Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama

page: 2
137
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Well it can mean only one of two things:

1) Either our government is run by bigger imbeciles that I'd previously thought (which is astounding, given that George W. Bush was our President for 8 years) and this in not inconceivable.

-or-

2) There's a much, much bigger conspiracy going on than this "birther" movement. If the DNC knew prior to nominating Obama that he wasn't a natural-born citizen, then there's another plan that goes beyond his impeachment and him being stripped of the Presidency. It's especially concerning know that they had a candidate in Clinton that could have stood just as good of a chance at beating McCain.

If #1 is true, then it's time to flush Congress entirely, wipe the slate clean and start all over with people who have some common sense and professionalism toward their career choice.

If #2 is true then it's time to start thinking about what's coming next ... after Obama has been stripped of the Presidency. What's in store for America? What could be the ultimate plan? If it's indeed true that the DNC had prior knowledge and STILL nominated Obama, then there's much more to the plan than just electing and impeaching him.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by tyranny22]




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
If it's indeed true that the DNC had prior knowledge and STILL nominated Obama, then there's much more to the plan than just electing and impeaching him.


Jesus. Maybe that's been the deal all along. They put him in there, knowing they'd have to impeach, causing massive riots all over the place, and bang. Martial Law. Maybe that explains why all the troops committed to civil defense, the FEMA camps, and everything else.

But operating for a minute under that hypothesis, then WHO are they planning on taking over? Pelosi? Clinton? Biden?

Of those three my guess would have to be Clinton- I wouldn't put it past her having something to do with this. But ok, I am getting WAY ahead of myself here. One thing at a time, jeez!


[edit on Fri Sep 11th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   


But operating for a minute under that hypothesis, then WHO are they planning on taking over? Pelosi? Clinton? Biden?


O Dear Me - can I have more choices PLEASE


+6 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The reason why the missing clause the OP showed us is so important is because this is a legal and binding document as evidenced by the two signatures and the need for a Notary to validate them.

This is almost like a contract, in legal matters words are very important and what a document says or doesn't say is extremely important. You might sign a contract with a new employer that has a section about compensation for injuries, or perhaps it says "accidents", there is a BIG difference.

To sign a document that you know to be false is perjury and this goes double if you're entering it into official records. They may have removed that clause to protect themselves from accusations of perjury should anything come of this all.

I think that alone is enough to think something funky is going on.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Plausible Deniability... (Forgive me if I spelled that wrong)

** 2nd line **



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mappam
 




Sure. Maybe Rockerfeller or one of the Bilderbergs, or perhaps the Pope will come claim their thrown in a new era of world dominance.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I also just read the full story via the link provided and in the comments below the article, someone has posted a link stating that the DNC form received did contain the language about the candidates meeting the requirements of the consitution.

So, how do we verify that the states received the doc that did not have this clause?

Could that be the reason for 2? Submit one to the states for election purposes but then pull out the one with the clause if anyone asks?

If this scenario is true then the circle gets even wider.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Wow,

Please don't allow yourselves to be distracted by this misinfo BS. The signatures don't even look like a match.

For how many times a day these people sign their names you would expect it to be exact. Hell I barely sign my name and it's almost always the same.

This is planted Misinformation to get this distraction going once again. Too bring all you truth seekers together just so they can make you look stupid again. I feel sorry for you if you jump on this wagon.

Shame to the author!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Well I think the bc issue is mute. The next court case will end exactly like those before it, dismissed for lack of credibility and evidence. However in the TRUE spirit of this thread I want to know...

Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a disabled 12 year old girl in 1990? None of the evidence seems to point that he didn't you know.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by brianmg5
 


Apparently I'm one of the few people here to keep an open mind regarding these things.

Shame on you for assuming it's false. What proof do you have? At least the OP presented something other than his opinion, as you've provided solely as your evidence as this being "disinfo".

I think this birther movement is a farce. But, it's much like the 9/11 conspiracy. Once the ball gets rolling and more evidence is presented, eventually you can't help but acknowledge there's something to it.

I have not yet reached that point. There's much, much more to be presented to me to buy into the claims that Obama isn't a natural-born citizen, but certainly I don't dismiss the idea outright simply to be ignorant for ignorance's sake.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 



Well I think the bc issue is mute. The next court case will end exactly like those before it, dismissed for lack of credibility and evidence. However in the TRUE spirit of this thread I want to know...


Well, it would not have got past the first stage if that were true. Orly is at another hearing of another case today I believe.

What has Beck got to do with anything?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Could that be the reason for 2? Submit one to the states for election purposes but then pull out the one with the clause if anyone asks?


Only the document sans clause is marked "Received"

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Shadowflux]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Does anyone have, or know how to get, a copy of the nomination certification sent for other presidents or nominees? I would be good if we were able to compare the wording.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Ok, this is a blanket response to several questions raised. Yes, we know what we need. We need to verify with the states that they did indeed receive the one without the clause. And I have done my part. I have already sent an email to the state election board for my state, asking specifically for a copy of the "Official Certification of Nomination" sent to them by the DNC.

So the answer is simple: find your own states election board web site, get an email, and write asking them for it, or where it would be, or where you can view it online. Together we'll figure out this mess.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Compare Pelosi's signature with her signature on these other two documents with the sans clause document, the upper case "P" in Pelosi is very different on the other two documents.

Document 1

Document 2

I'll post pics in a second




You can see the construction of the Capital "P" is quite different from the document in question. The known signatures show two separate strokes, down, and around. The document from the article shows two connect strokes, a downward starting stroke which double backs to make a long cursive stroke.




[edit on 11-9-2009 by Shadowflux]

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Shadowflux]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
guess what? nothing is going to happen, nothing ever does.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Great thread , lots of info to take in. But there is difinitly something funny about everything he does. Maybe that flub on the swearing in was done on purpose , wasen't it redone later behind closed doors ?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 





So the answer is simple: find your own states election board web site, get an email, and write asking them for it, or where it would be, or where you can view it online. Together we'll figure out this mess.


Okay, I have done my part.

Request sent for Texas



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


Sounds like fraud to me.

Those P's look definitely different. Either a ghost pen signed her name, meaning it is still a legal signature, or its a forgery.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


I appreciate your help. The problem is, for that one irregularity in the P, I can find many more similarities in the rest! So my question to you is, why point out the one, when MOST of it matches almost verbatim? I wouldn't mind getting that FBI guy's take on this.





top topics
 
137
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join