s identity secrets

[FreeinChrist]

Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, who was born in China was able to aquire an actual document that says he was born in the Hawaiian Islands .

Sun Yat-sen: Certification of Live Birth in Hawaii

Sun Yat-sen was born on November 12, 1866, to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan county , Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau), not Hawaii, as this document affirms.

http://theobamafile.com/_images/SunYatSen.jpg



AKA Obama fans: All together now – say [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]!! - English pravda.ru

You pull up some certificate from 1904 as proof? You do realize that certificate says "on this 14th day of March in AD 1904" don't you? When Hawaii was not even a state of the union? You made it sound as if Hawaii, as a state of the United States, routinely issues birth certificates for those not born in the US and try to use this supposed fact as proof they did that with Obama.
that ain't convincing at all!

The fact is that 48 years ago, anyone could get a COLB in
Hawaii, regardless of where the child was born. There's no
dispute on that

There is much to dispute - you need to support the claim.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Hawaii Gov. Ambercommie said he will settle all this confusion. The offices open on January 19th, perhaps we will all know something soon.

You mean Gov. Abercrombie?

 

[HerbieHeadley]

You pull up some certificate from 1904 as proof? You do realize that certificate says "on this 14th day of March in AD 1904" don't you? When Hawaii was not even a state of the union? You made it sound as if Hawaii, as a state of the United States, routinely issues birth certificates for those not born in the US and try to use this supposed fact as proof they did that with Obama.
that ain't convincing at all!



There is much to dispute - you need to support the claim.

"Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect
from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.

One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you
lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions
asked.

Knowledge of this practice was wide spreadand there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian
birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and
delivery doctors."

AKA Obama fans: All together now – say !! - English pravda.ru

The fact is that 48 years ago, anyone could get a COLB in Hawaii, regardless of where the child was born. There's no
dispute on that.

According to the Western Journalism Center, there are five different ways in which a Hawaiian birth record can be obtained, including as an adult.

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report | Western Journalism.com

 

[mzungu]

I was watching a documentary on TV about 2 weeks ago and everyone here was making fun at the people who believe in this Obama conspiracy. Even people from the extreme right expressed their amazement at the thought that Hawaii was involved in a conspiracy to falsely issue a birth certificate to a POOR unknown white woman who had a child with a foreigner from Kenya. Do the people who believe such things also believe that the state of Hawaii did so knowing that many years later, this baby will become President of the USA?

I would imagine that America has more pressing problems (As the rest of the world) to deal with than to waste time on conspiracy theories!

If anyone has real evidence then let him bring it forth in a court of law; Like they did with Nixon, and Clinton (although What Clinton did can hardly be considered criminal).

Sanity has to return into politics before some unstable hate filled person takes a gun and does something stupid!

 

[Maren]

I was watching a documentary on TV about 2 weeks ago and everyone here was making fun at the people who believe in this Obama conspiracy. Even people from the extreme right expressed their amazement at the thought that Hawaii was involved in a conspiracy to falsely issue a birth certificate to a POOR unknown white woman who had a child with a foreigner from Kenya. Do the people who believe such things also believe that the state of Hawaii did so knowing that many years later, this baby will become President of the USA?

I would imagine that America has more pressing problems (As the rest of the world) to deal with than to waste time on conspiracy theories!

If anyone has real evidence then let him bring it forth in a court of law; Like they did with Nixon, and Clinton (although What Clinton did can hardly be considered criminal).

Sanity has to return into politics before some unstable hate filled person takes a gun and does something stupid!

Ah, but Herbie will try to tell you that those with evidence can't get a court to listen. Of course, what he doesn't tell you is that they don't really have any solid evidence for the court, instead Orly Taitz (the person/dentist/lawyer that has been involved in most of the birther suits) wants the court to force Pres. Obama to provide the "evidence" for her. She was even warned by a judge about bringing a suit without evidence, expecting the court to order Obama's attorneys to provide evidence for her and, when she didn't listen to the judge, the next time she filed what essentially the same suit, the judge fined her $20,000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Orly even appealed that fine, all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost her appeal at every level.

What really needs to happen is that the birthers need to take their evidence to Congress and convince them to hold hearings to impeach Obama. This is the method the US Constitution requires for trying/removing a president that is not qualified to hold office. Unfortunately for the birthers, even the Republicans serving in Congress don't believe the conspiracy theories the birthers have been floating and so they will not hold impeachment hearings.

So not only, per Herbie, is Hawaii involved in the conspiracy, but so is the US court system, the US Congress, and even the mainstream news media is in on it since they have absolutely refused (for the most part) to get involved and investigate Obama.

 

[jgarden]

There is far more "circumstantial evidence" to connect Sarah Palin and the Tea Party to the Arizona shootings than there is to show that Barack Obama was born outside the US.

And yet, when the Tea Party/Birthers are accused of creating a hostile, confontational political climate that incites violence, they cry "foul" and demand to see the proof!

Apparently the Tea Party/Birthers have no intention of playing by the same rules they wish to impose on others!

 

[lordbt]

There is far more "circumstantial evidence" to connect Sarah Palin and the Tea Party to the Arizona shootings than there is to show that Barack Obama was born outside the US.

Good, why dont you lay all this supposed circumstantial evidence out there then. Because I see zero evidence that links Palin or the Tea party to the Arizona shootings.

 

[jgarden]

1. Palin's web site which featured gun crosshairs superimposed over Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' political district (among others) for the mid-term elections, on a United States map. Despite denials of any responsibility by Palin ("blood libel"), the offending map that had been on her website since March 2010 was mysteriously removed - 2 months after the mid-terms.

2. “The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district, when people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that.”
(Rep. Gabrielle Giffords)

Palin ignored these prophetic comments and only removed the map after Gifford was shot. To put up a map targeting an opponent in gun crosshairs takes on whole different meaning after that target states that there are "consequences" to such an action - and is then subsequently shot in the head!

3. The Tea Party opponent of Giffords announced a fundraiser at a shooting gallery: ” Get on Target for Victory in November/Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office/Shoot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse Kelly (Giffords' opponent).” Sarah Palin published her famous “crosshairs map” with Giffords’ district in the gun sights. She hoped, perhaps, that her “lock and load” rhetoric would please her base.

http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/giffords-said-it-words-matter/

4. “don’t retreat, reload” (Sarah Palin)

“I can’t trust the current government… the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.”
(Jared Loughner)

Loughner's deep mistrust of goverment and the ease with which he has access to obtaining a gun legally are both issues that Palin and The Tea Party have long promoted.

Whether Loughner was directly influenced by Palin and the Tea Party is not the original issue, the issue was that there is more "citcumstantial evidence" to link them to the shootings than there is to prove Obama was born outside of the US.

 

[lordbt]

1. Palin's web site targeting Rep. Gabrielle Gifford's political riding on a map with the crosshairs of a scope. Despite denials of any responsibility by Palin, the offending map that had been there for months was immediately removed.

And the evidence that this in any way influenced the shooter is what?

 

[David Brider]

And the evidence that this in any way influenced the shooter is what?

a.) Circumstantial, and

b.) More than exists to show that Barack Obama was born outside the US.

Honestly, weren't you paying attention to post #126 when you replied to it?

David.

 

[FreeinChrist]

"Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect
from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.

One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you
lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions
asked.

Knowledge of this practice was wide spreadand there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian
birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and
delivery doctors."

AKA Obama fans: All together now – say !! - English pravda.ru

The fact is that 48 years ago, anyone could get a COLB in Hawaii, regardless of where the child was born. There's no
dispute on that.

According to the Western Journalism Center, there are five different ways in which a Hawaiian birth record can be obtained, including as an adult.

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report | Western Journalism.com

Again, what you post does not support the claim. You're blowing smoke here. I read the articles, and quite honestly, manner in which Hawaii granted certificates in 1961 was really not much different than elsewhere in the US. My father in law had siblings born at home that were still born and buried in the backyard in rural Missouri (1910 - 1930) and there was no certificates for them. The parent had to apply (she was Native American and did speak English and did not worry about it).

And in all 4 of the ways to get a certificate in 1961, accrodign tot he artivcle you provided, they had to be born in Hawaii.
Even the fifth way passed in 1982 is when they had to have residency fo the year before.


poor support there.....

 

[Nathan Poe]

Good, why dont you lay all this supposed circumstantial evidence out there then. Because I see zero evidence that links Palin or the Tea party to the Arizona shootings.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

 

[lordbt]

a.) Circumstantial, and

b.) More than exists to show that Barack Obama was born outside the US.

Honestly, weren't you paying attention to post #126 when you replied to it?

David.

Its post #128, and the only thing there when I responded was what I responded to. He added everything else during an edit after my post. Not that that would have changed my response, however, since nothing he posted represents circumstantial evidence that would show the shooter was influenced by any of it. It is just as likely that the shooter was influenced to act by a stray candy wrapper on the floor (I lifted that line from revanneosl, I believe). So just because you wish to link certain people--Palin and the Tea Party--to this crime because of your own political bias is not the same as providing circumstantial evidence that links them. Sorry.

 

[JustMeSee]

Lordbt, are you a birther, too?

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Again, what you post does not support the claim. You're blowing smoke here. I read the articles, and quite honestly, manner in which Hawaii granted certificates in 1961 was really not much different than elsewhere in the US. My father in law had siblings born at home that were still born and buried in the backyard in rural Missouri (1910 - 1930) and there was no certificates for them. The parent had to apply (she was Native American and did speak English and did not worry about it).

And in all 4 of the ways to get a certificate in 1961, accrodign tot he artivcle you provided, they had to be born in Hawaii.
Even the fifth way passed in 1982 is when they had to have residency fo the year before.


poor support there.....

Aside from a Hospital birth like is described as BC 1 in the article, all the other BC's describe how all that was needed to aquire a birth certificate or Certification of live birth, was a statement from someone that the birth was in Hawaii.

Take BC 2 for example:

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9) I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

The fifth one absolutely describes how to obtain a certificate for a child born out of state. The requirement... "provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”

Also the ACT 96 was in effect 49 years ago.

I have supported my statement, it seems as though it is just ignored and suggestions that there are problems in other states does not fix or change the problem.

Birth registration fraud was easy in Hawaii and other areas...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/puerto-rico-birth-certificate-crisis-invalidating-fix/story?id=10422841

 

[HerbieHeadley]

a.) Circumstantial, and

b.) More than exists to show that Barack Obama was born outside the US.

Honestly, weren't you paying attention to post #126 when you replied to it?

David.

Hardly.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans
Have Good Reason to Doubt
that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Originally Posted: April 25, 2010
Last Update: January 1, 2011
Get a copy of this Catalog of Evidence report at SCRIBD

 

[HerbieHeadley]

The State Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President that he was running for which was the normal procedure by the State Democratic Party of Hawaii in all the prior election cycles.

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.

.
by Pen Johannson
Editor, The Daily Pen


http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/

REVIEWING THE FACTS

"1. Electors from each state rely on each party’s state authority in that state to certify the nomination of their candidates and verify their legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

2. Hawaiian election law specifically requires each state’s party authority to file a sworn application (Official Certification of Nomination) with Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer certifying the eligibility of each candidate to serve as President and Vice President of the United States.

3. Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113 (c) specifically requires that this sworn application from each state party authority contains explicit language stating that all candidates are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Chief Elections Officer to approve the candidate for placement on the state’s presidential ballot.

4. On August 27th, 2008, by notary attestment, authorities of the Democrat Party of Hawaii (DPH) signed a sworn Official Certification of Nomination and was required to submit the document to Hawaii's Chief Election Officer, Kevin Cronin before 4:30 p.m. on September 5, 2008 or September 8, 2008 allowing for the count of one additional business day for one lost on Labor day.

5. The DPH, chaired by Brian Schatz, refused to include legally required language, per HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), within the state party’s Official Certification of Nomination stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

6. The Democrat Party of Hawaii included this legally required language for other Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in past elections dating to, at least, 2000 and 2004. Therefore, the omission of this language within the DPH’s 2008 OCON of Obama’s candidacy is not a mistake or an oversight. It was done intentionally and with full understanding of Brian Schatz that the Hawaiian CEO, Kevin Cronin, would not be legally permitted to approve Barack Obama as a candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot, unless the Democratic National Committee (the national party authority) included this language in its OCON.

7. The Republican Party of Hawaii included the legally required language in its sworn 2008 Official Certification of Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin, per HRS 11-113, without reservation or exceptions.

8. The Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to acknowledge that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as president under the provisions of U.S. Constitution and, therefore, the DPH refused to provide legal certification allowing the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to approve the placement of Barack Obama on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

9. Since the DPH did not provide legal certification of Barack Obama's constitutional candidacy, Kevin Cronin, was required to send a written notice to Barack Obama informing him that the DPH refused to provide legal certification of his candidacy for approval of his inclusion on the State of Hawaii’s 2008 presidential ballot. Cronin was legally required to send this notification within 10 business days from the time Cronin received the OCON from the DPH. Cronin also had the option, under HRS 11-113, to extend the notification deadline five more business days for a total of 15 days from the day the DPH filed the OCON.

10. The DPH's OCON is dated August 27th, 2008. However, HRS 11-113 provides that OCONs may be filed by 4:30 p.m. on no less than the 60th day prior to the day of the election. In this case, based on the alleged date appearing the DPH's OCON, the DPH still had eight more days to file the OCON and perhaps request verification documentation from Obama. Therefore, Obama received his notification of the Hawaiian CEO's findings no later than September 20, 2008.

11. However, documents provided by the Hawaiian Election Commission show that the Democratic National Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi, signed its 2008 Official Certification of Nomination with a date of August 28, 2008. However, documented evidence shows that the DNC also authored a separate version of its OCON at a later time. One version was sent only to Hawaii containing specific wording which directly contradicted that state party’s Constitutional authority to declare that Barack Obama was not constitutionally eligible to serve as President and was, therefore, not approved for inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

12. Article IV-Section 4, Article IV-Section 1 and Article II-Section 1 of the Constitution grants sovereignty for certifying a candidate’s nomination and approving a candidate’s inclusion on each state’s presidential ballot to each state. The Democratic National Committee does not have the legal authority to supersede the sovereignty of Hawaii’s appointed authority to conduct election, approve ballot content and certify the nomination of candidates.

13. By intentionally contradicting the findings of Hawaii’s party authority for the purpose of forcing the state of Hawaii to include Obama’s candidacy on its ballot, the Democratic National Committee, headed by Nancy Pelosi, committed election fraud and violated the Constitutional right of the people of the state of Hawaii to an election process in which supreme power is held by the citizens and their entitlement to vote for Constitutionally eligible candidates.

14. The Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer by the DNC was not sent to any other state’s CEO.

15. Based on the authority given them by the Constitution, some states’ election laws do not require an explicit statement indicating a candidate’s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the Constitution, like Hawaii, but rather a general statement citing documentation that the candidate is qualified under federal law to serve as President and Vice President.

16. The DNC sent a different OCON to every other state omitting the reference to Constitutional eligibility.

17. Cronin sent written notification to Obama stating that Obama was found legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution based on the DNC’s OCON.

18. The Democratic Party of Hawaii and the Democratic National Committee do not agree with one another about the Constitutional qualifications of Barack Obama.

19. Cronin’s notifications have never been revealed to the public.

20. If the notification from Cronin to Obama stated that Obama was found not qualified to be on the Hawaiian ballot, Obama had five business days after the finding to send a written request for a hearing to contest the finding and reconcile his lack of eligibility with the DPH.

21. Upon receiving a request for a hearing from Obama, Cronin was obligated to schedule the hearing within 10 business days of receiving the request.

22. Hearings to contest candidate eligibility findings are conducted under Administrative Procedures governed by HRS AR 91.

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."

 

[Goodtry]

The State Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President that he was running for which was the normal procedure by the State Democratic Party of Hawaii in all the prior election cycles.

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.

.
by Pen Johannson
Editor, The Daily Pen


http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/

REVIEWING THE FACTS

"1. Electors from each state rely on each party’s state authority in that state to certify the nomination of their candidates and verify their legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

2. Hawaiian election law specifically requires each state’s party authority to file a sworn application (Official Certification of Nomination) with Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer certifying the eligibility of each candidate to serve as President and Vice President of the United States.

3. Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113 (c) specifically requires that this sworn application from each state party authority contains explicit language stating that all candidates are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Chief Elections Officer to approve the candidate for placement on the state’s presidential ballot.

4. On August 27th, 2008, by notary attestment, authorities of the Democrat Party of Hawaii (DPH) signed a sworn Official Certification of Nomination and was required to submit the document to Hawaii's Chief Election Officer, Kevin Cronin before 4:30 p.m. on September 5, 2008 or September 8, 2008 allowing for the count of one additional business day for one lost on Labor day.

5. The DPH, chaired by Brian Schatz, refused to include legally required language, per HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), within the state party’s Official Certification of Nomination stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

6. The Democrat Party of Hawaii included this legally required language for other Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in past elections dating to, at least, 2000 and 2004. Therefore, the omission of this language within the DPH’s 2008 OCON of Obama’s candidacy is not a mistake or an oversight. It was done intentionally and with full understanding of Brian Schatz that the Hawaiian CEO, Kevin Cronin, would not be legally permitted to approve Barack Obama as a candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot, unless the Democratic National Committee (the national party authority) included this language in its OCON.

7. The Republican Party of Hawaii included the legally required language in its sworn 2008 Official Certification of Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin, per HRS 11-113, without reservation or exceptions.

8. The Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to acknowledge that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as president under the provisions of U.S. Constitution and, therefore, the DPH refused to provide legal certification allowing the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to approve the placement of Barack Obama on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

9. Since the DPH did not provide legal certification of Barack Obama's constitutional candidacy, Kevin Cronin, was required to send a written notice to Barack Obama informing him that the DPH refused to provide legal certification of his candidacy for approval of his inclusion on the State of Hawaii’s 2008 presidential ballot. Cronin was legally required to send this notification within 10 business days from the time Cronin received the OCON from the DPH. Cronin also had the option, under HRS 11-113, to extend the notification deadline five more business days for a total of 15 days from the day the DPH filed the OCON.

10. The DPH's OCON is dated August 27th, 2008. However, HRS 11-113 provides that OCONs may be filed by 4:30 p.m. on no less than the 60th day prior to the day of the election. In this case, based on the alleged date appearing the DPH's OCON, the DPH still had eight more days to file the OCON and perhaps request verification documentation from Obama. Therefore, Obama received his notification of the Hawaiian CEO's findings no later than September 20, 2008.

11. However, documents provided by the Hawaiian Election Commission show that the Democratic National Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi, signed its 2008 Official Certification of Nomination with a date of August 28, 2008. However, documented evidence shows that the DNC also authored a separate version of its OCON at a later time. One version was sent only to Hawaii containing specific wording which directly contradicted that state party’s Constitutional authority to declare that Barack Obama was not constitutionally eligible to serve as President and was, therefore, not approved for inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

12. Article IV-Section 4, Article IV-Section 1 and Article II-Section 1 of the Constitution grants sovereignty for certifying a candidate’s nomination and approving a candidate’s inclusion on each state’s presidential ballot to each state. The Democratic National Committee does not have the legal authority to supersede the sovereignty of Hawaii’s appointed authority to conduct election, approve ballot content and certify the nomination of candidates.

13. By intentionally contradicting the findings of Hawaii’s party authority for the purpose of forcing the state of Hawaii to include Obama’s candidacy on its ballot, the Democratic National Committee, headed by Nancy Pelosi, committed election fraud and violated the Constitutional right of the people of the state of Hawaii to an election process in which supreme power is held by the citizens and their entitlement to vote for Constitutionally eligible candidates.

14. The Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer by the DNC was not sent to any other state’s CEO.

15. Based on the authority given them by the Constitution, some states’ election laws do not require an explicit statement indicating a candidate’s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the Constitution, like Hawaii, but rather a general statement citing documentation that the candidate is qualified under federal law to serve as President and Vice President.

16. The DNC sent a different OCON to every other state omitting the reference to Constitutional eligibility.

17. Cronin sent written notification to Obama stating that Obama was found legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution based on the DNC’s OCON.

18. The Democratic Party of Hawaii and the Democratic National Committee do not agree with one another about the Constitutional qualifications of Barack Obama.

19. Cronin’s notifications have never been revealed to the public.

20. If the notification from Cronin to Obama stated that Obama was found not qualified to be on the Hawaiian ballot, Obama had five business days after the finding to send a written request for a hearing to contest the finding and reconcile his lack of eligibility with the DPH.

21. Upon receiving a request for a hearing from Obama, Cronin was obligated to schedule the hearing within 10 business days of receiving the request.

22. Hearings to contest candidate eligibility findings are conducted under Administrative Procedures governed by HRS AR 91.

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."

 

[HerbieHeadley]

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

"What in fact the territorial statute in effect before the 1982 statute sets out is an even greater latitude enabling and entitling persons to register a child for up to a year after its birth and to do so, if not attended by a locally licensed physician or midwife, for the parents or one of them to fill out the birth certificate or for a “local registrar” to fill out a birth certificate “from anyone having knowledge of the birth.”

Thus a child born outside of Hawaii and attended by a non-Hawaii licensed health care provider or born unattended could get a Hawaii birth certificate nonetheless."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57

 

[Tielec]

Its post #128, and the only thing there when I responded was what I responded to. He added everything else during an edit after my post. Not that that would have changed my response, however, since nothing he posted represents circumstantial evidence that would show the shooter was influenced by any of it. It is just as likely that the shooter was influenced to act by a stray candy wrapper on the floor (I lifted that line from revanneosl, I believe). So just because you wish to link certain people--Palin and the Tea Party--to this crime because of your own political bias is not the same as providing circumstantial evidence that links them. Sorry.

It seems possible that the violent rhetoric surrounding political language over the pond might have something to do with some of the high profile killings. I keep thinking of groups like Hutaree (sp?), the guy that murdered a doctor for performing abortions, and the current lunatic; those groups/people don't (currently) exist over here in Australia. The other thing I realise is that the victims are consistently on one side of the political spectrum (as far as you Yanks seems to see it). There might be counter-examples which I havn't heard of, but from what is reported here it seems as though one side might have more to answer for.

Now whether Sarah Palin and the tea party share any of the blame, I don't know.