DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2)

©2011 jbjd

Introduction

Businesses marketing their goods on television in the ’50s often included fun gimmicks in their advertising campaigns so as to disguise to impressionable consumers that what they were watching, whether broadcast as a feature program or as a word from the sponsor,  were essentially commercial vehicles designed to sell products.  For example, the children’s serial, “Captain Midnight and the Secret Squadron” promoted the sale of Ovaltine® through the introduction of secret de-coder rings, which could help the viewer to decipher the puzzle offered up weekly by Captain Midnight.  To obtain this de-coder ring, you just had to join the Secret Squadron.  And to do that, “First, get a jar of the official Secret Squadron drink, delicious chocolate flavored Ovaltine®, the food drink for rocket power.  Then cut out the wax paper disc that covers the Ovaltine® jar.  And send that disc with your name and your address to Captain Midnight.”

(For an interesting history in the chronology of the product and the companies that owned it, see http://www.google.com/search?q=ovaltine+history&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=ovaltine+history&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ahq&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=HbQfTaDWD8H68AaM8ZHdDQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CHMQ5wIwCg&fp=bdddfab3d4d782f2.)

The bad news is, “DE-CODER RINGS” won’t be sending out any such costume baubles.  But the good news is, it provides you, instead, with a ‘gimmick’ that is genuinely priceless.  Because it will enable you to decipher the true nature of those familiar images which are part of the brilliantly conceived and phenomenally successful sales and advertising campaign that gave us Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, under various iterations including (in chronological order) “Barack Obama”; “Obama for America”; and “Organizing for America, a product of the Democratic National Committee” (“DNC”).  Plus, you won’t have to send me your personal information before obtaining this Rosetta Stone.  Nope; you just have to read some selected provisions of the U.S. Code.

So, what is the U.S. Code, anyway?  Here’s the definition on the web site of the Government Printing Office (“GPO”):  “The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.”  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/ In other words, the U.S. Code is the systematic compilation of all of the federal civil and criminal laws of the land.

DE-CODER RINGS is presented in two (2)  parts.  Part (1 of 2) addresses what the Code has to say about the legal nature of electronic political advertising campaigns like the one copyrighted and commonly known as “Fight the Smears,” and begins a discussion of the legality of posting on these political advertising sites images such as the Certification of Live Birth (“COLB”) which appears on various named internet sites carrying that ad campaign.  Part (2 of 2) completes the discussion of the criminal implications of producing and distributing the electronic image of that COLB and then compares and contrasts the legal implications of presenting such an electronic image, with the laws that would apply to any future production and/or transfer of hard copy images of either an officially released COLB or an actual Birth Certificate.

As you read DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2), notice that the key to unlocking the legitimacy of political advertising, whether in the form of electronic images or hard copy, cannot be found by micro-analyzing the minutia of its visual presentation, but in realizing that the production and transfer of either electronic images or hard copy documents by anyone, whether in conjunction with a political ad campaign is likely governed by and, therefore, inextricably linked to maintaining compliance with provisions of the U.S. Code.

Discussion of the Federal Laws Governing Paid Political Advertising

In June 2008, Barack Obama, then still struggling to bamboozle Democratic voters (and the rest of the country) into buying into the meme that with the primary/caucus contests ended, there was no way Hillary Clinton could possibly still win the D Presidential nomination; publicly launched “Fight the Smears” (“FTS”), the web site his supporters had prepared several months earlier.  Admittedly, part of the reason he and his marketing team were flailing miserably is that rumors had surfaced questioning whether he was even Constitutionally eligible to become the President.  So, on June 12, FTS was publicly launched, putting his name – literally – on this electronic platform containing an image imprinted with the title, “Certification of Live Birth,”  which image both the candidate and others associated with his quest for the nomination claimed was his “Certificate of Live Birth.”

(Here is an interesting side note.  When I posted COUP (1 of 3) way back in August 2010, I posited that while only publicly unveiled in June 2008, FTS had been conceived and concocted well in advance.

