Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 137 times

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 01:19 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by TrueAmerican

I see an immediate problem with that excerpt, in that the person who wrote it (blogger??) reveals him/herself to be a rabid anti-Democratic partisan hack.

From your excerpt:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates...(")

Just the relevant bit, notice it is in "quotes", as the person (blogger??) claims that it came from the actual DNC document, which is reproduced later in the OP.

There is this vague reference to a "typo", not of the (blogger's??) doing, he/she claims.

Well, what immediately jumped out at me was, even though this (blogger??) allegedly re-types the DNC document in "quotes", he/she still uses the pejorative "Democrat" instead of the correct, and as seen in the actual document, accurate term "Democratic". (e-mine)

THIS is seen repeatedly by the far-right loons.

Fostered and repeated no doubt by certain individuals who shall be best left unnamed...and ditto for Fox "News" as well....

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 01:21 PM by beta.services

reply to post by CoffinFeeder

I don't receive the dole. But you might as well hand in your food stamps.

Our medicare and dole system provides for all that are in need. Some take advantage. As I am sure you do of your system. But in general it works.

Having said that, I'm sure that if the mighty U.S.A had our system of 'welfare' you would label it as socialism and fight against it being in place. But once again. I assure you. It Works (for us).

I have no qualms about where my home is. Why do you care so much anyway? My home does not negate my argument.

Talking about the issue in a forum, discussing it a length, does not equal action. You do have a legal system. If you really believed what you are saying you would have filed an injunction with the courts before he was elected. Maybe you did? Let me know. I would be happy to apologise to you and follow the proceedings as they unfold.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 01:29 PM by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by TrueAmerican

True american, where does this prove the DNC was under the conspiracy to certify a supposedly ineligible candidate? All I see are messages, veried apparently, but nevertheless certifications of both Obama and Biden as nominees. Your now basing the entire conspiracy on what one sheet of paper said what other one didnt. It doesnt make a difference at the end of the day as congress and the electoral college are given authority vai the constitution to clarify the eligibility of the candidate of interest, and on December 15th 2008 Obama was confirmed by both congress and the electoral college to be the new president elect, period. What pieces of paper were sent out that did or did not mention his eligibility will not change the confirmation of Obamas eligibility on December 15th 2008 by both congress and the electoral college.

You seem bent on removing a democratically and constitutionally elected president based on speculative theories as to what is what. Obama has provided his short form which was verified by the Hawaiian government and congress and the electoral college confirmed his eligibility. Nobody, neither you or your fellow believers have proven to us that Obama is ineligible so I really have to sit here and wonder why day and day in these threads why you try the same thing based on little to no evidence or fact to remove this man.

You want to talk about concern about freedom, liberty, and yet here you are making every attempt to move a democratic president based on really nothing to prove his ineligibility but your own personal suspicions and dislike. Hows that for preserving the constitution, eh?

Im pritty darn sure there are better things you can be critical of Obama and the DNC for.

SG

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Southern Guardian]

try putting 2 + 2 together..........what do you get?

That must mean they are also in on it....

Just because you didn't think of that does not make it true..

Try expanding your mind to see possibilities you may not thought possible...

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 01:30 PM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Sorry BH, I was meaning to reply before your post but had to step away

Oh, no problem. This is bound to move fast and furious.

I wonder, perhaps the first doc made was in error without that last line. So they had to do it again and made a second one with the new line added. Perhaps they tried to leave it out originally but someone would not accept it. Or it is indeed a fake.

I'm going to go with "fake".

I just talked to the Democratic Party Headquarters and they weren't aware of this Internet conspiracy and are certain that it's forged. He said that a master document without the Constitutional language on it doesn't exist. Of course, if it's really a conspiracy, then he WOULD say that.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 01:34 PM by dizziedame

It is oblivious to me that Obama was groomed for the position of US President for many years.

It seems this is bigger than either the republican or democratic parties.

I speculate that Mr. Obama was set up to fail. He is an expendable commodity. The powers that created Mr. Obama and put him in office can also take him out when they desire.

Bidden is a clown and also expendable. He can be taken out also.

Dear Nancy can be broken like a dry twig.

The democratic party has been rear ended, they just don't feel the pain yet.

What is next?

Lookie, lookie, could it be the New World Government, which is not new. In reality, this movement is very, very old.

Destroy the United States government and the rest of the world will fall like dominoes.

I don't doubt for one minute that our new government officials have already been chosen.

Can this be avoided? I don't know but am ready for a BIG change.

How long has it been since we were happy with our government?

Neither the republications nor the democrats will makes the majority of us happy.

Our bubble has been filling a long time. It's about reached it's limit.
It will burst.

Empires are built and empires fall. Why are we different? Or are we?

We are living in most interesting times.

TrueAmerican thanks for your research and the intestinal fortitude to post it.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:02 PM by AceWombat04

This is proof of one thing, in my opinion: that two different certifications were filed. The reasons for that we can only speculate and theorize about in my opinion.

I'm not an Obama supporter (or an exclusive supporter of any politician or party for that matter.) I decry most of his activities and policies since taking office thus far. I am open to the possibility of his ineligibility. However this in my opinion is only potential evidence, and not irrefutable proof.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:28 PM by KnoxMSP

Originally posted by arcnaver
reply to post by KnoxMSP

I do not believe that is how that would work as any decision Obama made as a fraudulent President would be null and void, meaning anyone he put into a cabinet position would have to be removed as well.

Well Pelosi was already in the position she's in, so the only one to get the axe would be Clinton.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:31 PM by pizzaguy

TRUE OR NOT........the lawmakers of this country have enough political and financial power available to keep the issue at bay indefinitely. The agenda was for Obama to be king so that their agenda could be pursued.

Notice how Senator Wilson "disgraced" himself before the king and all of congress.

I can respect the office, but since always the president is still a man. I say act like it and not hide behind the office.

These political/economic powers have way too much entrenchment and resources to combat anything.

They own the Supreme Court, The Bureacracy, The Congress
( obviously ), both major parties, the media, the Central Bank, the military, and yes the Presidency.
Did I leave any out?.....oh most of the States too.

Exposing does ....what? They say prove it in court, which btw is already secured. There is nothing. NOTHING!!!

Armchair cowboy.....got a solution? A real sloution?

How about one of you brainiacs go high jack/hack CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNBC, MNBC, and FOX satelites and broadcast all the docs and a nice vid. Remember Johnny Mnemonic? If I knew how, that would be the solution.

Pirate TV to the masses is the answer. Even still, might not be enough.

Love this world. Pass the beer.

edit- typos

PG

[edit on 11-9-2009 by pizzaguy]

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:34 PM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I am amazed you actually took the time to make that forgery!

Actually it probably took less time than it did for you to make the OP.

Look at every element of the first doc to the second doc, and you will see that the size reduction is consistent through and through.

I took some more time and did just that. Here's what I did:

I call the documents "Original" and "Mystery". The "Original" is the darker one with the Constitutional language, of which the Democratic Party claims they have a master on file. The "Mystery" one is the lighter one without Constitutional language, which the Democratic Party claims is a fraud.

I reduced the size of the "Mystery" document until the DNC logo at the top matched the "Original" DNC logo's height to the best of my ability and saved it. I then compared the resultant Notary stamp on both documents. Here are those comparisons:

As you can see, the DNC logos are virtually the same size. However, the "Mystery" document's Notary stamp is still noticeably larger in both height and width. I placed red lines as reference markings to show that the inner border of the Notary stamps line up on exactly the same pixel.

Now, as I have always said, I don't believe ANYONE can verify a document as a fraud OR as valid over the Internet, using a jpg or bmp image. So, I'm not claiming that my research proves ANYTHING. I don't think it does. But it's something to think about.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:51 PM by Benevolent Heretic

I just ran across this that proves that this "mystery" document was circulated and being talked about in November of last year. So if it is a fake, it's not a recent one as I had suspected.

Source

Just a little more info.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:54 PM by jdub297

reply to post by ignorant_ape

if prior declerations for the candidates i cite above can be requested , and shown to contain the clause :

` and is legally eligible ` then i would be convinced

I've requested these for 2004 and 2008 from TX and IN offices. Will supplement upon receipt.

jw

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 03:03 PM by EYE SEE

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by TrueAmerican

True american, where does this prove the DNC was under the conspiracy to certify a supposedly ineligible candidate? All I see are messages, veried apparently, but nevertheless certifications of both Obama and Biden as nominees. Your now basing the entire conspiracy on what one sheet of paper said what other one didnt. It doesnt make a difference at the end of the day as congress and the electoral college are given authority vai the constitution to clarify the eligibility of the candidate of interest, and on December 15th 2008 Obama was confirmed by both congress and the electoral college to be the new president elect, period. What pieces of paper were sent out that did or did not mention his eligibility will not change the confirmation of Obamas eligibility on December 15th 2008 by both congress and the electoral college.

You seem bent on removing a democratically and constitutionally elected president based on speculative theories as to what is what. Obama has provided his short form which was verified by the Hawaiian government and congress and the electoral college confirmed his eligibility. Nobody, neither you or your fellow believers have proven to us that Obama is ineligible so I really have to sit here and wonder why day and day in these threads why you try the same thing based on little to no evidence or fact to remove this man.

You want to talk about concern about freedom, liberty, and yet here you are making every attempt to move a democratic president based on really nothing to prove his ineligibility but your own personal suspicions and dislike. Hows that for preserving the constitution, eh?

Im pritty darn sure there are better things you can be critical of Obama and the DNC for.

SG

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Ah, my good man/woman...Obama is not from here. That is the bottom line. The founders of our country knew it would not be good for us to vote in a president who may have allegience to some other country. For many obvious reasons. They put in place a criteria which must be met to be considered for the seat of the president.

Obama does not meet this list. Pelosi and her co-conspirators knew this, apparently. They changed the document which stated he was (basically) eligible. They left that portion out - WHY? Because they knew he was NOT. Simple. Trying to explain this to you. They scratched it off, in essence, and notarized the short form of it (kinda like his "CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH" which is the short form of a true birth certificate.

Note:

Obama has the same Certificate of Live Birth as his half sister, who has never disputed that she was born...in INDONESIA! How could this be, you may ask? Because Hawaii was known to issue the cert of live birth to ANYONE - it only says - yeah, sure, you WERE born. Not WHERE, or even when - that was based upon the info ANYone could submit. They just didn't care - OK he was born.

Now why do you suppose a man would use 33 or even more, social security nos.? Please, please, answer me that! All I can think of are these: a) He doesn't have a legitimate one at all, and keeps having to make them up (and boy, he must not have realized the first 3 nos. indicate the state it was applied for in, because he never even stepped foot into many of those states for which he used the particular soc. sec. no. in - ha ha - funny. Not a bright man); or b) He had to hide his real soc. sec. no. for various reasons. That's it. Can you give me ANY other reason to use false soc. sec. nos.? I am honestly trying to figure it out.

Also, why would he have to falsify his selective service registration? Hmmm - maybe because he never SIGNED up? Why does he hide ALL school records, from Kiddygarten, on up? Why did mama use false ss#?

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 03:09 PM by Matrix Rising

Good find.

The truth is Obama is not a natural born citizen and he most likely claimed foreign citizenship at Occidental College and on his passport when he visited Pakistan.

Obama was born a dual citizen, not a natural born citizen. This is because his father was not an American citizen.

A Natural Born Citizen is where both parents are American citizens at birth.

The Founders were big on natural law and a baby born to a father that wasn't a citizen would naturally be a citizen of that country. Obama is a British citizen under law because at the time of his birth his father was from Kenya and not a U.S. citizen and Kenya was a British Colony at the time.

This means Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. He may be a native born citizen of this country but at birth Obama had dual citizenship.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

Obama was born a duel citizen not a natural born citizen. The Founders didn't want a President who had allegiance to another country.

I think only one other President slipped by being a dual citizen at birth and that was Chester Arthur.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 03:10 PM by Benevolent Heretic

One more thing...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

However, this document was never delivered to a single state DNC Office for state certification, and it was therefore, never presented to any state Election Commission as certification of these candidates, although I do have a copy of this notarized document myself.

Question. How does he know that this document (with the Constitutional Language) was never delivered? Especially since the Hawaii Response INCLUDES this document, which they claim to have received from the Democratic Party?

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 03:14 PM by EYE SEE

And maybe the MOST telling - how come this guy thinks there are 58 states in the USA? He said he had visited 57 now of the 58 states of the USA. WTF? ANYone who is FROM here knows, without thinking, that there are only 50 states. This sounds like someone who studied about us, but forgot a very significant no. Not to mention, this LIE. How do you visit 57 states, when there are only 50 to begin with?

Remember, the quickest and most efficient way to destroy a country, is to conquer from within. This, he has done thus far, very, very well. He knows exactly what he is doing. He also knows the Left will let him get by with all his lies and deceit, because, well, that's how the left is. They hide and distort to their advantage. Obviously - look at the docs that started this thread. And, hey, I'm not trying to say that the right doesn't do it, too. It's just that when they do, they are called on it. Unlike the left, they do it, and if they're called on it, call us RACIST, nutjobs, conspiracists, brown shirts, shills, etc. This country is so far out of whack, and I'm sorry, but a lot of it has to do with people with your mindset. It is real, dudel Obama MUST be lying about his origins, or he would SIMPLY produce the proof, instead of HIDING any and all back-up info. What do you say to this. Now WHAT? Debunk, if you will. I'm truly interested in what you have to say to all of this....I've been wondering a long while.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 03:25 PM by EYE SEE

Oh, Yeah - almost forgot -- how does one attend school on a FOREIGN VISA - unless...one is a FOREIGNOR? That is a BIG clue. Not to mention, a drain on society...but a HUGE HUGE indicator he is ...FOREIGN!!!!!

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 03:43 PM by TrueAmerican

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Ok, well thanks for that effort!

However, get this:

I took the opposite approach. I enlarged, as opposed to reduced, Doc1 to the size of doc2. In Corel Draw, you are able to view documents in simple wireframe mode, which allows a nearly perfect superimposition of the two, while both are still visible. Once I achieved that for the DNC logo, guess what?

1) The two stamps lined up perfectly, to the point where there was just an ever so slight blur in the letters. But size wise, perfect match. And the slight blur is because doc1 appears to be run through a copier, so the angles of all are not consistent relative to the page.

2) But here's another issue. These docs are supposedly two different docs, signed at different times, right? Well then it would stand to reason then that the stamps, obviously rubber stamps, because they were issued at two different times, the stamps should not appear in exactly the same place, or more critically- AT THE EXACT SAME ANGLE relative to it's surrounding text.

Because it is very unlikely that under two different situations, the angles could exactly match. And guess what? THEY DON'T MATCH, meaning that part of this is indeed consistent with likely reality. Look carefully at the ANGLE of the stamp relative to the surrounding text. It's close, sure, but NOT EXACT. And that's exactly what one should expect from two different docs, signed with the same stamp at two different times.

So they are not in the same place, and the angles are different. I am not willing to call this fake yet.

[edit on Fri Sep 11th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 03:45 PM by imd12c4funn

Very keen research.

This is a smoking gun for sure.

How could they? It seems that those who signed the original, have all purged.

And then to delete the most important certification statement from the verification document, excluding the eligibility statement is borderline treason.

my rare S & F to you.

Excellent work.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 03:58 PM by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Question. How does he know that this document (with the Constitutional Language) was never delivered? Especially since the Hawaii Response INCLUDES this document, which they claim to have received from the Democratic Party?

Now that's interesting. Because guess what's missing? The RECEIVED STAMP!

Nuh uh. Show me one with a received stamp please, just like doc2 in the OP.

I will say this though- if that is indeed the actual response from the State, I don't guess we have to argue about the validity of sigs anymore, eh?

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 04:07 PM by kerazeesicko

I will never understand why people post this garbage. Is it because they have a need to vent because when it all comes down to it...nothing that comes from this site will ever be taken seriously my the mainstream so therefore is useless. You can show us all the "supposed" earth shattering "evidence" you want...but nothing will ever come of it. Must be the republicans/Obama haters need to soothe the pain of loss