Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama, page 17

privacy

Pages: << 14 15 16 17 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 137 times

reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 08:17 PM by whatukno

reply to post by Nichiren

The point of all of that is that during the confirmation proceedings before congress Obama was vetted and confirmed by our representatives. Then he was sworn in by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Frankly I don't see the point in putting forth the information I and others have already provided in other threads, the information already exists, if you don't wish to look for it, it's not really my problem. I know you wish that Obama wasn't eligible for the office of POTUS for whatever reason, but wishing he isn't doesn't make it true. Nor will wishing get him removed from office. Sorry, sadly your going to have to just hope that in 2012 the Republicans come up with a better candidate.

Then if the Republican gets elected you will be rid of the evil Obama and won't have to worry about all the terrible things you imagine he is doing to the country.

[edit on 9/17/2009 by whatukno]

reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 08:54 PM by liveandlearn

After having read most of the thread, I find myself getting very tired of this issue.

Perhaps the Hawaii CON was different because they wouldn't accept the usual document so another had to be signed. Maybe it is that way every year. Even so, I still think the DNC has questions to answer as to why they don't send the most comprehensive form to all states so there is no question.

I have read numerous lawsuits, petitions and bills to change the way states accept a POTUS as qualified. If nothing else, I think we can rest assured that these questions will not have to be debated again.

Obama is president for the next 4 years, like it or not, but unless he produces proof of qualifications, yet to be explicitly defined, he will not be president the next term.

Oh yeah, next election is 2012 isn't it? Whatever that means, if anything.

reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 12:22 PM by Benevolent Heretic

I just got the document for my state today.

That's how everything is here. Don't move here if you're in a hurry!

It's the same as all the others. It lacks the Constitutional language.

Wasn't there going to be more to this story? It just kind of fizzled out...

reply posted on 25-9-2009 @ 08:46 PM by TrueAmerican

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I emailed JB yesterday for any updates to this, and so far no response. You might be interested to know that he did read through most, if not all of this thread.

reply posted on 25-9-2009 @ 08:52 PM by TrueAmerican

Heh, no sooner I said that and checked my email, and yes there is an update:

Part III just released. Should be up at CFP very shortly.

Thanks!

That's from JB of course. So we'll see, and anyone finding it please post or I will once it's out.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 03:03 AM by TrueAmerican

Part 3 is up on Canada Free Press here, titled:

DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!

canadafreepress.com...

In it he concludes:

If you ask Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did she “certify” Obama as eligible under Article II, she would simply state that she never made any such certification, except in Hawaii… and she would be telling the truth!

The language necessary to certify Obama as eligible was omitted from the documents filed at 49 Election Commission offices, and in most of those cases, such certification was also missing in the primary filings.

and

At the end of the day, we clearly have a political Party currently in power which gained that power by ignoring or intentionally subverting the US Constitution. At a minimum, they were very sloppy and derelict in their duty. At worst, they are complicit in a crime of monumental proportions.

Article II requirements exist, they are quite clear, the parties are obligated to vet and certify their candidates, and yet the DNC failed miserably in all categories. Still, the nation assumes that all was above board. On what basis do we now make that assumption?

This is the last in this three part report. If any more answers are to be found, the American citizens will have to demand them, the courts will have to agree to allow discovery in the matter and Obama will have to become the transparent president he promised so many Americans he would be.

Armed with this information, it is now up to the American people to decide what to do with this information. But one thing is vividly clear, nobody in the DNC wants to address any of these questions and Obama’s Department of Justice is too busy running interference for their Messiah to be bothered with such minor details as the rule of constitutional law.

It’s all in the hands of the people now! I hope you choose wisely!

So I guess the buck stops there, as far as this investigation from JB goes. But there still is some kind of investigation in New Hampshire going on over this I believe.

Me? *shrug* Like many of you, I am sick of debating the entire issue to death. But I'll never get sick of screaming loudly if there is any contest to the age-old founding document. And that transcends race, gender and religion.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 08:05 AM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Thanks for the follow up.

So, if Pelosi did indeed certify his eligibility, even if it was only in one state, then that document alone would prove that he is eligible and the language on the other 49 doesn't matter. I mean, he can't be eligible, according to the Constitution, in one state and not in all of them.

So, IF Pelosi actually checked and IF she is telling the truth, this is over. Two "ifs" that will be hard to explore unless it goes to the Supreme Court.

Thanks for a fun (if sometimes frustrating) thread.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 08:27 AM by TrueAmerican

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Well gee, why am I not surprised you'd take that position? Here you have 1 state, that just happens to be the very state of BC contention claiming that they received the copy with constitutional language, and also claiming that Obama's records are on file, against 49 other states that got no constitutional certification? Come on now BH. Who's on the wrong side of probability here?

And what about the other issue he raised that such certification was also missing in the primary filings?

If this went to court, Pelosi could always say that she based her claim on Hawaii's official position regarding the BC- and is off the hook, along with the rest of the DNC, for all other states. How convenient.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 09:50 AM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Well gee, why am I not surprised you'd take that position?

Maybe because every time one of these threads come up and I participate in it with an open mind, I see the same results?

Here you have 1 state, that just happens to be the very state of BC contention claiming that they received the copy with constitutional language, and also claiming that Obama's records are on file, against 49 other states that got no constitutional certification? Come on now BH. Who's on the wrong side of probability here?

I think you are.

There is no reason to believe that each state holds a certain "weight" in determining Constitutional eligibility. And since all 50 of them have the "skeleton" document (with minor additions, according to their own statutes) there's no reason to believe that Hawaii's addition (according to its statutes) is anything special or suspect.

And what about the other issue he raised that such certification was also missing in the primary filings?

Just because he hasn't seen it, doesn't mean it's missing. Remember, he also claimed that all 50 states had received the "skeleton" document and that none had received the one with Constitutional language. He's assuming they're missing and stating it as fact. And, of course, you believe him.

If this went to court, Pelosi could always say that she based her claim on Hawaii's official position regarding the BC- and is off the hook, along with the rest of the DNC, for all other states. How convenient.

Yes, she could. And she could claim that she saw his BC or that she was forced by the DNC to lie or that Obama threatened her or any number of lies. She could claim anything. But unless and until that happens, we will not know.

Look, I don't have any expectation that you are going to give up your opinion on this. But I don't think I'm going to coming over to your way of thinking about it either. Not without proof.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 02:39 PM by TrueAmerican

I am glad you changed that religion bit, thanks.

Ok, so as to the NH investigation, it appears that Rep. Rappaport looked into it, decided not to pursue, and forwarded the information to the NH AG, Michael Delaney. And as far as I know, that's where it stands.

Considering where that guy comes from, and who appointed him, we can likely kiss any hopes of something being done on that end goodbye. Music to your ears BH, I know.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 02:48 PM by Benevolent Heretic

Thanks for removing that music to my ears part.

You know, I haven't just dismissed this stuff, like many do. I still remain open to the possibility. I try to be civil (and sometimes fail) and I even help and gather information to find the truth one way or another.

So, no. It isn't particularly music to my ears. I don't want Obama to be proven ineligible, but MUCH more than that, I want the truth. I think I have the truth, so I have no motivation pushing me along, but I understand that some don't think they have the truth. And either of us could be right.

I look forward to your next thread.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 02:59 PM by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I look forward to your next thread.

Yeah right. That nasty TA. That's all he does is come here to try and tear down Obama.

I have done 10 other threads since this one, BH. Don't even go there. I want the truth too, and not just on this issue. The chips are going to fall one of these days, and wherever they do, that's where it is.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 05:29 PM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I have done 10 other threads since this one, BH. Don't even go there.

I'm not going there. I meant your next thread on this issue. And I was being sincere. THis is fun for me.

We go back a long way and have had our ups and downs, but when I see your posts, I'm reminded of the old days when things around here were... different. In a good way. I remember your PODcast about signs in Spanish and of course, our musical collaboration. There's enough nastiness around here these days to last a lifetime and I'm trying to balance it out a little.

Really.

We can respectfully disagree. Maybe not 100% of the time, but most of it.

reply posted on 15-11-2009 @ 12:46 AM by epicurious

reply to post by TrueAmerican

I don't know who originally posted this but the person who did got it backwards.

The DNC did not purposely remove the "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the US Constitution" statement from the 2008 Certification of Nomination it sent to every state except HI.

The verbiage on the 49 state cert is identical to the verbiage on the 2000 and 2004 certs. What the DNC did do was ADD the "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the US Constitution" to the cert provided to HI.

HI Election laws require the state and national party to submit a sworn declaration that the candidate is constitutionally qualified to serve.

The real controversy is that the Hawaii Democratic Party REMOVED the "legally qualifed to serve under the provisions of the US Constitution" from its 2008 Certification of Nomination.

2000 and 2004 HDP statement reads: "This is to certify that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the National Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held ___ (2000. 2004) in the State of Hawaii and acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held ____ (2000, 2004) in...."

The 2008 HDP cert reads: "This is to certify that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27th, 2008 in Denver, Colorado."

The BIG question is why did the HDP modify its statement by entirely removing "under the US Constitution" and "duly chosen". The 2008 statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just how is a candidate legally qualified to serve under provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held..."?

The certification is a sworn declaration and someone at HDP purposely removed this verbiage so not to perjure themselves. Someone knows that Barry's NBC status does not pass the smell test....

reply posted on 15-11-2009 @ 09:08 AM by Iamonlyhuman

reply to post by epicurious

And that someone is from Hawaii... interesting huh?

reply posted on 28-11-2009 @ 02:24 PM by Gregarious

Originally posted by TheAssociate
I don't know exactly what they are trying to hide but they are obviously trying to hide something. Great find, S&F. I'm going to have a closer look into this. Something is up.

TA

Oh, come on! They are trying to hide the proof that he is an American. What is the opposite? That he is NOT. They are trying to hide the proof that he believes in freedom and free markets. What is the reverse? He's a damn commie! They are hiding the facts, and he is a MUSLIM TERRORIST, like all the other Commie/Dummycrats and Socialist(Commie Lite) Rebumblicans in Congress. WE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED but subtly. Martial law is already in place, but not practiced. Not till after they come to your door and arrest you/ you disappear. Not till after they steal all your guns so that you cannot resist their conquest, under the new intl agreement the Kenyan just signed thru Piglosi. (NOT a misspelling). And why should any of this surprise Christians? You know this is the last days. You know we will have a world government. The US has been 'riding the world governments' since the end of WWII. She has to be removed from power before the Man of Sin can take over. And don't PANIC. Lucifer is behind all this, and he knows he already lost this war. Christ stated he will return AFTER all these things happen. I am looking for the two prophets, to tell me what to do, and there are already charlatans/imposters/phonies. But you will know the real ones when the whole world hates them and blames them for the bad that they themselves brought on. People get the history they deserve.