Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The great thing about America is that each state has the individual right to require forms in whatever shape and form they wish to. It was the founding fathers intent to let states make up their own mind about how to govern themselves with as little input from the federal government as possible.

Course that idea led to the civil war, but hey, can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs right?

This issue however, it seems that Hawaii while requiring that the candidates state for the record their eligibility with a notation does not apply to all states as other states feel that "Duly" does the exact same thing without all the words.

The error is, the DNC should have a standard form that would cover all individual state laws. The RNC ticket does this. (It also looks better in my opinion)

Originally posted by whatukno
The error is, the DNC should have a standard form that would cover all individual state laws. The RNC ticket does this. (It also looks better in my opinion)

Perhaps. But you and I thinking that they should have one form does not a conspiracy of perjurers make.

Through emails with JB, I have learned a bit more about this:

1) He claims to have about 2/3 of the state's certificates on file, and talked to every single state who have seen the docs. Hawaii does appear to be the only exception. All others apparently received the "short form."

2) Several dozen lawyers have gotten involved, and on the basis of his articles, one state has already begun an investigation. He also points out that a "half dozen" of these attorneys that have seen the docs disagree with Don Wright.

3) His office has basically been going nuts, and he has been doing interviews non stop on this, and attracted national attention on some very high levels.

And that's about all I can report for now. The rest will become evident as this unfolds.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


removed because I failed to pay attention.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by liveandlearn]

NH SECRETARY OF STATE AGREES TO INVESTIGATE

(Sept. 12, 2009) — New Hampshire State Representative, Lawrence M. Rappaport payed a visit to Mr. William Gardner, the NH Secretary of State, on Thursday, Sept. 10th.

His stunning request: an investigation of Barack Hussein Obama’s presence on the NH 2008 Ballot.

Gardner’s stunning response: an investigation will commence.

I interviewed Mr. Rappaport by email, and asked him, on what basis did he make his complaint; he responded, “The basis for all of this is possible fraud. I don’t know what penalties will be assessed if fraud is proven.”

thepostnemail

From everything I have read, I do think things are about to unravel. Whether there is a good reason for two certificates or not, laws are going to be changed.

reply to post by liveandlearn


Heh, my how astute! You are really a digger, man! As I said above, what I cannot report on (due to confidentiality) will all come out in the wash.

And from your blog link another poster has commented that CA is also looking into it.

I agree, if nothing else, there needs to be some serious changes in the way eligibility is handled and vetted. And by laws, not just stupid, non-regulated notarized forms. I'm not much for government regulations, but there are times when it makes sense. And this is one of them.

[edit on Wed Sep 16th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Perhaps. But you and I thinking that they should have one form does not a conspiracy of perjurers make.

It certainly does not. As we have found in this thread, the form really is pretty simple stating that Obama/Biden were "Duly" nominated, as we also know, Duly means "According to Law", so unless the state requires the exact wordage on the form they can pretty much put down whatever is acceptable and have it notarized.

As long as it is fine by the state electors I guess it's all legitimate.

I just don't see the reason for having two forms. The Hawaii form would be just as acceptable in all 50 states. Why have to notarize yet another form, sign another form, and distribute another form? Everything is done for a reason. I honestly think there's more to it than meets the eye, I'm just not entirely sure what it is.

Originally posted by Highground
I just don't see the reason for having two forms.

I don't either. But that doesn't mean that a valid reason doesn't exist.

Why have to notarize yet another form, sign another form, and distribute another form?

Fifty forms are notarized, fifty forms are signed and distributed. This is clear from the slight differences in the signatures. The states have their own requirements that must be on the forms. This is clear from the added signature on Indiana's form and the Constitutional language on Hawaii's form. Every state gets an original notarized form (with their own requirements), not a copy of a form.

Edit to add: So, it's very possible that there is a "skeleton" form (the one most states received) and then several forms (we know of 2) that have added requirements, according to the states' statutes. We are focusing on the Constitutional language as if it's a relevant piece of information. It MAY be that focusing on that is as relevant as focusing on Indiana's added signature line and wondering why all of them don't have it. The words "duly nominated" may be all that's required.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

I just wanted to point out a little something that might shine some light on the situation. to be honest i am kinda shooting from the hip on this one with current knowledge. A little background real quick. I am in the military and i deal with clearances every day. I know those standards like the back of my hand. also i regulary work with submitting Official government passports(form of proof of citizenship, and yes i know citizenship doesnt mean natural birth). here i go.

When dealing with the two things listed above i know for fact, you are still considered a naturaly born citizen of the US if one or more of your parents is a citizen of the US (his mother is from kansas right?) This is even the case if you are "born abroad" in which case all it takes a little paperwork and bam good to go. for example (because i am in the military so i see this one all the time) Soldier Joe Snuffy's wife or Soldier Jane Snuffy who is stationed in germany/korea/phillipines and many other places (some of which we have no occupational force in) and gives birth, in this situation a german hospital, issued a german birth certificate, and is later given a born abroad certificate. Bam they are considered a naturally born citizen. I have also seen simulair situations for people who have only been born of parents that were simply working or going to school abroad. So yes nothing like this has shown up. BUT if Obama where in deed born in kenya, he would only have needed to do a little paperwork and none of this would ba an issue. so ok maybe there is a kenyan birth certificate (hypothetically) all he (at any point in his life), or his mother needed to do was (state side i am not sure where to go) walk into an embassy with his kenyan birth certificate, and any form of citizenship as a US citizen, to include naturalization certificate, becasue you do not need naturally born parents to utilize this law.

Here we go i found the laws specificly defining the situation prviosly described.


IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT: - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH



Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;


(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;


(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;


(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;



(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and


(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899


And sorry i have to toot my own horn a little:

WIN

a little follow up/specualtion

I wonder who is going to try and prove his mother wasn't a US citizen now.

reply to post by pjoelro


Sorry to rain on your parade, but the real problem is that the term "natural born" is not legally defined. The United States Supreme Court has never clearly ruled on the matter. We need a Constitutional Amendment by congress to end the controversy for good.

The current definition is that any person born on US soil is a "natural born" citizen and therefore eligible to be POTUS. A person born in Germany to American parents (native US citizen) could not hold the office ...

The real underlying issue of this thread is Obama's birth certificate. I voted for the man, but it mystifies me why he hasn't ended this debate by releasing the long form of the document.

reply to post by Nichiren

The real underlying issue of this thread is Obama's birth certificate. I voted for the man, but it mystifies me why he hasn't ended this debate by releasing the long form of the document.

Because Hawaii does not issue long form birth certificates. What Obama showed the world online is the document you would get if you were born in Hawaii and asked for your birth certificate.

Besides the fact that it would be reckless to show all that personal information to the world. We have covered this many times in many threads.

This thread is about the forms submitted to the states by the DNC and not the birth certificate issue.

Originally posted by whatukno
Because Hawaii does not issue long form birth certificates. What Obama showed the world online is the document you would get if you were born in Hawaii and asked for your birth certificate.

Oh yeah? Then what do you call this???

Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates
Real documents include name of doctor, hospital
Posted: July 28, 2009
9:35 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The Honolulu Advertiser published photostats of the original long-form birth certificates of twin daughters born to Eleanor Nordyke at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological
Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was supposedly born at the same facility.

The Nordykes' certificates include information missing from the short-form document for Obama published online, including the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby...

www.wnd.com...

reply to post by whatukno

Because Hawaii does not issue long form birth certificates. What Obama showed the world online is the document you would get if you were born in Hawaii and asked for your birth certificate.

Besides the fact that it would be reckless to show all that personal information to the world. We have covered this many times in many threads.

This thread is about the forms submitted to the states by the DNC and not the birth certificate issue.

Hawaii has and does issue long form birth certificates and have stated on record that they have Soetoro's vital paper records on file. Soetoro/Obama never showed the world a single thing. Nobody asked that he show the world his personal info, although what on earth would be on a birth certificate that would be so bad is anyone's guess. He could show a decent, honest judge the certificate. As every other President has been only too happy to show all...there is obviously something big he is hiding. And the mere fact that he won't disclose should in a just world get him booted out.

Originally posted by whatukno
Because Hawaii does not issue long form birth certificates. What Obama showed the world online is the document you would get if you were born in Hawaii and asked for your birth certificate.

Oh, yeah? You wanna bet? Actually, you're right. Hawaii NO LONGER issues long forms. And by the look of the two in TA's link, they're pretty old, issued many years ago, when they were still issuing them.

Hawaiian Homelands

Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by oneclickaway
Hawaii has and does issue long form birth certificates

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

Or do you have a link from the Hawaii Dept of Health that backs up this statement?

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And by the look of the two in TA's link, they're pretty old, issued many years ago, when they were still issuing them.

Oh yeah, you mean they were issuing them at the critical time of this whole mess, which is why so many people want to see Obama's? For the purposes of this discussion in general, that has no bearing on this issue at all, and you know it. But it does have considerable bearing on whether he is eligible.

Obama's long form BC exists, and there is a reason they are being so protective and secretive over them, cause otherwise they would have come out long ago and ended this disaster.

Now back to our regularly scheduled, on-topic deprogramming...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Oh yeah, you mean they were issuing them at the critical time of this whole mess, which is why so many people want to see Obama's?

No. That's not what I mean. In fact, I don't know when they stopped issuing them. I do know that I obtained a long form when I was very young and Ohio is not issuing the long form anymore, either. So, if I asked today, I would have to settle for the short one and it's as legal and valid as the long one.

Obama's long form BC exists, and there is a reason they are being so protective and secretive over them, cause otherwise they would have come out long ago and ended this disaster.

Who's "they"? I agree with you that the long form exists and that there's a reason he isn't showing it to the world. Of course, that reason could be anything, including 'because he doesn't want to'. And he may have it in his drawer. He doesn't owe it to anyone.