Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama

reply to post by Highground


The problem with this angle is that the US DOES NOT follow British law. British law is irrelevant. If someone is born on US soil, making them a Natural Born US citizen, the US doesn't care what British laws may apply to them. We only care what US laws apply to them.

A person cannot be made to abide by the conflicting laws of two countries. In Britain, the Nationality Act applies to Obama. So, should he want to relocate to Britain, he would have an advantage as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But to the US, it matters NOT ONE BIT.

To think that a foreign law or act applies to a person born citizen of the US, and on US soil, AS FAR AS THE US IS CONCERNED, is a mistaken assumption.

reply to post by whatukno

I wasn't talking to you! But good response Starred, this is what I was looking for, thanks.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


And I see you replied, as well. Basically same answer. I gotcha both now, thanks again! Stars for all!

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Highground]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You give the OP too much credit! The title of this thread is: "Proof of a DNC Conspiracy ..."

This statement couldn't be further from the truth. He basically copied an article from a right-wing blog and without checking the facts labelled it as "proof". His credibility is below zero at this point. The OP is just another biased "birther" who cannot accept that Obama was duly elected as POTUS.

From DNC 2000:

On August 17, 2000, before me, ______________, notary public, personally appeared BARBARA BOXER, DIANNE FEINSTEIN and KATHLEEN M. VICK, as Co-Chair, Co-Chair and Secretary, respectively, of the 2000 Democratic National Convention, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities;

So what does that phrase in bold mean then? To me that means that they personally used their authorized capacities to verify the candidates' eligibility. And that phrase is gone in the 2008 version.

reply to post by whatukno


Thanks for your posts!

I have a question re "natural born". What about a child whose parents are both Mexicans, but she was born on US soil? I'm referring to the Mexican anchor babies and I was always wondering about their legal status. Could that child one day be POTUS?

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by Pauligirl


Thank you for doing the leg work! It is appreciated.

Edited again to say please disregard this post as it is incorrect. The correct information is found in this post.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
From DNC 2000:

On August 17, 2000, before me, ______________, notary public, personally appeared BARBARA BOXER, DIANNE FEINSTEIN and KATHLEEN M. VICK, as Co-Chair, Co-Chair and Secretary, respectively, of the 2000 Democratic National Convention, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities;

So what does that phrase in bold mean then? To me that means that they personally used their authorized capacities to verify the candidates' eligibility. And that phrase is gone in the 2008 version.

That means that Boxer, Feinstein, and Vick TOLD the Notary that they had checked GORE's eligibility. The 2008 forms say. "Subscribed and sworn to before me" above the Notary signature, which means the same thing about Obama.

Sorry, TA.

Edited to change "Obama" to "Bush" and then to "Gore".

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That means that Boxer, Feinstein, and Vick TOLD the Notary that they had checked Bush's eligibility. The 2008 forms say. "Subscribed and sworn to before me" above the Notary signature, which means the same thing about Obama.

lol, what you just said makes no sense. First of all, that is from the DNC, not RNC, so this has nothing to do with BUSH.

And second of all, I don't agree at all that "Subscribed to" means anything of the sort. The 2008 version completely eliminates any responsibility or wording of personal candidate vetting by the Democratic National Convention Chair.

But nice that you agree with me that the wording in the 2000 doc does indeed mean that the DNC Chair personally vetted their Democratic candidates.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
lol, what you just said makes no sense. First of all, that is from the DNC, not RNC, so this has nothing to do with BUSH.

Okay. I had "Obama" written in there at first. Then changed it to Bush. In 2000, I guess it was Gore. It matters not. You know what I mean.

And second of all, I don't agree at all that "Subscribed to" means anything of the sort. The 2008 version completely eliminates any responsibility or wording of personal candidate vetting by the Democratic National Convention Chair.

"Subscribed" mean "signed". "Sworn to me" means that they swore to the notary that what was on the document was true. So, "Subscribed and sworn to me" means that the signers signed the document and swore to the Notary that the document they signed was true.

I may have gotten the name wrong, but that's irrelevant.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
lol, what you just said makes no sense. First of all, that is from the DNC, not RNC, so this has nothing to do with BUSH.

Okay. I had "Obama" written in there at first. Then changed it to Bush.

In 2000, I guess it was Gore. It matters not. You know what I mean.

And second of all, I don't agree at all that "Subscribed to" means anything of the sort. The 2008 version completely eliminates any responsibility or wording of personal candidate vetting by the Democratic National Convention Chair.

"Subscribed" mean "signed". "Sworn to me" means that they swore to the notary that what was on the document was true. So, "Subscribed and sworn to me" means that the signers signed the document and swore to the Notary that the document they signed was true.

I may have gotten the name wrong, but that's irrelevant.

While what you have said is all true and coherent, I have to interject this: Don't you think that this is giving the party a little bit more... "interpretation" room when signing the documents? To me, that whole clause (2008) just reads that they verified the authenticity of the identities of the chairs, and it was sworn before them that they were who they said they were. I have a feeling it could be argued that way if the matter were to arise in court. I'm not exactly saying that's the intention, but I find it odd how the RNC certification is completely straightforward, no vague wording, no possible misconception about whether or not the candidates were valid, whilst the DNC certification is all up to interpretation.


edit: holy run-on sentences, batman!

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Highground]

So I wrote to JB Williams, pointed him to this thread, and discussed our findings with him. He replied back very quickly with:

A nationwide investigation is ongoing and Part II of this story will be released tomorrow. Indeed, some of my early "assumptions" were incorrect. The story is worse than I originally thought.... Stay tuned...

Thanks for writing, and tell your readers that they did what almost NO Americans are willing to do these days, they vetted the information for themselves.... BRAVO!

There is NO "gatekeeper of truth" - including me. People must verify before they trust today.

Best,

JB Williams

Hmm, so I wonder what else he has dug up if the "story is worse than he thought" ???

So by "assumptions" I take that to mean he assumed that the "short form" was sent to all 50 states?

Ok, so at least let's wait till tomorrow and see what this brings before we go HOAXING this thread. And if it is a HOAX, I'll be the first to contact SO and tell him so.

But at this point, I am not sure why anyone would put any more faith in his "investigating," given what has been uncovered here.

reply to post by Nichiren


I am not quite sure about a child born on US soil with two parents that have no citizenship. The right of Jus Soli would apply but, like US citizens abroad the child would have the citizenship of the parents.

The dual citizenship clause would apply certainly, as the derogatory term "Anchor Baby" implies it is a device where the parent's can get citizenship through the child as to not split up the family.

In Obama's case as his mother was a US citizen he had both Jus Soli and paternal citizenship.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So I wrote to JB Williams, pointed him to this thread, and discussed our findings with him. He replied back very quickly with:

Thanks for writing, and tell your readers that they did what almost NO Americans are willing to do these days, they vetted the information for themselves.... BRAVO!

There is NO "gatekeeper of truth" - including me. People must verify before they trust today.

Best,

JB Williams

I like this alot...if JB was a member I would star him.

There is NO "gatekeeper of truth" - including me. People must verify before they trust today.

After going swimming and then doing some research, I found the following Notary Handbook and have deciphered the following text. I was wrong. But in a "good" way.

It has nothing to do with verifying the president's eligibility.

On August 17, 2000, before me, ______________, notary public, personally appeared BARBARA BOXER, DIANNE FEINSTEIN and KATHLEEN M. VICK, as Co-Chair, Co-Chair and Secretary, respectively, of the 2000 Democratic National Convention, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities;

From Colorado's Notary Handbook

Definitions:

Subscribe: To sign.
...
Instrument: A legal document, such as a contract, deed, will, or mortgage, which is to be signed.
...
Acknowledgement: An acknowledgment is a signed statement by the notary that the signer (1) personally appeared before the notary, (2) was positively identified by the notary, and (3) acknowledged having signed the document. Acknowledgments are executed on deeds, documents affecting property, and the like. (The notary does not have to actually see the person sign the document. Nonetheless, the document must be notarized while in the physical presence of the signer.)
...
Execute: To make a document valid by signing one’s name to it.

So, what this actually means is:

On August 17, 2000, before me, ______________, notary public, personally appeared BARBARA BOXER, DIANNE FEINSTEIN and KATHLEEN M. VICK, as Co-Chair, Co-Chair and Secretary, respectively, of the 2000 Democratic National Convention, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are signed to the within document and personally appeared before me, were positively identified by me, and acknowledged having signed the document that they made valid by signing their name to the same in their authorized capacities;

FURTHER...

Many notaries don’t even know what “subscribed and sworn to” means,
...
It is simple to perform the oath/affirmation process properly. It takes only three basic steps. The notary must:

1. Hear the client affirm or swear to the document, to his/her identity as the document signer (and rarely, to other facts about himself or herself that a document may require. The affirmation in the Notary Application [12-55-105 C.R.S.] is an example of such “other facts” that may have to be sworn/affirmed—the applicant must state “under penalty of perjury” that he has read the notary law and will act in accord with it.)

2. See the client sign the document; and

3. Complete the notarial certificate or “notarization.”

SO... It turns out that the second phrase "subscribed and sworn to me" is actually STRONGER than the other long paragraph. Because in the second case, the signers much actually sign the document in the notary's presence AND make a verbal oath that the information contained in the document is true.

In the first case, the notary does not have to actually see the person sign the document and there is no mention of hearing an affirmation or oath.

Affirmation: A solemn declaration that the information contained in the document is true and accurate, made by persons who decline taking an oath for religious or conscientious reasons. An affirmation is equivalent to an oath and is just as binding.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Highground
Don't you think that this is giving the party a little bit more... "interpretation" room when signing the documents?

If I understand you correctly, my answer is no, in light of what I have found in the Notary Handbook. That the DNC doesn't have the Constitutional language on all their forms bothers me. Why not? Are they trying to save ink? But it IS in the Hawaii document. And they signed that and swore that the information on the document was true under penalty of perjury. We have to consider the Hawaii document.

The Notary statements on the Democrat and Republican forms state the same thing, although in different words.

I am also curious to see what Williams has to add tomorrow. Bring it on.


[edit on 15-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

SO... It turns out that the second phrase "subscribed and sworn to me" is actually STRONGER than the other long paragraph. Because in the second case, the signers much actually sign the document in the notary's presence AND make a verbal oath that the information contained in the document is true.

In the first case, the notary does not have to actually see the person sign the document and there is no mention of hearing an affirmation or oath.

Affirmation: A solemn declaration that the information contained in the document is true and accurate, made by persons who decline taking an oath for religious or conscientious reasons. An affirmation is equivalent to an oath and is just as binding.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Actually the oath doesn't make it stronger. I'm not even sure why we still have it. The only time I use it is when its pre-printed on a document. You can't use it on a deed or any other document that 's to be recorded. (these certificates aren't recorded, so it's ok). If the notary is notarizing a particular person's signature, then they have to witness that person signing. Otherwise, it's a Subscribing Witness notary and that is enough of that.

www.attorneystitle.com... has more information on the oath thingy,

Notary laws and responsibilities vary from state to state. You have linked to a North Carolina Notary act, that may not apply to Colorado.

According to what I read in the Colorado Notary Handbook (the state from which the Notary in question holds her license), the statement "subscribed and sworn to me" is stronger than the paragraph on the 2000 and 2004 documents, as it includes a verbal oath as to the document's contents and must be signed in the presence of the Notary. Neither of these conditions are required by the paragraph.

Im sorry, I keep on reading this and I dont find anywhere as to how Obama is ineligible as the OP claims. I read it earlier, read it again, and really the fuss is about what one piece of paper said and what another said despite the fact the confirmation process in December is all that constitution really states in the case of the election process.

So, the entire fuss folks here are patting eachother on the back for regards assumptions over what some documents meant. You mean the process in December 2008 means nothing? So basically the DNC secretly lied in these papers but publically confirmed eligibility with electors in December? Amazing.

Well part 2 is out on canadafreepress:

canadafreepress.com...

I am already seeing some things that counter what has been stated here.

So... the graphologist claims that all three signers were lying when they signed the Hawaii Document, huh?

I'm sorry. This is going beyond that which I can discuss with a rational mind. Everything has been debunked except for the existence of the Hawaii document (the one document which proves Obama is legitimate with the Constitutional language) and so the blogger has zeroed in on that and set about to discredit it.

This is taking grasping at straws to a new extreme. I like what he says at the end...

Never mind what I make of this information…. What do you make of it?

I can barely contain my laughter. He wants ideas.

Here's one: There's probably a very reasonable explanation for the existence of the two documents. We don't know what it is. And acting like our lack of knowledge is automatically reason to suspect the DNC's intent and actions is just another assumption by the blogger and his followers.

Have a good time.