For months now, rumors had been swirling that Obama was not Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a “natural born” citizen, one of three requirements listed in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Then Communications Director Robert Gibbs (now WH Press Secretary) had come up with a seemingly brilliant on-line advertising campaign under the banner, “Fight the Smears,” designed to counter these mounting speculations.  The focal point of the ad campaign was an image of a mock-up “Certification of Live Birth,”  listing Obama’s place of birth as “Hawaii.”  (It was even appropriately redacted so as to give the appearance of protecting the candidate’s privacy.)  Ad copy accompanying the image reassured the public, this proves he is a “native” citizen.  At the bottom of the page, in the footer, appeared the sort of attribution required by the U.S. Code for all political advertising expenditures:  “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.”

Designing a political ad campaign such as “Fight the Smears” ‘to be used only in case of emergency’ was one thing; but actually rolling it out was another.  Because its success gambled on the truth of this one contemptuous statement:  American voters are too stupid to know that there’s a difference between “natural born”  and “native”; and that “Fight the Smears” is nothing more than a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, anyway.  Understandably, the Obama team held back on the nuclear “Fight the Smears” option for as long as it could.

By obtaining the computer source code for that FTS page, loyal “jbjd” reader “azgo” proved I was right.  (“I use Firefox as my search window, I press down on the icon on the left side of the address bar at the top of the window. A box appears with a “More information…” button, then I click and get the “Page Info” window as you see below.”)   Pay special attention to lines 8 and 9.)

Advertising copy on the FTS campaign launch asserted once and for all, this electronic image of the COLB would “fight” the “smears” that the man who would be President of the United States was not a Natural Born Citizen by “prov[ing]” he is “native” born.  (I know, this made no sense on its face, as the Constitutional language in that one provision pertaining to eligibility – Article II, section 1 – does not state that being a “native” “citizen” confers eligibility but only being a “citizen” who it describes is “natural born.”)  I have been characterizing FTS as paid political advertising that was only designed to persuade consumers to buy (into) the product (candidate) Barack Obama.  As evidence of this claim the web site is nothing more than political advertising, I pointed out the ever-changing accreditations in the footer of the site, which changing credits correspond to Obama’s altered political status – nominee wannabe -> nominee -> President-elect/President – as required by the U.S. Code.

Let’s further examine the legality of what we already know about the contents of FTS, in light of that Code.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I, dealing with federal campaign funds.

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

  • § 431. Definitions
  • § 432. Organization of political committees
  • § 433. Registration of political committees
  • § 434. Reporting requirements
  • § 437. Reports on convention financing
  • § 437c. Federal Election Commission
  • § 437d. Powers of Commission
  • § 437f. Advisory opinions
  • § 437g. Enforcement
  • § 437h. Judicial review
  • § 438. Administrative provisions
  • § 438a. Maintenance of website of election reports
  • § 439. Statements filed with State officers; “appropriate State” defined; duties of State officers; waiver of duplicate filing requirement for States with electronic access
  • § 439a. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes
  • § 439c. Authorization of appropriations
  • § 441a. Limitations on contributions and expenditures
  • § 441a-1. Modification of certain limits for House candidates in response to personal fund expenditures of opponents
  • § 441b. Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations
  • § 441c. Contributions by government contractors
  • § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations
  • § 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
  • § 441f. Contributions in name of another prohibited
  • § 441g. Limitation on contribution of currency
  • § 441h. Fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority
  • § 441i. Soft money of political parties
  • § 441k. Prohibition of contributions by minors
  • § 442. Authority to procure technical support and other services and incur travel expenses; payment of such expenses

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_14_20_I.html

But trust me, by applying just the following select sections of the Code involving political advertising funding credits, to “FTS,” you will begin to develop an understanding as to the interplay between law and practice.

  • § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations
(a) Identification of funding and authorizing sources

Whenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 434 (f)(3) of this title), such communication—
(1) if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or [1]
(2) if paid for by other persons but authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and authorized by such authorized political committee; [1]
(3) if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

“azgo” volunteered this U.S. Code reference prototype to simplify your analysis.  (Just a word of caution.  By citing to particular provisions found in the Code, I am not claiming that these exclusively govern political campaign advertising.  I merely intend to illustrate the point that, an explanation underlying the advertising copy visible on the screen, can be found in the Code.) The quoted accreditations appeared in the footer of the FTS web page, evolving along with the corresponding political status of Barack Obama, in parentheses.  The provision of the Code satisfied by that wording follows.

  1. “Paid for by Barack Obama” (D Presidential nominee wannabe) = complies with § 441d. (a) (1).
  2. “Paid for by Obama for America” (nominee) = complies with § 441d. (a) (2).
  3. “Paid for by Organizing for America, A Project of the Democratic National Committee, 430 South Capital Street SE,Washington, D.C., 20003.  THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE” (Emphasis added by jbjd) (President-elect and President) = complies with § 441d. (a) (3).

Okay, get that?  Based on this rudimentary analysis of the disclosure of its funding sources, the electronic political advertising platform called FTS meets the legal requirements spelled out in this section of the U.S. Code.  Yep; nothing in this section of the law requires that what is said in these publications or solicitations must be true.  It just says, you have to disclose who is paying for the words.

So, does this mean, the Code condones the “production,” “transfer,” or “possession” of any document incorporated into such political advertising, including a mock-up or image thereof of any documents advertisers variously claim is either an official “Certification” or  “Certificate” “of Live Birth”?  Hardly.  Only, that’s not dealt with in Title 2 of the Code but in Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part I, Crimes, Chapter 47, Fraud and False Statements, §1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information.

This aspect of the legality of conduct related to political speech will be covered in DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Freedom costs.

U.S. Code, Title 2, Congress; Chapter 14, Federal Election Campaigns; Subchapter I, –
Disclosure of Federal Campaign Funds;
 

§ 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations(a) Identification of funding and authorizing sourcesWhenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 434 (f)(3) of this title), such communication—(1)  if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or (2)  if paid for by other persons but authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and authorized by such authorized political committee; [1](3)  if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.”


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000441—d000-.html

The following credit communications on “’Fight the Smears” web page evolved from the time the candidate was a competing candidate to the present credit communication paid by the national political party.

1. Credit Communication: Barack Obama 2008

 

Paid for by Barack Obama 2008. All Rights Reserved


The communication credit from the candidate’s original campaign web site.
– Complies with U.S. Code § 441d. (a) (1).

2. Credit Communication: OBAMA FOR AMERICA 2008

PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA 2008.  All Rights Reserved


The credit communication evolved to a new name when the candidate became the presidential nominee of the national party.
– Complies with U.S. Code § 441d. (a) (2).

2. Credit Communication: ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA

PAID FOR BY ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA,
A PROJECT OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE – – 430 SOUTH CAPITAL STREET SE,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003. THIS COMMUNICATION
IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR
CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE.


The credit communication evolved to a new name when he became the presidential nominee of the Democratic party.
– Complies with U.S. Code § 441d. (a) (3).

The ‘Fight the Smears’ web page with the birth document image, statements and solicitations has been and is presently a paid public political advertisement which conforms to Chapter 14, Federal Election Campaigns, § 441d.

(Note: The publications and distribution of statements and solicitations of this law are not required to be a geuine identification document or false identification document.  In other words, this law does not require the information on the web page to be factual.)

Therefore it is safe to say;

THE ‘FIGHT THE SMEARS’ WEB PAGE IS A LAWFUL PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT.

Advertisements

19 Responses to DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2)

  1. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Thank you for this posting as a NBC Chicago and life long Democrat until these election frauds of 08 I cannot thank you enough for getting at the truth. How a city and a party could have fallen this low is beyond me. I am reminded of all of the honest, loyal, hard working people of Chicago, visits to Hines Veterans Hospital folks who paid with life and limb for our country and for them to be treated like this, I cannot put into heartbreaking words . All I can say is “In God we Trust” and so do I. You honor all of your fellow Americans by diligently searching out the truth, applying your wonderful mind and talents to this endeavour, which I’m sure cannot be too easy, so bless your heart and thank you again for all that you do.
    I think this scam was inspired by Richard Gere in Chicago Chicago – Razzle Dazzle

    Michelle: Ha, I was going to include the link to the song, but here it is! Know why they ‘gave us the old razzle dazzle’? Because it worked. And it’s been working for well over 2 (two) years now. Worse, it not only won the WH but also proved economically prolific to the ‘loyal opposition,’ who have sprouted a cottage industry on (intentionally?) not figuring out the ways in which they were successfully duped, and how to redress the harm, both committed in the past and yet to be committed in the future. Win/win. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Rlqretired says:

    Jbjd – Excellent work that average folks can understand, if they just cared enough to take the time to read it and that is our problem that has allowed the mainstream media and all others in positions of authority to ignore your and others fantastic work.

    On the other hand EVERYONE quickly grasps the words, “HAWAIIAN STATE SEAL ON OBAMAS CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH IS AN IRRIFUTABLE FAKE”.

    I sure hope you include, in part 2, the use of this approach to better gain the publics interest, media attention and those in position of authority with the power to officially investigate the accuracy of your work and those involved pulling this off, the biggest con job of the century. To me and others, it’s a national security issue and we need new legislation that makes this a crime of the highest level.

    The congress or perhaps just the chairman of a committee may be able to simply write the proper authority in Hawaii and request a certified copy of the real COLB to accommodate an investigation of your work in order to determine if new corrective legislation is required to make this a crime when used to satisfy the eligibility of a public official.

    As you have noted, in Hollister, Attorney Bauer asked the Honorable Judge Robertson to take judicial notice of the fact, his client (Obama) had publicly produced a “birth certificate”.

    Keep up the good work
    rlq

    rlq: OMG, you and azgo, separately and independently, have hit upon a possible solution to candidate authentication ONCE LAWS ARE IN PLACE REQUIRING 1) ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES QUALIFIED FOR OFFICE MAY BE PRINTED ON BALLOTS; and 2) ELECTORS MAY ONLY ELECT A PRESIDENT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB. (I will clarify soon…) Because what I hope everyone keeps in mind when examining the on-line political advertising campaign called FTS is this: no provision of any law requires that Electors only elect a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Thus, electing an ineligible President is not illegal. (On the other hand, swearing to state election officials a candidate is qualified for office without ascertaining beforehand whether he is, because such eligibility is a legal prerequisite to getting his name on the ballot, is a crime.)

    Yes, DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2) addresses the issue of a seemingly official seal appearing on a document visible in the electronic ad campaign of a political committee. But it ignores whether the particular seal appearing on the COLB in FTS is the official seal of HI. Because as I indicated in (1 of 1), micro-analyzing the physical characteristics of an online ad campaign cannot possibly result in a credible conclusion as to their authenticity. However, being able to explain to your elected officials that under the U.S. Code, FTS is only an on-line political ad campaign and any ‘documents’ visible therein do not constitute “official” verification of any facts alleged; provides insurance (and notice) that, in the future, you (and they) will not be so easily duped.

    Yes, (2 of 2) uses several more words. Some issues do not lend themselves to brevity. Especially when it comes to determining whether an argument can be made as to the legality of certain conduct, based on applicable law. Because many of the words used are “terms of art,” meaning, they are defined by sections of the laws in which they are used, and not by our common or, lay understanding. As to whether people take the time to understand these articles, well, I only lay out the information; I cannot compel people to read what I write (or to post my materials on other sites so as to expand their use), or to ask questions when the meaning is unclear. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, saw this article, and wanted to make sure you were aware of it.

    thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.html

    bob strauss: Thank you for sending this to me, notwithstanding its contents, from both a ‘factual’ and legal perspective, are pure garbage.

    Some time ago now, I addressed mistaken claims made on another blog that, given the similarity of circumstances in place for the 2000, 2004, and 2008 general election cycles, the only reasonable conclusion is that Brian Schatz refused to sign a Certification of Obama’s Nomination. I explained, in detail, the circumstances were quite dissimilar. That is, according to rules promulgated by the DNC’s Rules and By-laws Committee, in 2008 the RBC was responsible for ensuring compliance with the disparate ballot laws of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Thus, in 2008, in states like HI, which required specific ballot language, the DNC and not the Hawaii Democratic Party signed the Certification (which was then forwarded to HI election officials via the HDP).

    I have also corrected several times previously, the mistakes which appear in this article. Especially, I have rebutted this lie: ‘only HI required specific eligibility language to get the name of the candidate on the ballot.’ WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. See, for example, BACK UP, BIRTHERS!

    Indeed, the claims made in the article you forwarded are not only mistaken; they appear to be intentionally so. Ever since September 2009, when JB Williams stole work I had amassed here on the “jbjd” blog, displaying the differences in the Certifications of Nomination that were submitted to state election officials; he has been shoveling out a mutated version of my postings which, unlike my work product, contained several material errors. And, he could never correct those errors in his stolen work or, otherwise, he would be admitting his theft. This article in the newly hatched ‘dailypen’ reminds me of his tripe, hyperbolic revelations, misstatement of facts, and all. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. bob strauss says:

    jbjd said;”Indeed, the claims made in the article you forwarded are not only mistaken; they appear to be intentionally so.”

    This really caught my attention. How widespread is this fraud? Between the forgeries and the cover up of all the lies it’s impossible to know what is real and what is created to cover up the fraud.

    thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/exposing-obamas-psyops-agents-and.html

    bob strauss: You misread my intent. What I meant is, the author of the article you previously sent me appears to be intentionally making mistakes in his work. For example, he repeats the lie that only HI requires explicit language as to the nominee’s qualification. I have informed readers repeatedly, this is a lie, and shown readers that SC requires explicit Certification, too. So, the fact that he repeats this lie indicates to me, the author is intentionally misleading readers. And I offered this up as a possible explanation as to why anyone would intentionally mislead readers in this way: people who steal work and misstate the findings of that work, cannot correct any mistakes without giving away the fact, they stole the work in the first place.

    For example, BEFORE I found SC’s Certifications, the only Certification in my possession that required explicit language was the form from HI. And, I said that, on my blog. This work was then stolen and re-published under the name of the thief, JB Williams. Then, I obtained the documents from SC, which also requires explicit Certification language, and updated my blog post to reflect I had found another state requiring explicit language. Now, the thief had a problem. Remember, he had stolen the work BEFORE I published the update. In addition, he was confronted with that theft. At that time, he insisted alternatively 1) he had received my work anonymously; and 2) on his own, he conducted research, contacting election officials in all 50 states and receiving Certifications in their possession. Of course, these were lies, too. But now that I updated the original post mentioning only HI, which he had stolen; this meant, he could not update his stolen work to reflect the more recent information on SC; without exposing his original theft of my work! So, he decided to continue publishing the false statements of ‘fact’ that only HI required explicit eligibility language, thus intentionally misleading readers rather than expose himself as the charlatan he is! ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    Please add my sentiments to the chorus of admiration and support for all you do to enlighten your fellow citizens. Keep up the great work, and hopefully 2011 brings some answers to this mystery, essentially a power-play thrust upon the American people without regard for 15 minutes of good-faith to demonstrate how and why. Time will tell; meanwhile, hat tip to you and others who know the difference between a level playing field and a stacked deck.

    Al: The answer to the seminal question is clear. That is, in those states where qualification for office is the prerequisite to getting the state to print the candidate’s name on the ballot, “On what documentary basis did you ascertain Barack Obama was a natural born citizen before swearing to state election officials he was, in order to get them to print his name on the ballot?” And the answer so far is, silence. Or, in the case of Attorney Joseph Sandler, then General Counsel to the DNC Services Corporation, ‘We are not a state agency and so, we don’t have to tell you.’ (See, for example, THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE.)

    I have been diligently working at this task for more than 2 (two) years and it is clear to me, the ‘information’ deck is not now nearly as stacked as it was in 2008. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. […] DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) provided a more sophisticated legal analysis of simple charges I first raised on this blog in 2008 when I advised people investigating Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS to ignore information posted on the web site “Fight the Smears” (“FTS”), which is just a paid political advertisement.  Now, by taking the facts available in the public record, including that FTS was copyrighted in 2007, and correlating these public facts to specific provisions of the U.S. Code; I spelled out that FTS was devised to promote and support the candidacy of Barack Obama, first, as the Presidential nominee wannabe of the D Party and then as its nominee; and is now used by the DNC Corporation to sustain the image of its current President (and, perhaps to promote and support his future run for office).   But the legal analysis offered in that article still left this question unanswered. Even assuming the COLB posted on FTS was only created as a feature of that on-line advertising campaign; is its appearance on that site proscribed by law? […]

  7. Miri says:

    jbjd: I have one simple question for you, because you’re the only person with legal background that I know: In the Daily Pen article, cited above by Bob Strauss, the author contends that Hawaiian law gave Kevin Cronin the authority to (if I understand correctly) unilaterally decide to place an arguably ineligible person’s name on the Hawaiian ballot, because there was a (presumed) dispute between the state and national parties about which names should go on the ballot. Putting aside all of his suppositions (which assume facts not in evidence) is his reading of that statute, HRS 11-113(b), correct? In the case of a dispute, can Kevin Cronin simply make the decision himself (secretly, I may add), whether or not the person is known to be ineligible or despite that the eligibility is being questioned? Thanks so much, and I understand if you don’t want to get into it.

    Miri: I already reviewed the article; garbage in, garbage out. Facts available in the public record evidence no confusion in HI at all, no matter how many conspiracy theories abound, on however many blogs. In 2006, rules promulgated by the DNC R&B Committee for state delegate selection plans shifted to them the responsibility for satisfying the legal requirements of the several states, to get the name of the candidate on the ballot. In 2008 Brian Schatz, then Chair of the HI D Party, provided state election officials with the requisite paperwork to get Obama’s name on the state ballot, forwarding the Certification of Nomination signed by both Nancy Pelosi qua Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention; and Alice Germond, Secretary of the DNC, stating Obama is their Presidential nominee and explicitly writing he is Constitutionally qualified for office, along with his cover letter.

    Why are people still conjuring up fairy tales to ascribe responsibility to Obama’s election? We failed to enact any laws that required Electors to elect only eligible candidates, meaning, they have every right to elect someone Constitutionally ineligible for the job. We enacted laws mandating Electors elect the nominee of the party without demanding any Constitutional qualification. In those states that require ballot eligibility, we failed to persuade state A’sG to investigate our charges of election fraud. Some of us refused to publicize these state citizen complaints conceived and drafted by “jbjd” in the first place because “jbjd” objected to the fact, we support the ‘work’ of the person who steals her intellectual property, and to the publication that promotes this work stolen from her. Or refuse to organize a citizens’ campaign to persuade the HI AG to ask Brian Schatz on what documentary basis he was able to ascertain Obama is Constitutionally qualified for office, again, because we are not fond of “jbjd.” Whatever…

    Solutions to the major problems that plagued the 2008 election cycle are all over the “jbjd” blog. For free. If people really want to clean up the electoral process, the information throughout this blog tells them how. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Miri says:

      I’m fond of you, jbjd. 🙂 Thanks for answering. I thought as much but without a legal background, I couldn’t argue responsibly; I could just guess.

      Miri: How very kind of you to say; I’m fond of you, too.

      Just to make sure everyone understands, yes, in HI, the method of submitting to election officials the name of the Presidential nominee from the major political party (D) appears to be different in 2008 from previous years. THIS DOES NOT SUPPORT A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY BASED ON A CLAIM, BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A NBC! Rather, D rules as to who is responsible for candidate Certification, changed. The HI state party nonetheless satisfied state law, effectively concurring with the choice of nominee of the national party when it submitted both ‘Certifications,’ that is, a cover letter confirming the nomination of the man named in the accompanying document signed by the DNC. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. […] associated with the production, transfer, possession, and use of identification documents – DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2) – should be incorporated into state law, for this reason.  […]

  9. kathy says:

    your good

    kathy: Thank you. Now, pass it around. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. […] FTS paid political advertisement, the one with the identifying index number prominently redacted. DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 […]

  11. […] the D nomination before the D Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  And in that same electronic advertising campaign, he posted the red herring argument about the 14th Amendment, couching it in racial terms, perhaps […]

  12. […] of which, whether true, is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. See, for example, DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2); and be sure to read the […]

  13. […] posting DE-CODER RING (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RING (2 of 2), I had hoped to forever dispel for the benefit of my readers the notion […]

  14. […] I have made clear for some time now, I have determined, that’s what it is. See, for example, DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2) and WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a […]

  15. […] January 3, 2011, I posted DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2), which confirms that under the U.S. Code, images such as Barack Obama’s COLB appearing on his […]

  16. […] the Presidential candidate eligibility issue on such things as privileged private documents or paid political advertisements. As I told you way back in the summer of 2008; it’s all about getting on the ballot. Trust […]

  17. […] between a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority (DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2)) and a paid political announcement; and explained this difference so as to inform the […]

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: