It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama

page: 12
137
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I keep running across claims that this is proof that Nancy Pelosi falsified the documents that do contain the Constitutional language because Obama hasn't released his long form Birth Certificate and therefore she couldn't have ever seen it to verify it. So, she's lying...

This is exactly the kind of thinking that's causing people to jump the gun. Sure, it's POSSIBLE that Pelosi lied and falsified documents. But there are more likely conclusions to draw:

1. Obama does have a copy of the long form in his own possession from his youth (as I have - from back when they gave out long form copies). To my knowledge, he has never said that he doesn't have a copy of the long form. It's entirely possible AND plausible that he took it out of his drawer, and showed it to Pelosi, but isn't willing to post it on the Internet.

2. Obama showed Pelosi the short form certificate that we've all seen, as it clearly states across the bottom:

This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. HRS 338-13(b),338-19


"Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18."


338-13
338-16
338-17
338-18

So the statement that Pelosi is lying in all this is just an assumption with no facts (as yet) to back it up.




posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It doesn't matter to a certain faction of people.

Nothing will stop them. Too bad there wasn't this level of investigative fervor back in early 2001....seems only the self-proclaimed Righteous are allowed to question the validity of a sitting President.

Previous complaints about a former President's validity were squelched.

Double standard, anyone???



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


no now the ommission of the declaration ` is legally / consitutionaly eligable ` from the SC document implies that the SC electoral comissioner is :

a - grossly negligent and incompetant - astto not notice or be unaware that the document he accepted , did not meet his own offices requirements fopr declaration

b - a party to the conspiracy - the ever growing conspiracy - as implied by your remarks re hawaii



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I admire your stamina to argue on the basis of logic with fundamentalist believers. Unfortunately no amount of data will sway them any other way.

Where were they when Bush stole the election in FL?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
Unfortunately no amount of data will sway them any other way.


You are correct. No one will believe something that they don't want to believe. If my intent was to sway anyone's opinion, I would be frustrated beyond belief, but I have no intent or hope to "sway" people's beliefs. I do this for my own enjoyment.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I agree with you BH, that this doesn't constitute proof of any kind. At best, it is evidence -- which is all any of us will ever have, either evidence to support or oppose an idea or assertation.

I think Whatyouknow had an excellent idea, which is to request and pull like forms for the 2004 election, and see how they compare. Certainly, policies might have changed since then, however I can't imagine that the Constitutionality of any candidate for President would not be a consideration for their running in an election.

What am I saying? I think this is evidence of a possible glitch, malfeasance or even an attempt to skirt around a potential minefield that was known prior to the election.

I am unable to request anything, given that I've lived out of the U.S. for 14+ years. My web searches haven't revealed anything pertinent so far.

I believe there are some facts being hidden regarding President Obama's past, however I have no way of knowing -- even if that is true -- of how damaging those facts might be (or not).

This thread has been the shining light for me in regard to a civilized discussion about an issue that usually seems to incite people's passions. You, the OP, IAOH, and others have done an exceptional job of researching the issue apparently without bias, and I think you all are a fine example of what a spirited, but fair, discussion looks like.

I had sworn off Obama Birthplace discussion prior to this thread. I'm still not willing to devote even a fraction of the energies toward it as I've done in the past, however all of you restore my faith that it really can be done, if one sets their sight on the truth, rather than their personal agenda.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I agree, as you said, weekwhacker, that a "certain faction" will not rest regardless of the information.

I don't believe, however, that that faction consitutes the majority of people with questions about President Obama's presidential elegibility. Perhaps I'm naive, but I truly believe if his long form was shown and vetted, most would accept it.

It seems that the longer this issue rolls, the more it is questioned, and by an ever-widening array of people (my opinion).

I think at the very least, you and I can probably agree that the President could put this issue to rest very easily if he chose. yes?

respect



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Hi BH, I don't think it is about her, or any other signers, lying, tho that may be the case, it is a question of why were there two documents? And why weren't the same documents sent to all the states? You should default to giving all the information to the states.

I have considered that possibly the document with the omission was signed first so it was corrected, but why send it out?

There is something not right about it and I think the American people deserve an explanation.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I wonder if people are here actually searching for the truth to this matter or trying to contrive any evidence they possibly can to oust a president they have political and ideological differences with.

That is why I brought up Bush in this thread, after all, no one questioned bush's eligibility, so if those that are actually looking for the truth are actually interested in finding the truth, they would look for those forms as well as Obama's in this way you would have a clear comparison to a president that was obviously eligible for the job.

People were ominously silent when I brought up Bush's forms for comparison, I wonder why? Is it that those trying to push for Obama's ousting from office aren't really interested in the truth and just are pushing a smear campaign? Are they afraid of what they will find if they put the same form from the same state side by side for analysis?

People who are truly interested in the truth would want the side by side analysis of both forms from every state. After all it appears that some are now trying to oust Obama on a technicality of paperwork.

I dare to say that those in these thread purporting to seek the truth will only seek the truth that supports their claims and will ignore largely any evidence to the contrary. Its sad to think that people would stoop so low as to try and oust a sitting president on the basis of a crooked stamp by a clerk or that a sentence is missing that might be missing from other forms from other presidents.

If we are truly here to find the truth then be here to find the truth.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


I for one was complaining and angry by what happened in Florida as well as every election since 2000. Unfortunately, I that time, I was new to the internet and had few resources available. Heck, I thought I could do nothing.

I consider myself an independent and vote for the person.

I also believe in our constitution and that it should be followed, if not by the letter of the law, at least to the spirit and intent.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by liveandlearn
 


I just want to remind you that there's a 3rd form posted here (from S. Carolina) that has an additional signature requirement from the two listed in the OP. So, as far as we know, there are at least 3 different forms being sent to three different states. That leaves 47 states that we haven't even seen yet. I reserve judgment.

Either there's something "not right" about it or we don't have enough information to make that judgment. I tend toward the latter for now. Hopefully, we can get some more info from other members asking for their state's forms.



Originally posted by whatukno
I wonder if people are here actually searching for the truth to this matter or trying to contrive any evidence they possibly can to oust a president they have political and ideological differences with.


I not only wonder that, I suspect it pretty strongly.



People were ominously silent when I brought up Bush's forms for comparison, I wonder why?


IamonlyHuman posted the DNC and RNC forms for 2008 and I requested the DNC forms for 2004 and 2008 to have a comparison. I would like to see the Bush forms too. I would like to encourage anyone who hasn't done so to contact their state's election board and request a few forms. Bush forms would be great. I just didn't think of it and I don't want to ask again.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Now wait a minute, BH and whatuknow- what about those of us who were just as unhappy with Bush for other reasons as we are with Obama- and in some cases- worse?

What about those of us who would give anything for an honest President who does what he promised he would do AFTER he got in office??

It just pains me that you have to resort to accusations of issues like race, political ideals, and alternative motives to somehow explain why there are people who all they want these days is honesty, ethics, and true servitude to the people to return (miraculously) to the government. I know that's asking a lot. But we shouldn't be asking. At all.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





I just want to remind you that there's a 3rd form posted here (from S. Carolina) that has an additional signature requirement from the two listed in the OP.


Okay, I missed that and am unable to locate it. Would you please point me in the right direction? Thanks




Either there's something "not right" about it or we don't have enough information to make that judgment. I tend toward the latter for now. Hopefully, we can get some more info from other members asking for their state's forms.


I will go with "we don't have enough information on this particular subject to make a judgement"...thus we are trying to get all the information. Until, we do, things 'don't seem right'...subjective judgment until it can be objective.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm
I did not read this whole thread so someone else may have already pointed this out:

IMO the reason the two documents are different is because one is a federally filed document and the other is for all the States.

The criteria for each state may be different and most likely does not require the reference to the constitution as all states have their own laws.

I'm sure they filed these exactly as they were supposed to. Give me a break. The people filing papers for the President are going to make a mistake? I don't think so.



Correct: A state government is not going to cite the terms of the federal constitution.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Nichiren
 


Did you even read what you posted?

Obama is not a natural born citizen. He may be a native born citizen but he's not a natural born citizen.

It's a fact that Obama had Kenyan citizenship at birth and he was a citizen of Britain.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama's birth.

Natural born citizen means a person born with two parents who were united states citizens.

The Founders would have just said citizens if it meant just anybody. They also had to grandfather themselves in because they were not natural born citizens.

It's clear Obama was born a citizen of Kenya and a subject of Britain at birth. He also took on citizenship in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro and that's why he switched his name to Barack Obama and his Passport and Indonesia adoption records are sealed.

Barry Soetoro would have to become a naturalized citizen.


I wrote a 35 page paper on birthright citizenship while in law school. Anyone born on US soil is an American citizen. The nationality of their parents is irrelevant. The United States has its own immigration laws. They do not place any other country's immigration laws ahead of our own. Kenyan law or any other country's law has no bearing on how we interpret our constitution or statutes.

There are only handful of exceptions to birthright citizenship
1. Child of an invading and occupying army
2. Child of a foreign ambassador

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
The Court stated that: The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'[18]

Since there was no definition of "natural born citizen" found in the constitution, the majority adopted the common law of England that was a carry over from feudal times.

The court ruled: It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.



[edit on 14-9-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by liveandlearn
Okay, I missed that and am unable to locate it. Would you please point me in the right direction? Thanks


Sorry, it was Indiana, not South Carolina. jdub297 posted about it here. The Indiana paper is here. There's an additional signature under Pelosi's for the Indiana Democratic Party Chair.

So, there are 3 forms:

1. From the OP with CL (Constitutional language) Hawaii
(It's the same as this one.)

2. From the OP without CL COULD be S. Carolina. I can't tell.
S. Carolina without CL
Washington without CL

3. Indiana without CL but with added signature.

So, we have 3 forms from (I'm assuming) 4 different states. In any case, only one so far has the CL. That's Hawaii.

Edited to add Washington

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Now wait a minute, BH and whatuknow- what about those of us who were just as unhappy with Bush for other reasons as we are with Obama- and in some cases- worse?


Speaking for myself, what I'm saying has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or Obama. It's from looking at the evidence here. For example, the OP states that:

1. The form with the CL (Hawaii) "was never delivered to a single state DNC Office". That's apparently not true. Else where did he get it? And it's clearly attached to Hawaii's response. So it WAS delivered to a state. And how does the blogger know that it wasn't delivered to a single state??? Has he checked with every state? I have asked you these questions and you ignore them. That's fine, but it indicates that you don't seek the truth, you seek to back up your suspicions. When Hawaii's response came up, you even indicated that Hawaii was lying to cover it up.

2. In the OP, you stated that "the same people who did this DELIBERATELY OMITTED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE!" They may have deliberately omitted it, but that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. That's an assumption.

3. In the OP, you stated that "The elimination of the constitutional clause is about is damning as it can get, and a clear case of fraud and even treason, at the highest political level in this land." This is total conjecture.

You're basing your conclusions on assumptions and misinformation.

Anytime someone comes up with information that refutes the conclusions drawn in the OP, you assume that information is suspect (Hawaii is lying.) That is exactly the same as people brushing this off as absolute rubbish without looking into it.

You ignored my repeated requests to post pictures of the stamp inconsistencies that you found. When I pressed, you told me to back off. I have answered every question you had of me.

And several times, when people make a statement that contradicts or questions the "conspiracy", you make snide comments like this, which doesn't help your position as seeker of truth. You're clearly brushing off contradictory information.

You have said several times that everyone is entitled to their opinion. And it's my opinion that several people here are looking, not for the truth, but for anything that will back up their suspicions. It's my opinion that you're not thinking very critically of the information, but believing it without question IF it backs up the OP. It's not the end of the world. I'm not attacking you. It's just an observation.

I know your position and you know mine. They've been clear all along. Of course we're going to try to prove or disprove what we believe. I just think it's important to acknowledge that. I am looking to debunk the claims made in the OP. The truth will stand up to debunking and skepticism.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I'm not saying don't ask, what I AM saying is simply compare the documents you have to Bush's documents filed during his campaign. Is there something wrong with seeking the truth? Or is slander the name of the game? Is this straw man politics? Or is this a legitimate quest for the truth?

If it is a legitimate quest for the truth than checking these documents against those filed by the RNC for Bush would go far to see if there really is a conspiracy here or if it is what I personally suspect, a routine form filed in the course of an election to each state.

I would suspect that the forms filed in individual states have to go by individual state law and those forms probably are quite similar no matter what party you are affiliated with.

So if this is a quest for the truth than let it be a true search for the truth and compare these documents against those for Bush and see if they do compare. If the statement you are hinging this entire conspiracy on is present on one state form for Bush but omitted from the same state form filed for Obama you might have something. If however they are similar in that neither has the aforementioned affirmation of eligibility then it would beg the question as to why?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
If the statement you are hinging this entire conspiracy on is present on one state form for Bush but omitted from the same state form filed for Obama you might have something.


The S. Carolina papers that IamOnlyHuman posted show the CL missing from the DNC, but present in the RNC papers. See this post



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


So looking at that it makes me think that there is no set form for South Carolina in submitting presidential nominations.

Just looking at how vastly different both forms were, even though certain legal documentation including signatures appeared on both forms the layout and other differences suggest that South Carolina doesn't require a set form.

I would wonder what information is legally required to be on a presidential ballot form? I am sure there are state statutes that list the legal requirements for each candidate to have on their parties ballot forms.



new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join