GOV. NEIL ABERCROMBIE (D-HI) TAKES ON LT. GOV. BRIAN SCHATZ for CRIMINAL ELECTION FRAUD

© 2010 jbjd

Judging from the outpouring of articles and comments on those other blogs whose focus has included whether Barack Obama is a NBC, the overwhelming consensus is that the latest statements from Hawaii’s newly-elected Governor Neil Abercrombie concerning the President’s Constitutional eligibility to hold that office merely add to the subterfuge forestalling exposure of the fraud that tainted the election cycle of 2008.   But donning my ‘glass half full’ spectacles, I considered the utterances relating to his old pal Barry in a completely different light.

Rather, Governor Abercrombie’s recent pronouncements indicate to me, he believes no documents were available in the public record which could have provided a basis for the oath taken in 2008 by his Lieutenant Governor Brian Schatz, then Chair of the HI Democratic Party, to HI election officials guaranteeing then candidate Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the office of POTUS, which sworn statement was required under HRS  §11-113 before these officials could authorize his name to be printed on HI state ballots.  (See Memorandum of Complaint of Election Fraud against Brian E. Schatz, Chair, Democratic Party of Hawaii and Request for Investigation by Attorney General of Hawaii, in sidebar.)

Indeed, judging by his public displays of emotion when the subject is raised, I would say, having realized for the first time that his running mate is a crook, he also realizes by implication, people could consider him crooked, too; and the First Gentleman of HI is steamed! This would explain why the man has been desperately trying to get on the record as having played no part in the sordid affairs of his partner-in-crime, hoping that when the ‘fecal matter’ finally ‘hits the fan,’ his hands will remain clean.

If I am right that he is motivated by penal self-interest, this could be the basis for orchestrating a media saturation just weeks after being sworn in as Hawaii’s 7th Governor making unambiguously clear to numerous news outlets including the New York Times, the AP, and HawaiiNewsNow, citing a similar story in the LA Times, that he is legally prohibited from accessing Obama’s records in the custody of state agencies.   On the contrary, he promised to use his office as Governor to consult with the AG to seek out any legal means by which he could release Mr. Obama’s personal birth information. (Actually, I heard this admission as a ‘twofer.’  That is, on the one hand, confirming that even the Governor cannot access such records, he is reminding voters and law enforcement alike, he is not now (nor was he ever) in a position to rectify (or forestall) Mr. Schatz’s apparent misdeed. Simultaneously, he is pointing the finger directly at Mr. Schatz, begging the obvious question: ‘Since I cannot access these records, how on earth did you?’)

Having to work so closely with the man who likely committed criminal election fraud to fool state election officials into printing Obama’s name on the 2008 ballot, Abercrombie so far has demonstrated he can adeptly straddle the line between accuser and defender.  For example, in an apparent attempt to mitigate against the penalties Mr. Schatz could incur as the result of future prosecution, Abercrombie hinted at demonic possession as a possible defense strategy, citing events may have been influenced by forces from the “dark side.”

Now, I know that other Birthers are also hypothesizing various ‘coincidence’ theories in the timing of what they would characterize is the Governor’s whitewash campaign, for example, possible links to events related to the 2012 election cycle.  But I find Abercrombie’s pronouncements make complete sense merely in relation to his assuming the new office.  Keep in mind, until now, he was only a U.S. Representative, whose sole legal responsibility viz-a-viz Obama’s election was to ratify the procedural vote of the Electors.  Now, as Governor, according to the state constitution, he “shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws.”  State laws, that is.  Including HRS  §11-113.  Could just be that he takes this job seriously.

And  there’s something else I suspect motivating his campaign to ‘come clean.’

In addition to being confronted with the real life consequences of that legal axiom, “the buck stops here,” I imagine the septuagenarian is motivated to “do the right thing” by a panic all too familiar to men and women of a certain age, that is, that a defining event, in this case, implication in criminal election fraud, will become his legacy.

After all, what could be worse for anyone who has dedicated a lifetime to public service, than having one’s legacy in the end be likened to that of, say, Clark Clifford, eternally remembered for his involvement in the international banking scandal known as BCCI?

P.S.  I will tell you what I do find coincidental.  The complaints of election fraud filed by citizens of HI against then Chairman Schatz were addressed to AG Mark Bennett.  One week before Abercrombie and Schatz were sworn in, Mr. Bennett, having spent 7 (seven) years in the office of the AG, announced he was leaving to enter private practice.  http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13584825

Advertisements

19 Responses to GOV. NEIL ABERCROMBIE (D-HI) TAKES ON LT. GOV. BRIAN SCHATZ for CRIMINAL ELECTION FRAUD

  1. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Thank you for another great post, of all the different scenarios I did not think of this one-very perceptive.
    “After all, what could be worse for anyone who has dedicated a lifetime to public service, than having one’s legacy in the end be likened to that of, say, Clark Clifford, eternally remembered for his involvement in the international banking scandal known as BCCI?”
    “do the right thing” funny this thought was on my mind all day and you reminded me of it.
    I agree, if a person was a sincere public servant why would they want their legacy to be besmirched in any way shape or form nor be associated with those who would tarnish their own or anyone else’s good reputation?

    Michelle: Thank you. I wrote this article in part so as to demonstrate, I am as entitled to frame the ‘argument’ as the person who brought up the subject. I have been writing for more than 2 (two) years now that no documentation available in the public record establishes Obama is a C, let alone Natural Born. Abercrombie merely concedes my point. Now, we need to get the state A’sG to ask those D’s who swore he was eligible so as to get the state to print his name on the ballot, given this lack of evidence on the record, how on earth did you know?

    And please, pass on this article to those sites who have perhaps ‘misconstrued’ Abercrombie’s admissions. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Pete says:

    jbjd,
    I don’t agree. The damage Abercrombie, the Democratic Party, the state of Hawaii is too big to fathom. The gamble has been enormous, and the continued bluffs and distractions to prevent the facts from exposure will only grow. Abercrombie will play ball with the progressives and media to protect himself, because he (or family members) will end up with an unfortunate ‘accident’. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any of the progressives and liberals of this country having a conscience, and ‘doing the right thing’. Would we really be having this discussion if they did? Truly, how does one openly claim to be a British Subject at birth, after 1790, and become POTUS? Abercrombie’s antics are just another example of a liberal/progressive coward selling out their fellow citizens by blinding themselves with some grand future goal, while trying to find a personal ‘get out of jail card’ if it all goes wrong.

    Pete

    Pete: I chose to interpret Gov. Abercrombie’s statements in a light most positive to my understanding of the facts, notwithstanding several of my contemporaries in the blogosphere chose, instead, to contest those statements. For example, addressing his statements that he intends to meet with the AG so as to determine whether he can get Obama’s records released, several writers have generally opined, ‘If you want to get the records released, you could just ask your friend, Obama, to release them!’ Of course, they are correct; but offering up this kind of rebuttal lends unearned credibility to the false implication of his statement, which is, that he genuinely wants those records released in the first place! Since imbuing this meaning into his statement gives it more due than it deserves, instead, I took him at his word, literally. That is, since he said he would inquire with his (acting) AG as to the possibility of the release of records and, again, in light of the fact Obama could release those records at any time, and that he – the Governor – has no such authority; I opted to take his statement to mean, ‘I am not responsible for the withholding of such records.’

    I cannot believe that after 2+ years of this drivel, people are still trying to combat the lies of the wrongdoers. Instead, compel them, through such mechanisms as collective action, or prosecution for criminal election fraud, to ‘tell’ the truth.

    In short, I am trying to get people to shift the burden of proof and production.

    Neil Abercrombie is now Governor of HI. Citizens of HI have filed written complaints asked the office of AG to investigate charges that his Lt. Gov., Brian Schatz, committed criminal election fraud. As of this date, Mr. Schatz has refused to disclose the basis for his Obama Certification; and the AG has failed to compel him to answer. Interpret these facts so as to make them a millstone around Abercrombie’s neck.

    In other words, stop parsing his words but demand to know, instead, when his AG will address citizen complaints of election fraud against Brian Schatz! ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Your voices would sound louder if those blogs with much higher readership numbers than mine, including one whose owner has direct ties to HI, would join in promoting a large scale citizen action campaign aimed to compel the AG to investigate the citizen complaints. (Indeed, many more complaints would be filed if doing so was promoted on those other blogs.)

    • misstickly says:

      “P.S. Your voices would sound louder if those blogs with much higher readership numbers than mine, including one whose owner has direct ties to HI, would join in promoting a large scale citizen action campaign aimed to compel the AG to investigate the citizen complaints. (Indeed, many more complaints would be filed if doing so was promoted on those other blogs.)”

      Can I help? I don’t know how high my blog numbers are in comparison–but if there are any posts that I might cross post with attribution–I will be happy to.

      misstickly: Thanks for the offer. Let me figure out a strategy that makes sense… ADMINISTRATOR

  3. misstickly says:

    “Rather, Governor Abercrombie’s recent pronouncements indicate to me, he believes no documents were available in the public record which could have provided a basis for the oath taken in 2008 by his Lieutenant Governor Brian Schatz, then Chair of the HI Democratic Party, to HI election officials guaranteeing then candidate Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the office of POTUS, which sworn statement was required under HRS §11-113 before these officials could authorize his name to be printed on HI state ballots.”

    Excellent observation.

    misstickly: Thank you. I am only taking the Governor, at his word. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Papoose says:

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    this is a great read, and I found your writing to be amusing. I enjoy your take, here. all facts.

    I hope this article gets lots of attention, jbjd.

    Papoose: Thank you very much. I agree; I hope everyone shifts focus to Brian Schatz. After all, he is the person accused of committing criminal election fraud. Peripherally, the only attention I want focused directly on Abercrombie is this: ‘When you appoint a permanent AG, will you insist s/he pursues the charges lodged by several citizens of HI against your Lt. Gov. for swearing to state election officials Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the job of POTUS, as required under HRS, without first ascertaining whether he is a NBC?’ ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. As for getting a lot of attention, well, even FreeRepublic stopped posting my articles, when I wrote an article about then Congressional candidate Alan West which they determined was not sufficiently right of center (read, starry-eyed) for that site. So, I will have to count on readers like you, who ‘get it,’ to spread the word!

    P.P.S. HillBuzz stopped posting me when I pointed out, caucus fraud in TX (and elsewhere) was not illegal; and that people soliciting money for a movie about caucus fraud would have done better to put their money where their mouths are by working to end the unfair caucus system rather than just complain. Instead, these movie makers ignored the convention of the TDP in the summer of 2010, at which time D’s voted to continue the caucus process in 2012! TX newspapers called this a victory for Obama!

  5. Miri says:

    Very perceptive, jbjd. As usual. What an interesting take on Abercrombie. I didn’t consider that he’s now sitting in the governor’s chair and will still be sitting there come 2012, when it’s time for Hawaii to once again follow their own law and ensure that all candidates are eligible to be placed on the ballots. Not a comfortable place for Abercrombie, if he is indeed a friend of Obama’s. Follow the law, cya, and preserve your legacy, OR help a “friend”? What a conundrum.

    Miri: It’s so funny, in a reply I posted earlier, I began to discuss what could happen in the next election, but decided to wait. “Conundrum” doesn’t begin to describe what is up in the 2012 election cycle in HI. Remember, the candidate must be eligible to be on any ballot, including the primary. Wait till you see what’s up next… from “jbjd.” ADMINISTRATOR

    • Miri says:

      I can’t wait!

      Miri: Hint: the new article will explain why any new documents offered to establish Obama’s birth in HI are unlikely to be forthcoming, under the pains and penalties of federal law. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Michelle says:

    jbjd-you as usual are something else. Happy New Year by the way and your son also. I notice the word friend used with Obama/Abercrombie-no friend in my opinion would involve another in anything immoral, unethical, illegal, un-American nor suggest anything of that nature-that person would not be much of a friend-an enemy would be more appropriate because they are attempting to put the other person in an untenable position, not really a friendship more like an abusive relationship.
    “Conundrum” doesn’t begin to describe what is up in the 2012 election cycle in HI. Remember, the candidate must be eligible to be on any ballot, including the primary. Wait till you see what’s up next… from “jbjd.”

    Michelle: It has taken more than 2 (two) years but hopefully people finally ‘get’ that 1) all politics is local; and 2) the burden is never on the public to prove candidates are not eligible for public office but on the candidates to establish, they are.

    And anyone like Gov. Abercrombie trying to shift that burden, needs to be ‘put in his place.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  7. drkate says:

    jbjd…excellent and extremely perceptive article…as usual! 🙂

    So is the previous AG Bennett still subject to prosecution, or at least examination for not looking at the complaints?

    drkate: Thank you. No; whether to pursue a criminal investigation is a discretionary act. But why would the citizens of HI re-elect public officials who ignore the well-developed complaints of election fraud submitted to the office of the AG by their fellow citizens? I suspect, they could not possibly know the overwhelming circumstantial evidence establishes this fraud occurred. Certainly, without greater awareness, such fraud is likely to occur again. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Rlqretired says:

    jbjd – Glad to see in yesterday’s comments that you and misstickly might somehow start coordination of your excellent efforts in the future, where practical of course.

    I’m still working to get the Florida Legislature to pass legislation that will require the political parties to submit certified copies of their presidential candidates authentic birth records in order for their candidates names to be placed upon the ballot.

    Now that it has been discovered that the factcheck.org photographs of the state seal that is supposedly placed upon the Obama supplied so called birth certificate posted on his campaign web site is a provable fake, combined with the fact that Obama’s lawyers have referred to this online image and asked the courts to make this an official finding of the court as proof of Obama’s eligibility to be president, can be of significant help in convincing the willfully ignorant there is a serious national security problem here.

    My problem is that I can not remember exactly who it was that pointed this out nor in which case this point was specifically made by the Obama lawyers. I thought it was your site but I am not sure. If it was you who pointed this out, or you know a link to where it was posted, I would very much appreciate your assistance.

    Thanks very much
    Rlq

    Rlqretired: Hey there. Let me start at the end. Yes; the “jbjd” blog ‘outed’ the fact, in Hollister, Attorney Bauer asked the Honorable Judge Robertson to take judicial notice of the fact, his client had publicly produced a “birth certificate.” (See https://jbjd.org/2009/11/23/counsel-for-dnc-services-corporation-performs-3-card-monte-for-federal-court/ and https://jbjd.org/2009/10/27/bob-bauer-rumored-to-be-next-white-house-counsel-to-federal-court-f-you/ . However, he never explicitly told the court, this item could only be viewed with the aid of a computer screen (on a web site bought and paid for by the party legally responsible under the U.S. Code for funding such political advertisement https://jbjd.org/2010/06/26/press-bill-press/). I began characterizing Mr. Bauer’s request in that way.

    As for working with the FL legislature to require specific documents must be produced before the state (agrees to?) (may?) print the name on the ballot, well, I think you have put the proverbial cart before the horse. FL has no law currently requiring candidates who want the state to print their names on the ballot, must be eligible for the job. At at that point, that is, with a law on the books, the Executive official responsible for elections, in FL, the SoS; can promulgate the regulations necessary to carry out the law. This is where the hard work needs to be done. Voters need to get the SoS to write regulations that define eligibility. Thus, NBC can be defined as, say, born in the U.S. of citizen parents, with no break in citizenship status. If people don’t like this definition then, either don’t get your name printed on the ballot or take the state to court! (NOTE: NOT HAVING THE STATE PRINT YOUR NAME ON THE BALLOT DOES NOT MEAN, YOU CANNOT BE ELECTED TO THE OFFICE! VOTERS CAN STILL WRITE IN YOUR NAME! See, for example, U.S. Senator-elect Murkowski, in AK.)

    Taking the state to court to contest the definition of NBC it came up with for the sole purpose of excluding ineligible candidates from accessing state ballots; could be one of the few ways to get a legal (read, federal appellate court rendered) definition of NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Mick says:

      Fl. certainly does have an “eligibility oath for Federal Candidates” in it’s election statutes (Fl. SS 99.12- candidate oath). The political parties have usurped that oath w/ the Presidential Primary Selection Committee, where only a member of the candidates OWN PARTY can challenge a candidate, but no “eligibility check” is in place. 99.12 REMAINS on the books, and the Attorney General’s office says that the enactment of the PPSC makes the Federal Candidates oath obsolete for the office of President.
      State Law allows a taxpaying voter to challenge the results of an election however.

      Mick: Introducing ‘red herrings’ can only confuse readers who do not commit every word I write, to memory. I mentioned absolutely nothing about candidate oaths in FL; rather, I only reminded people what I had been posting here on the blog all along, about FL. Namely, no law in the Sunshine State requires candidates whose names appear on the ballot, to be eligible for the job. Sure, they must swear an oath; but, it is not the people swearing as to their own status who will expose whether the nominee of the political party is eligible for the job. (Especially if a concomitant law automatically allows the name of the Presidential nominee of the major political party to appear on the ballot. Or, if the candidate can register for the ballot directly through the party, as is the case in SC.) Rather, it is the person who submits the Certification of the nominee’s Nomination who will be liable to establish the basis for such ‘swearing.’ But only if the law requires the candidate to be eligible for the job, to appear on the ballot.

      ADMINISTRATOR

      • Mick says:

        The point is that the candidate must swear the oath, which specifically says that the candidate is “Constitutionally qualified” for the Federal office He/She seeks, sign off and be counter-signed by the Fla. AG. This leaves paper trail, and FOIA Act requests could find out what documents were used to verify eligibility. This oath is ignored in Fla, and is not taken. The political Parties have been bypassing Fl Election Law (the oath has not been repealed, nor have presidential candidates been excused from taking it by statute). They have merely instituted the PPSC, and taken the word of the Political Parties.
        There is also a Florida Statute that says any registered voter and taxpayer can challenge the validity of an election.
        No Red Herrings here.

        mick: In several states, the candidate must swear an oath. (The oath Obama swore in AZ in order to enter that state’s Presidential preference primary has been posted on the web since 2008.) I maintain that the problem with pursuing statements from the candidate for perjury or fraud is, he knows whether he is telling the truth. But we do not. That’s why from the beginning I advised, if you want to know whether he is eligible, ask the people who swore he was, how they knew. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Rlqretired says:

    jbjd – Thanks much for the links you provided to my specific request, they will be most helpful, however, I would like to make further comment disagreeing about getting the proverbial cart before the horse concerning my recommendation for corrective state legislation to require the political parties to provide certified copies of each candidates authentic original birth record in order for their names to be placed upon the election ballot. Today we have absolutely nothing to even examine, period.

    I am well aware that my state has no such law requiring constitutional eligibility and depends solely upon the political parties to properly vet the constitutional eligibility of their presidential candidates and, if the DNC had properly done just that, or my suggested legislation had been in place here in Florida, Obama would not be president today because he has no authentic birth record he is willing to make public. I don’t believe this country has drifted that far towards Marxism that we would knowingly elect a person to be President of these United States if the candidate was forced to run as a write-in candidate because they were unwilling to provide their party or the state with a certified copy of their authentic birth record. The mainstream media could no longer ignore such an event during the election cycle. Hillary instead would most likely be our president today.

    On the other hand, I see the final resolution of the Natural Born Citizen issue as a separate and much, much more complicated problem. It is my understanding that some of our most promising young Republican conservatives such as Gov. Bobby Jindel of Louisiana and Senator Elect Marco Rubio of Florida will not meet the true and historical definition of NBC and probably half of the citizens of this country don’t really care, both Republican and Democrat alike. Not a good prospect for passing new legislation here. This issue, as I see it, can and will only be resolved by the US Supreme Court.

    In the mean time this type of minimal and very simple corrective legislation is something that will be effective and can be done, hopefully, without great opposition.

    Thanks again for all of your help.
    Rlqretired

    Rlqretired: You are welcome. I guess I am just trying to implement a ‘one-size-fits-all’ fix so that we don’t have to keep revising laws to achieve the same result, that is, to make sure we only elect public officials Constitutionally eligible for the job. I would take political parties out of the mix altogether, with this one caveat. Mimicking the laws in TX, I would say that any public function performed by a state political party, such as Certifying that candidates whose names are submitted to appear on the ballot are qualified for the office; subjects the party officials to the same laws governing public actors, such as ‘FOIA’ type document requests; and, of course, Mandamus. (In other words, state party officials would have to produce on request those documents that were the basis for their candidate Certification and, if they refused, could be compelled to do so by a court action in Mandamus.) But this only works in a state that requires a candidate to be qualified for office to be printed on the state ballot.

    But, again, none of these ballot eligibility laws in one state or another will mean anything if the NPVI passes in enough states, thus compelling Electors in any one of these ballot eligibility states to cast their votes for the same candidate who received a majority of votes in any other non-eligibility states in the compact. (Some racket, huh!) HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK” ADMINISTRATOR

  10. rational person says:

    It’s my understanding that our president’s mother was a U.S. citizen, making her son a U.S. citizen no matter where he was born. In any case, the vast preponderance of evidence points to Honolulu as his birthplace. And there’s been no convincing evidence otherwise. Accept it and move on.

    rational person: Given that no documentary evidence exists in the public record Barack Obama is a NBC, your statement that the “vast preponderance of evidence points to Honolulu as his birthplace” is misplaced. Thus, claiming you “understand[]” anything about the truth of his lineage belies your chosen screen name. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Kim Bailey says:

    Citizens of HI have filed written complaints asked the office of AG to investigate charges that his Lt. Gov., Brian Schatz, committed criminal election fraud. As of this date, Mr. Schatz has refused to disclose the basis for his Obama Certification; and the AG has failed to compel him to answer. Interpret these facts so as to make them a millstone around Abercrombie’s neck.

    THE US CONSTITUTION RULES AMERICA, NOW AND FOREVER!
    Natural Born
    a.- Both Parents US Citizens
    b.- Born on US soil
    Obama was Born in Mombasa,Kenya
    His father was a Kenyan born man.
    WE MUST UNSEAT THE KENYAN PARASITE!

    Kim Bailey: Welcome to the blog. I edited out part of your comment so as to omit ‘facts’ not in evidence, such as where Obama was born or what is the definition of Natural Born; as well as name calling. (I managed to draft those citizen complaints of election fraud you reference, without either imagining where Obama was born or describing him in derogatory terms.) ADMINISTRATOR

  12. cali says:

    Following your posts, receiving updates by e-mail as you write them has literally opened my eyes, and for that I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
    Much is written on many sites, bits and pieces, and can be not only confusing, but also dishonest, or unworthy of further time reading them.

    Yours, and Dr. Kate’s sites are the most trustworthy ones I read, and follow in dedication.
    I agree with you, Abercombie-knowing Obamas grandfather etc., really believed he could clear this up so easily. He may bloviate a lot, but ran into an unexpected discovery, which clearly showed him in error he did not expected.
    I do believe him, when he couldn’t find any records on file, which he also shared with his friend Evans.

    Whether he, or Evans received a call, or threat from the power that be, the backtracking is un-believable. Evans even more so, during his interview on radio, his details, and extensive conversation with Abercombie, was the truth.
    There is NO BC on file! Evans denial is beyond that of a person who feels the ‘foot-in-mouth disease’. Claiming on one hand to be a longtime friend of the current Governor, to now backtracking stating ‘he spoke in error’, never having spoken with his friend at all concerning the BC issue is the most blatant proof that all is not right in the land of rainbows, and unicorns.
    Please keep up the good work, the continuation of this issue. i believe are are reaching a boilingpoint!

    cali: I am heartened to hear that you benefit from subscribing to this site. But you appear to have mixed up me and drkate when it comes to what we have said or written about Gov. Abercrombie’s public statements regarding any prior relationship with Obama and his family in HI. (“I agree with you, Abercombie-knowing Obamas grandfather etc., really believed he could clear this up so easily.”) I have only heard bits and pieces of this latest brouhaha with Mr. Evans’ account of his conversations with his friend, Gov. Abercrombie. I certainly have never commented on the substance of his remarks. I tend to discount any discussions as to whether documentation exists establishing anything about Obama’s provenance. My focus remains on this: given that the rest of us have been unable to ascertain through documentation available in the public record, that Obama is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS; how did those D’s who swore to election officials in applicable states, he was eligible for the job, ascertain he was a NBC?

    As for the Governor’s statements on taking office in December, he would search for a legal way to access Obama’s documents; well, people were concerned, this might be a precursor to ‘coming up’ with such documents. I posted the DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2). And, guess what? Now, he cannot ‘find’ any documents. Hmmm… ADMINISTRATOR

    • cali says:

      I apologose for being kind of vague-yes, I know that you, and Dr. Kate did not commentet or brought up the issue regarding Abercombie. I meant to say that this particular issue came up just recently, and was never part of anything you wrote.
      I should have been more specific.
      (while it is not meant an escuse, I still struggle at times with english, and get mixed with my home language)
      Please accept my apology!

      cali: Thanks for understanding… ADMINISTRATOR

  13. I was reading by means of a number of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this internet site is

    pc oscilloscopes: Your message was cut off. Was there more? ADMINISTRATOR

  14. HawaiiSurfer says:

    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 to WND 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.

    HawaiiSurfer: Welcome; and thank you for such a heartfelt comment. But your conclusions are wrong that the procedure exercised in HI in 2008 to produce the D Certification of Nomination, being different from previous years, by itself evidences wrongdoing. Seeing the link you provided which, presumably, contains support for your mistaken claims, it’s no wonder why you got it wrong. I have corrected this common often-repeated error several times both on this blog and elsewhere. First, an important point I wish you would learn and then, pass on.

    Whether a D Certification specifically says, “duly nominated,” or, “Constitutionally qualified,” is a distinction without a difference for the purpose of attesting to eligibility. Because the DNC Corporation rules say, the nominee must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. So, swearing he was “duly nominated” means, nominated according to the process due, meaning, according to our rules. The only difference is, in HI, the state law mandates specific language of eligibility.

    Now, here is a general explanation as to what really happened in HI in 2008 that lets Brian Schatz off the hook for that fraud which is supported by the allegations contained in your comment.

    Political parties operate on 2 (two) fronts: nationally and locally, that is, in the states. Before each Presidential election cycle, state parties must determine how to run the primary/caucus held in that state. Technically, this ‘playbook’ is called the delegate selection plan, since the purpose of the contest is to select delegates to attend the party’s Presidential nominating convention and vote for the candidate who will become the nominee for the party. The delegate selection plan includes, for example, how many citizen votes equal a pledged delegate; and a commitment to non-discrimination. How does the state party determine what it must include in the plan? The national party tells it.

    In previous years, that is, before the 2008 general election cycle, state plans, in accordance with national rules, assumed responsibility for carrying out any special laws enacted by the states with respect to, say, submitting the name of the party’s Presidential nominee, to the appropriate election official for placement on the ballot. For example, SC, like HI, requires candidates to be qualified for office to appear on the ballot. And, like HI, the law requires the party to write explicitly that these candidates are qualified for the job. But SC also requires candidates to register for the primary ballot through the state party; and, as a result, the certification of qualification for office (to get on the ballot) must come from the state party.

    Beginning in 2006, the DNC Corporation issued new rules for state delegate selection plans. From now on, any plan had to be submitted to the RBC Committee along with an addendum (which was not a part of the plan) containing any special state laws with respect to the electoral process. This included those state laws which, for example, require specific eligibility language in the Certification of Nomination; or, state laws requiring pledged delegates to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent, at the convention. (I dubbed these “vote binding states.”) And, beginning in the 2008 election cycle, these special state requirements were all handled at the national level. Thus, in 2008, DNC Corporation General Counsel Joseph Sandler sent the Certification for HI,to Brian Schatz, who forwarded this to the state election office, along with his cover letter.

    Scratch this explanation. I am posting an article containing a portion of BACK UP, BIRTHERS!, which I wrote way back in October 2010, explaining how you and others keep getting this wrong. 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

%d bloggers like this: