THERE COULD BE a LOGICAL EXPLANATION

© 2011 jbjd

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

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

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

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

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

I began responding to this comment when I realized, I had written all of this before. After a brief search I found BACK UP, BIRTHERS! which contained a well-developed explanation of the inconsistencies related to the 2008 HI Certification, none of which lends itself to a presumption of fraud, certainly not on a state level.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************

(beginning of excerpt)

Not understanding my work or the context of these Certifications, she, too, invented a cottage conspiracy industry related to the mistaken uniqueness of the HI Certification of Nomination, with a twist.  See, she uses the fact the DNC Certification of Nomination contains the line that Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job; to support her argument, the HI D Party refused to put that line in their state Certification because they knew Obama is not a NBC.  How does she know this?  Well, she retrieved both the DNC and the HI D Party Certifications for 2000, 2004, and 2008.  In 2000, the DNC document began without the eligibility line, which was obviously typed in after the original document was completed.  The HDP document in 2000 contained the same eligibility line.  In 2004, the DNC document did not contain the eligibility line; the HDP document did.  In 2008, the DNC document did; the HDP document did not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Actually, the 2008 documents butterdezillion posted on her blog in September 2010 are linked to this blog, http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf, where they were first posted almost 2 (two) years ago.  The date, January 06, 2009 01:17p in the upper left corner, designates a FAX transmission.)

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

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

Sincerely,

Kevin B. Cronin

Now that I see Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, Mr. Cronin’s answer makes even more sense.  That is, between his use of the singular “Certification”; and the delay between the date his letter was written and the date this was received by the HI Election Office’ it would make sense that the DNC gave the documents to the HDP who then forwarded these to the HI Elections Office.

When butterdezillion wrote her ‘seminal’ Certification article on September 10, 2010, she knew none of this.  Thus, based on her faulty assumptions about how the DNC and HDP letters of Certification reached the HI Election Office, she asks, “The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?”  And answered it with that contrived story.

A more plausible answer as to why the HDP did not add the line about Constitutional eligibility in 2008 like they had in 2004 and 2000 likely could come from anyone reading the work produced on my blog.  Here’s a hint:  what information highlighted in COUP (2 of 3) and (3 of 3) led to my conclusion, Obama and the DNC had identified which Clinton pledged delegates were from vote binding states?  Yep; it’s those state Delegate Selection Plans.  As I told you, provisions in the DNC Model Delegate Selection Plan for 2006 required, in order to obtain final approval from the RBC for state delegate selection plans for use in the 2008 election cycle, state parties were required to submit those plans to the RBC accompanied by all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf In this way, the DNC could monitor any idiosyncratic requirements in individual states so as to ensure Obama’s name would qualify to get onto every general election ballot.

I assumed this provision was not included in the 2002 DNC model delegate selection rules to be used in the 2004 election, and that’s why the HI state party (and, presumably, state parties in other states) handled their special Certifications on their own.  Finally, I had time to check my hypothesis; and I was right.

View this document on Scribd

In other words, where changes would be required in the language of the Certification of Nomination to satisfy the law of individual states, in 2006, the DNC began assuming responsibility for all such changes.

And that would explain why in 2008 the HDP did not certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office but the DNC did.

(end of excerpt)

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************

If your bona fide concern is shoring up the electoral process then, please, stop wasting time on ferreting out fraud and conspiracy where 1) none exists; and 2) this won’t make a difference to ensuring the next President is a NBC, anyway. And, do all of us a favor.  Stop buying into anything coming out of the hyperbolic factually vacuous blogs the links to which I continue to edit out on my blog!  Especially steer clear of any of those blogs which feature the people who have stolen and then, misrepresented the point of my work.  I wonder whether after yet another episode of emotional investment in a gambit which not only has no basis in fact but also was dispelled long ago on this blog; people will have become sufficiently angry to stop crediting another word from their ‘poison pens,’ anyway.

About these ads

5 Responses to THERE COULD BE a LOGICAL EXPLANATION

  1. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    My goodness gracious lady, where do you get your patience? Have to admire your sense of honor here, a healthy willingness to listen/hear others out in a respectful manner, but an unwavering propensity to set the record straight with facts while weeding out potential generalizations that may convey/lead to false conclusions. For clarification sake, jbjd, that last statement isn’t intended to cast any negative light upon “Butterdezillion’s” time consuming research or “HawaiiSurfer’s” legitimate concern for his/her country. It’s just to note that, yes, jumping to conclusions is not in the best interest of establishing absolute truth, but it’s encouraging that folks are exhibiting that they do care about open, clean and fair elections.

    Not sure what it means, and it could mean nothing at all, but Did you notice that in the year 2000, and 2004, the DNC filed Certifcations before the State of Hawaii, who in 2008 filed a day before the DNC? (====> quoted from above–”in 2000, the DNC Certification was dated 08.17.00; HDP 09.08.00. In 2004, DNC 07.29.04; HDP 08.31.2004. In 2008, DNC 08.28.08; HDP 08.27.08.” ) Shared this observation simply to point out that this doesn’t mean it suggests fraud or conspiracy, but there may be a logical explanation why during this election-cycle Hawaiii simply filed before the DNC. It’ll be interesting see who files first next Summer.

    Neverthless, jbjd, thanks for holding the line–not an easy task I’m sure–but like the person charged with the lone water-bottle while a ship is lost at sea, someone has to ensure that only one sip per shipmate is allowed until a rescue ship appears upon the horizon. Keep the faith, and thanks for your continued commitment to educating/informing us about promoting open and fair elections. Should our paths not cross again until after July 4th, here’s wishing you safe travels and a memorable holiday celebration.

    Al: To me, the salient point here was that, political parties qua structural organizations do nothing in isolation. That is, the state party has its duties and responsibilities because some hierarchy of organization says, this is what it is supposed to do. Again, I knew absolutely nothing about this structure before the 2008 election cycle. But, once I began to look into the operation of the D Corporation; I began to intuit certain conduct before I found these behaviors rooted in the operating manual. As I have written, having noticed the several anomalies in the HI D Certifications in December/January 2008/2009 which I previously described; I figured, there was a reason for these anomalies (like the ‘missing’ date of receipt from the HI election board on the letter from Joseph Sandler, DNC Corporation General Counsel, which accompanied the Certification; or for the additional wording of Constitutional eligibility in the Certification). That’s why I went looking for the DNC delegate selection plan in the first place; because I knew that ‘how’ these procedures are (supposed to be) carried out, are written down somewhere. Thus, when the latest ‘eligibility’ conspiracy theory hit the blogosphere, espoused, again, in hyperbolic ‘eureka-like’ rant; I knew exactly where to look – previous D delegate selection plans – to de-bunk it.

    As for your reference to my patience, well, what are the alternatives here? Some of us knew more about our electoral process than others; and used that superior knowledge to steal an election. Everyone has seen by now, I am good at figuring out complex fact patterns. In this way, I had hoped to educate a sufficient number of voters that, those of us who used superior knowledge to steal the power from the rest of us, would be unable to pull this off again. Yet, here we are, 3+ full years after we began; and I am still repeating the same solution: if you want to avoid election fraud in the future, concentrate on shoring up requirements to get on the ballot, in the states. (And stop wasting time ‘gossiping’ about who signed what, when. The fraud has already been exposed; that is, members of the D Corporation swore to state election officials that Obama is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS, in those states that require candidate eligibility to get on the ballot; before ascertaining whether he is a NBC.) However, as most people still don’t ‘get’ this simple route to solving the problem, what other choice do I have but to keep spelling this out to them? That is, of course, if my goal is really to increase the level of knowledge out there, and thereby level the playing field. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    No one has doubted your keen powers of observation and discernment, masterfully ferreting out fraud to get to the truth. Yes, it’s been 3+ years, and, understandably–it seems the playing field still needs leveling in terms of preventing further election fraud in the future. While some folks have concentrated their efforts upon vital records, and others, like yourself, are more concerned with promoting open and fair elections in the manner the Founding Fathers envisioned, the common denominator here, jbjd, is we all–in spite of some of the rhetoric and tactics–are guided by a genuine love for this nation (or, at least I loved to think that).

    Personally, I don’t care so much about the birth-certificate issue as much about how our fellow countrymen/women are feeling about a government they can believe in/trust. In my heart of hearts (<====sorry in advance if this expression usage is incorrect as I don't have access to the Urban Dictionary link you shared a few days ago, but hopefully you know what I mean), all of this divisiveness surrounding the controversial topic about Mr. Obama's legitimacy would immediately go away if he could show something more specific to the naysayers, but, unfortunately, as I've suggested, there seems to be a matter of privacy that is so sacred/important to him that this issue may linger for some time to come. Thus, the only alternative here is more patience. Patience with each other, and the faith that this lesson teaches us to hold the "powerbrokers" to a higher standard, essentially getting back to a system of "checks and balances" in all things in government for, of and by the people.

    Happy 4th of July, jbjd! Keep the faith!

    Al: Happy 4th of July to you, too.

    I have consistently steered clear of saying things like, ‘If only he would produce this, or that…’ What troubles me is that, my fellow citizens fail to recognize, any claims from Obama or his minions that, he has established his eligibility creds, case closed; is a scam. In other words, disregarding for now, whether Obama is a NBC; clearly, he said, people have doubts. And then, he posted an electronic image he claimed could not dispel these doubts. That is, notwithstanding he said it did, the image itself offered no evidence of eligibility – remember, this was only part of an electronic advertising campaign – but, even more incredible, he only said this offered proof he was a native, but not natural born as required under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution. Yet, to get into the D primary, he swore to state election officials he was a NBC. See, I kept listening to him; and his own words told me, he is perpetrating a fraud (in the generic sense).

    Or what about his light resume? One would expect that, a man with so little managerial experience would highlight his 4+ year stint as Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, funneling millions of dollars to Bill Ayer’s Small Schools Project. But nada. A candidate for President would not hide his managerial experience unless this would hurt his chances to be chief executive! See the conundrum? (Cites omitted; this is part of the public record.)

    As to eligibility, well, no laws require the Electors to only elect a President Constitutionally eligible for the job; that is, once the federal court weighs in on a definition of NBC, anyway. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    Yes, have to agree with your sharp & sensible assessment. At this point, whether he produces “this” or “that”, or even nothing at all, it’s pretty obvious and clear that most folks have already made up their minds in respect to how they feel about this controversial topic. Had the senior DNC leadership, Senator Harry Reid, then Speaker Nancy Pelosi, etc. cared as much as you do about ensuring the electoral process is as open and fair as possible, they may have demanded (maybe too strong a word here) that a plan-B was in place to shake/remove any lingering doubts, so the nation could at least be united without the present discord; however, in their self-absorded sense of “do as we say, not as we do” they may have overlooked one small fact/truth: the American people are sharp and pay more attention than they could have ever imagined. Oh, well, we live and learn. It’s time The People reassert whose in charge of this great country’s destiny (thanks for your patriotism lady). Back next week to learn some more from a pretty good teacher. Safe travels!

    Al: “…the American people … pay more attention than they could have ever imagined.” That says it all; except for one thing. I would add the phrase “…the rest of” when describing the American people. Because those of us who subverted the system; and those of us who were duped by this subversion; and those of us who purport to be trying to set the record straight; and we who are trying to set the record straight; are all equally American. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Mick says:

    Again, a circular firing squad you present. If there is no judiciable definition of natural born Citizen, as you say, then how can the Secretary of State of any state verify whether a POTUS candidate is eligible? As usual, many words in this post saying nothing, except the whining about someone stealing your “work”.
    How about this definition, straight from SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Pretty plain to most people with any sense.

    Mick: I have incorporated your comment into a post, as you are not the only person who keeps getting this wrong; or keeps belittling those of us, including the SCOTUS, for getting this right. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: