Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama

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

Yes. It appears that the PARTY makes up the form with the STATE'S requirements on it. According to Hawaii's requirements, a statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution is required on the form. And Hawaii's form has that.

South Carolina requires "a statement that each candidate certified meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he has filed." It doesn't mention the Constitution. So, it's possible that the CL isn't necessary, but the RNC put in on theirs anyway.

Here are the ones for Texas. They are the same as SC

RNC 2008 Certificate of Nomination

DNC 2008 Certificate of Nomination

If you look at the signatures closely, at least the DNC (Didn't check RNC), you will notice that they are slightly different which to me implies they are not just copies of an original but perhaps an original for each state.

Good job! It does look different than SC's.

Can I ask who exactly did you email for this? I can't seem to get a response from my state... Maybe I wrote the wrong people...

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

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Texas Elections Commission which apparently works under the Secretary of State. They had contact info and I emailed to that.

They would only send by fax or letter, said they didn't have electronic capability.

For what is worth......

nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com...

In fact, there appear not to be just 2 documents but perhaps as many as 50 documents, probably because every state would like an original, notarized document. The Washington State document and the South Carolina document are two different documents, as can be seen from the signatures.

Different States have different requirements for the certification. For example, we know that the letter with the complete text was sent to Hawaii. We also know that the example for the abridged document was filed in South Carolina. During the complete election cycle, and depending on the specific state laws, a candidate files a “declaration of candidacy” to run in the primaries of the State in question. Once elected in the primaries, the state representative of the Party in question files a “certification of candidates” which verifies that the candidate meets the requirements of the State to run for office.

New Hampshire
nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com...
The document signed by Mr Obama states that he meets the qualifications for the office of the President of the United States and is a registered member of the Democratic Party. Dec 1, 2008

Illinois
nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com...

“I, Barack Obama, …. that I am a candidate for nomination to the office President of the United States of America,…, and that I am legally qualified (including being the holder of any license that may be an eligibility requirement for the office I seek the nomination for) to hold such office”

Kentucky
nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com...

Arizona

“You are hereby notified that I, Barack Obama, am seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of President of the United States from the Democratic Party, at the Presidential Preference Election to be held on the 5th day of February 2008. I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years”

reply to post by maybereal11


Excellent find.

According to the site there were two certifications submitted by Tx Dem Party. Bold is mine. link

According to this “MEMORANDUM OF COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD AGAINST BOYD L. RICHIE, CHAIR, TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY and REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION”:

On August 27, 2008 Boyd L. Richie, Chair, Texas Democratic Party, signed 2 (two) separate Certifications of Nomination swearing Barack Obama, the D party candidate for POTUS, is a NBC, both of which Certifications he submitted to Texas elections officials so they would print Mr. Obama’s name on the Texas general election ballot. Boyd Richie submitted 2 (two) documents to Texas elections officials confirming Mr. Obama was the D party nominee: 1) a letter to elections official certifying Mr. Obama had been “nominated” as POTUS; and 2) an “OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION” swearing Mr. Obama had been “duly nominated” as the D party candidate. That is, he had been nominated in accordance with D party rules and procedures.

I wondered back on page 11 if the word "duly" might come into play. It means "properly"... So it's possible that duly nominated means that the nomination conforms to the rules.

Good stuff, maybereal. Thanks!

While looking for information on Texas requirements for president, I came upon the actual document spoken about in the article below but have not been able to find it since.

Since it is supported by dems and repubs I don't think it is about disqualifying or refuting Obama, more about assuring that this controversy never happens again.

The Constitution stipulates that “no person except a natural born citizen” shall be eligible to serve as president. The Presidential Eligibility Act proposed in March by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., would require campaign committees to submit a copy of the candidate's birth certificate to the Federal Election Commission with other documentation as necessary to prove eligibility.

Little League test

Poe, a former prosecutor and criminal court judge, says he “never said” Obama was born “anywhere but the United States,” but adds: “To ensure that we eliminate future debates and adhere to the Constitution, we simply should do what Little Leagues all across our country do and require that birth certificates be provided at the time of registration.”

Houston Chronicle

edit to say, that thinking about this further, I believe that this says that the information these US congressmen had available to them, ie, the short form and his declaration, was not legally adequate to confirm his legitimate birth place.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by liveandlearn]

Dear Ms. XXXXX

Attached are the following documents:
2000, 2004 and 2008 DNC and RNC certification of Presidential candidates.
You will note that both the DNC and the RNC use the same wording in their respective 2008 certificates as they had in 2000 and 2004.
There is no required wording in Federal or NC law as to the wording of certification document by a political party to a state elections office of a presidential candidate.
Don Wright
General Counsel
NC State Board of Elections

Now, if somebody will be kind enough to tell me how to upload a pdf file to ATS, I’ll post them.

2008
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9504c042a78.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99568d032432.jpg[/atsimg]

2004

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05bc4555a8d3.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99ab1bb6ff15.jpg[/atsimg]

2000
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d8eee2967e81.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4d09bd5208e4.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Pauligirl


Well, that is very interesting Pauligirl. So the Dems never give the statement that the nominee is duly qualified as opposed to nominated and the Repubs do. What is up with that?

Also, the DNC, thus far, sent the written verification of qualification only to the nominee's 'alleged' state of birth even though we know that SC requires written verification.

It would be very interesting to see what Hawaii got from the DNC in 2004.

To those who oppose, I believe these are legitimate questions.



[edit on 15-9-2009 by liveandlearn]

Originally posted by liveandlearn
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

Well, that is very interesting Pauligirl. So the Dems never give the statement that the nominee is duly qualified as opposed to nominated and the Repubs do. What is up with that?

Also, the DNC, thus far, sent the written verification of qualification only to the nominee's 'alleged' state of birth even though we know that SC requires written verification.

It would be very interesting to see what Hawaii got from the DNC in 2004.

To those who oppose, I believe these are legitimate questions.



[edit on 15-9-2009 by liveandlearn]

I will repost here what I posted in the sister-thread:

The reason the Hawaii certification is different is because it is required by state law that the "eligibility clause" be included.

(c) All candidates for President and Vice President of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:
(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

(emphasis added)

Source

Now, the question is, what other states have this clause, and if any do, were they sent the alleged "revised" version, or the "long" version with the clause in it. I intend to send out an e-mail to the GA state elections department Monday to request the documents they received. Should be interesting.

Edit to add: I just checked, Georgia has no such clause in the code pertaining to certification of political party candidates.

reply to post by Pauligirl


Thanks Pauligirl. I can confirm receiving the exact same set of documents and cover letter text as well. (I am in NC).

But Don Wright is not exactly correct when he says that the wording is consistent. It is at top, but it is different in both 2004 and 2000 at the bottom. Read carefully.

But here's the kicker. In that bottom clause for DNC 2000 and 2004, the notary is basically saying that the people in attendance presented satisfactory evidence of who they were. But it ALSO says that the people in attendance also DID THE SAME for the presidential candidates!

And guess what is missing in the 2008 version for Obama??? THAT. Meaning that there is no sworn statement from Pelosi that she personally vetted and qualified Obama to be constitutionally eligible.

Don Wright is correct for the top clause, but so very wrong for the bottom clauses!

Hmm. Something is STILL wrong with this picture. I'm sorry. I was about ready to give up until I spotted that.

Edit: Also, the reason I didn't bother BH with getting all those screenshots and posting it all on the matching of the stamps, is because once I realized that we were going to have to start getting individually received state documents, I figured this would become quickly evident.

Also note, that some documents are rubber stamped "Received" with date, and some are not. So it looks like we can't use the stamp as a qualifier anyway.

[edit on Tue Sep 15th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

reply to post by Pauligirl


From these forms it does look as if the RNC and the DNC both use standard forms. The RNC is a little more elaborate in their wording but it also seems that these forms are legitimate nominating forms.

I also noted the missing part at the bottom of the form. This does require looking into. I wonder if that wordage is required on the form and why they changed it from 2004 to 2008.

From what I gather the bottom part seems to be about the signers themselves and not the candidate. I wonder why the discrepancy between the DNC papers.


[edit on 9/15/2009 by whatukno]

Originally posted by whatukno
From what I gather the bottom part seems to be about the signers themselves and not the candidate.

I agree with this. It's a statement by the Notary about the signers, not the candidates. The paragraph basically says:

On this date, Bill and Alice appeared to me or are known to me to be the persons of the Chair and Secretary of the 2004 DNC, on behalf of the DNC, and are executing as their own free act and deed and as the free act and deed of the DNC.

In other words, Bill and Alice have proven to me who THEY are and that they are here of their own free will acting on behalf of the DNC.

Notice that in the 2000 and 2004 docs, there are no names under the signature line for the Chair and Secretary, so Bill and Alice would have to prove that they are indeed the Chair and Secretary. But on the 2008 document, Nancy Pelosi and Alice Germand's name appear as part of the form. They would have to prove their identity, but not that they are agents of the DNC, because that's included on the form by way of their names under the signature line.

Originally posted by Highground
I just checked, Georgia has no such clause in the code pertaining to certification of political party candidates.

The only other state I've seen that requires a statement of qualification is SC. But it is different than Hawaii's requirement in that Hawaii actually mentions the Constitution. S. Carolina does not. South Carolina's requirement is listed here

South Carolina Code of Laws 7-13-350

Political parties nominating candidates by primary or convention must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification to the authority charged by law with preparing the ballot. The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each candidate certified meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he has filed.

But they may consider the phrase "duly nominated" to cover that. Because to be properly nominated, they would have to meet the qualifications of nominations.

So let's see,

Basically from what I am reading from the disclosed forms is that all the candidates were nominated according to the law of the state they were to be on the ballot of.

In those states, it was not necessary to include a clause that specifically stated that the nominees were/are eligible for the post that they are nominated for because of the phrase "duly nominated" which means "according to law". So by the standard legal dictionary the DNC has always legally nominated their candidates.

So as we can see by this legally binding contract between the DNC and the state of NC, Obama was "Duly" (remember meaning "according to law") nominated for the office of POTUS.

Therefore.

As each state received the aforementioned decree of nomination by the DNC and those nominations were signed and stamped appropriately by the vested parties involved, we can clearly see that Obama was appropriately nominated for the office of POTUS.

Thank you Pauligirl for providing the requisite information to cross check for us. It was important to take a look at not only the 2008 election but the 2004 election as well, I applaud you for even going further and providing us the 2000 election nominations in this thread as well.

This thread my friends is an example of scarecrow politics. The OP without thoroughly researching the facts involved brought forth a fear and smear campaign against an elected official. Using the popular "birther" theory that Obama for some reason is not eligible for the office has tried to twist the facts to show his side of the tale.

However upon further examination it is obvious that Obama was in fact "duly" nominated by the DNC and therefore along with the fact that he was born in Hawaii, is over the age of 35 and has resided in the United States for the last 14 years makes Obama well qualified constitutionally to be our president.

Kind of a moot point now, but I just got another message from the GA elections board which contained the nomination certifications. I uploaded them here:

DNC Cert
RNC Cert

They look the same as the others posted, except mine are better cause they're in color :p

Originally posted by whatukno
This thread my friends is an example of scarecrow politics. The OP without thoroughly researching the facts involved brought forth a fear and smear campaign against an elected official. Using the popular "birther" theory that Obama for some reason is not eligible for the office has tried to twist the facts to show his side of the tale.

To be fair, on ATS, the OP rarely researches thoroughly the facts of a source before posting. True American posted the bloggers conclusions for examination, though clearly pushing them as the truth. It's clear, though, from reading the source that it immediately has holes in it that should have been questioned from the start.

The claim was that ALL states received one form and NO states received the other one. And that the blogger just happens to have a copy of both NOTARIZED documents lying around... ??? These sort of statements shouldn't slip by ATSers, IMO. We have to be more curious.

The statements made by the blogger beg the questions:

Where did he get these two documents?
On what does the blogger base the information about what was sent to ALL of the states?

People get upset when I (and others) come into a thread like this and start asking questions, but curiosity is the means to the truth...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Read the authors website. He says himself he only reports on what he can prove with facts, and no conspiracy theory involved here. If I had my wish I would just write all this off as mere theory. Problem is that it's the truth.

This kind of acceptance without curiosity or question is just what people accuse Obama supporters of! Think about THAT.

However upon further examination it is obvious that Obama was in fact "duly" nominated by the DNC and therefore along with the fact that he was born in Hawaii, is over the age of 35 and has resided in the United States for the last 14 years makes Obama well qualified constitutionally to be our president.

Agreed 100%.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I have an honest question for you, that I've been wondering since this thread was started. I'm just not sure what to think on this end, and I would appreciate your input:

Obama's father was Kenyan. According to Kenyan/British colonial law, after he moved out of Kenya, he was still considered Kenyan. As a result, when Barack was born, he held a dual citizenship - one to Britain/Kenya, and one to United States.

Source

He was born in the US, yes, but he held a dual citizenship for a time, and his father was not a US citizen. Does he still qualify as a "natural born citizen?" He was born in the US, but the dual-citizenship thing doesn't seem right to me... I dunno. Sorry if this is derailing the thread.

reply to post by Highground

Obama's father was Kenyan. According to Kenyan/British colonial law, after he moved out of Kenya, he was still considered Kenyan. As a result, when Barack was born, he held a dual citizenship - one to Britain/Kenya, and one to United States.

Dual citizenship does not matter as the United States does not recognize the laws of other countries. In this case Obama while having dual citizenship would be a natural born citizen of the United States by right of Jus Soli FIRST.

The Dual citizenship clause would be in effect if Obama was in fact born in Kenya to an American Mother, whereas he would be an American citizen by birth but being born in another country wouldn't have the privilege of Jus Soli.

Being born on American soil to an American mother satisfies the right of Jus Soli and the constitutional requirements of Natural Born Citizenship, it doesn't matter that Obama had dual citizenship in Kenya and again in Indonesia, his birth in Hawaii to an American citizen gives him the Natural Born citizenship requirement.