Over 100 FREE Online Calculators

Friday, June 4, 2010

An objection to Hawaiian electorial votes should have taken place in Jan 6, 2009

The second form appears identical, although the signatures are different, including the same strategic typographical error. But in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is included.

Hawaiian DNC document.

3 USC 15 - Sec. 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors.

The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer.

Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

Why didn't at least one US Senator and one US Congressman call for an objection to the electorial votes? What states would they have objected to? Could the objection have been to question the natural born citizenship of obama?

The state that should have had its electorial votes objected to was Hawaii.

Hawaii was the only state in the United States that was certified by the DNC, to comply with Hawaiian law, that obama was a natural born citizen. No other state was certified by the dnc that obama was a natural born citizen except Hawaii.

An objection to require the dnc to explain how obama was certified a natural born citizen for Hawaii only.

Only the dnc knows how they certified obama a natural born citizen for the State of Hawaii only.

When officals in Hawaii state obama is a natural born citizen, they could be referring to the dnc certificate of nomination.

The dnc certificate of nomination for Hawaii was different for Hawaii only.

This should have been objected to by every other state in the union.

Every other state in the union was given a certificate of nomination that did not state obama was a natural born citizen. Certification was “implied” only. Other states don’t require certification of constitutional standing for office. Only Hawaii has a state statute requiring such language.

Hawaii was an exception. The dnc had to comply with hawaiian law in 2008 to get obama on the ballot.

The dnc certified obama as a natural born citizen. Obama was certified as a natural born citizen in one state only, Hawaii.

I find this extremely strange.

The only proof Hawaii has that obama was a natural born citizen is the fact the dnc provided that state with a unique certificate of nomination in 2008.

This is what obama and the dnc don't want you to know.

1. Why did the DNC certify Obama’s eligibility only in Hawaii?
2. Why did no state DNC office, DNC elector, or Election Commission office catch it?
3. Since the DNC made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
4. Without any such certification, isn’t it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen?”
5. Why did the DNC use TWO different docs, one incomplete, when the RNC used the same complete doc nationwide?
6. On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
7. Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
8. When will every American demand answers to these and many more questions?

The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not just one. One of those documents had complete legal language, for Hawaii, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, for the other 49 states.

The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of president is the version that was filed with every state in the country, except Hawaii.

The fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was under way, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful.

The documents show the "Official Certification of Nomination" of Obama, of "5046 South Greenwood Avenue" in Chicago and Joe Biden, of "1209 Barley Mill Road" in Wilmington, Del., as the party's candidates.

They were signed by Pelosi as chair of the Democratic National Convention as well as Alice Travis Germond, the secretary of the Democratic National Convention at its nominating meetings in Denver a year ago.

They were notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson of Denver.

I would like all the "naturals" as I call them to tell a "birther" why this is not election fraud.


When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.

But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.

When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted.

No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

Read more:


TellerIP said...

Like the Democrats, the Republican Party also used different forms for different states, and for both parties this was not the case only in this election but has been the case in many elections.

Story Reports said...

You admit the democrats and obama committed election fraud. Then you claim the republicans did the same thing.

You are again covering up for the fraud that was comitted by obama.

The RNC used one universal certification document which included full certification of constitutional eligibility in every state, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.

TellerIP said...

Since Obama was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows and as was confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, it was not election fraud. Obama's election was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.