It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama

page: 9
137
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 





I emailed my state's election commission and they were more than happy to send the certifications. I've asked for the 2004 certifications so we can compare the 2008 ones to them (especially the DNC cert), however, I have not gotten those yet. It's taken a day for me to figure out how to post the email without my personal information so please excuse the delay.


Thank you for sharing this information. I think enough doubt was put into the minds of US citizens that the issue should be settled by the Judiciary. That is why we have courts of law in the first place. To settle matters legally with out prejudice.




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnoxMSP

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


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



Biden would be ineligible, and Clinton is down the line to replace the President. It would be President Pelosi, until a new election was set up. That's scarier than the other two! That woman scares the bejeebus out of me. Her plastic surgery is not aging well, she looks like a damn raccoon.


Not so sure about that scenario.

If all of this is true, I think it may go like this:

Biden was appointed by Obama, chosen, for VP. If the election is invalid, illegal, Biden is out.

Clinton was appointed, she is out.

Pelosi can't do it, because technically, there is no election, so democrats will not have won, hence it woul have to revert to a republican position.

Leaving Sebnator Byrd to sit in as acting president until a new election is held.

As much as Pelosi wishes to think she is in the food chain, the annulment of the election may well oust her, especially if she were to be named complicit, to be facing a long prison term.

Either way, it seems it may come down to Senator Byrd.

No appointments would be legal, all of the Obama staff would be ousted. All named chairs, positions, czars, etc. - gone.

All executive orders of Bush that he rescinded would have to be re-instated.

All executive orders Obama signed, nullified.

All laws passed since the election, revoked.

All bills proposed, most likely rescinded.

This is why it has been called a "Constitutional Crisis" from the get go. It is, and it places this country in a horrible position, probably leading to a civil war as the world watches on all netoworks as the president is escorted out of the Whitehouse in handcuffs by the police. There will be no MSM games on this. This is something they won't be able to deny, or not report.

This opens the country to attack from abroad, as we have no set stability, percieved as "down time".

Imagine the hell that would break loose, and why they will do everything in their power to prevent it from being discovered.

Watch, if they get any closer, people will start having "accidents". Judges, attorneys, even our representatives and congressmen who insist on pursuing this issue.

Even if this is all true, they will push through an emergency bill allowing the constitution to be "waived" in this case, "cause he is doing a *great* job!"

There is a bill to end presidential limits. There are bills to ammend the Constitution and remove the Natural Born Citizen clause. This was filed prior to the election, and there is documented proof the democratic party researched this this prior to Obama being elected.

This country is in deep, and for the most part, people are more willing to turn a blind eye to the posibility this is true than to face the scenario outlined above if it is discovered it is. The easy way out. After his one term run, *then* it will all come out.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
I emailed my state's election commission and they were more than happy to send the certifications. I've asked for the 2004 certifications so we can compare the 2008 ones to them (especially the DNC cert), however, I have not gotten those yet. It's taken a day for me to figure out how to post the email without my personal information so please excuse the delay. They were very fast with the 2008 cert.


Excellent man, thanks very much. And you realize what this means right? That maybe JB Williams isn't the BS artist so many of you are claiming. Unfortunately, that appears to be the exact same one in the OP, from SC. We need other states now.

BUT, that does tell us:

1) That at least one state we know of know did in fact receive the one without the clause

2) That despite all the attempts to argue the validity of the signatures, they are indeed valid.

3) That the person who talked to BH either lied or is ignorant of this fact.

You know BH, you better back off a notch, and let's all keep our heads open on this matter until we can get some more confirmations either way. Because this is only just heating up. I am recommending you for applause IAOH, for contributing crucial information to this thread. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie.


Facts don't lie but liars have their own facts.

You need to face the facts. Obama's citizenship has been proven. There are no thinking people who doubt that FACT. Now an intelligent highly educated black man is your POTUS. Get over it already.


[edit on 12-9-2009 by Lilitu]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
And oh, WorldNetDaily, the people that have been following this Obama issue and releasing much of the information on his case, are now reporting on this story too!

www.wnd.com...

Interesting that they would put what little reputation they have up against this as well. So much for rubbber stamps, eh BH?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Why does the two certifications look the same?

The top one is just the bottom one in bold.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Thanks for doing this. Your post encouraged me to do the same. I hope you don't mind, I stole your email wording.



Originally posted by TrueAmerican
You know BH, you better back off a notch, and let's all keep our heads open on this matter until we can get some more confirmations either way.


I'm asking valid questions, trying to close off the leaks and holes, wherever they are. I'm sure you'd like me to back off, but sorry. I'm not going to just because you told me to. Who are you to tell me to back off? I will back off when I am ready to.


I am recommending you for applause IAOH, for contributing crucial information to this thread.


If someone wants to give me an applause, they will. I don't need or want your recommendation. And I don't know what IAOH means.

Speaking of applause, I've been meaning to say something about this, but forgot until now.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I have just received my first applause ever from Skeptic Overlord- for this thread.


I'm puzzled, quite frankly, that this thread was given an applause by anyone. The OP consisted of a huge block of text and pictures copied from an editorial (what happened to the 3 paragraph rule?), that was taken from a blog as the single source, which jumps to all sorts of conclusions and calls them "facts". It just makes me wonder ...

And now you're all happy that it's been picked up by WND?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
IAOH= Iamonlyhuman, the poster who just took all your so sure of yourself posts and threw them out the window by confirming that SC did in fact receive A COPY WITHOUT THE CLAUSE. I recommended him/her for applause, not you.

And as to the OP, I wrote the whole entire thing based on what I read from the story, minus the pics, the very first sentence, and the properly tagged external text quoted. Maybe you should U2U SO and tell him you don't feel like my post deserved applause. And while you're at it, you can U2U, let's see, the other two mods as well that applauded me for this and the other thread. Want their names too?

[edit on Sat Sep 12th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Sorry for the identity mistake. You were talking to me, so I figured ... you were talking to me.

And you can throw all my posts out the window if you want. But several of them contain valid information and questions regarding other aspects of the assertion made in the OP.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Want their names too?


No. I think it's gauche to brag about applauses and to name names.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
OH, so now I am bragging about applause? O M G. Look woman, SO's applause meant a lot to me after 5 years of being here ok? And now you come on here saying that the post did not deserve it, spewing a bunch of crap. So I reply back telling you that he was not the only one who applauded these threads, showing you that your opinion is in direct contention with an Admin, and two other mods. And now I am bragging?

No, BH, the truth is that you're just pissed cause you might be wrong. Stop it. I don't where the heck this is going to end up and neither do you. And that's ALL I meant by asking you to back off a notch. THAT'S IT. Because you well might be wrong, especially after that post from IAOH.

I've been sitting here taking the heat now for two days over this, being called everything there is, and I'll be damned if you're going to do it to me too. Class act my ass.
I take that back.

I might eat crow over this, but if this story is true, there's going to be a whole lot of you eating rotten WHALE MEAT.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


You're very welcome. It was a very simple thing to do and I'd recommend that others do the same, especially residents in the other states so we can compare them. As you can see, the public information director sent me the copies within an hour - lol, must have been a slow day for him. I hope he'll be as timely with their response to my request for the 2004 documents.

Anyway, my take on this is that the important thing here is not whether they had another document already signed or not but why does the DNC not find it within their responsibility to certify that their candidate is constitutionally eligible when the RNC obviously (from their certification language) does. I do think that they probably had some inkling that there was an eligibility question and therefore did not want to legally bind themselves into it. Plausible deniability - if it ever came out that the POTUS was in fact ineligible, they would not have signed a document certifying that he was.



[edit on 12/9/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Thanks for doing this. Your post encouraged me to do the same. I hope you don't mind, I stole your email wording.




No problem. Just make sure that you sign your name to it. I had my full name, address, and phone number on mine so that they would know that I was a resident of the state. I felt they would be more inclined to respond to me that way.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Obama's citizenship couldn't be faked. You think The Clintons would just stand by if there was a chance that he may not be a real citizen? As well as the Repubs? We need to quit worrying about our President and worry about our Congress, House, Senate, etc. members. We could spend our energy better elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Anyway, my take on this is that the important thing here is not whether they had another document already signed or not but why does the DNC not find it within their responsibility to certify that their candidate is constitutionally eligible when the RNC obviously (from their certification language) does.


It's interesting that both documents seem to be 'out there'. Hawaii's has the constitutional language. South Carolina's doesn't. It's possible that someone grabbed the wrong form and then did the other to correct it. It's hard to say. But the guy I talked to at the DNC headquarters apparently doesn't know what he's talking about.



Plausible deniability - if it ever came out that the POTUS was in fact ineligible, they would not have signed a document certifying that he was.


But they did... The Hawaii document.


Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
No problem. Just make sure that you sign your name to it.


Yeah, I signed my full name and city/state. It's Saturday, though and I don't expect to hear about it over the weekend, unfortunately.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


but hawai recieved on that did contain the ` legal eligibility ` clause ................so where does that leave things ?

just my opinion - but it certainly invalidates the hypebolic ` no state recieved a declaration with the legal eligibility clause ` claim

so thats one hole in the story so far

other ATSers have started attempts to contact thier states electoral comisssions and rebublicam / democtatic parties to opbtain thier states confirmation certificates

someone in texas was told they could have a copy monday and was going to follow it up IIRC



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomasc83
Obama's citizenship couldn't be faked. You think The Clintons would just stand by if there was a chance that he may not be a real citizen? As well as the Repubs? We need to quit worrying about our President and worry about our Congress, House, Senate, etc. members. We could spend our energy better elsewhere.


Obama, for the DNC, was the warm up act for Clinton. His giving Clinton the Secretary of State position was prearranged and is being used to give her experience. Clinton is next and can deny responsibility for any of the situations the Obama administration is having to deal with now. It's actually a very smart move on the part of the DNC, if you think about it. Clinton can promise change from the mistakes of the Obama administration - because, after all, she ran against him and tried to warn us, right?

How much has media focused on Clinton since the nomination of Obama? Not much, even though she's secretary of state (a normally very high profile position). Why? Because she doesn't want to be tied to Obama. Why? Because she's next and she knows it. That's why no eligibility issues have come from her since very, very early in the campaign.





[edit on 12/9/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by TrueAmerican

other ATSers have started attempts to contact thier states electoral comisssions and rebublicam / democtatic parties to opbtain thier states confirmation certificates



Excellent. That's what we, here at ATS, should be doing - denying ignorance... we'll figure it out - let's just try hard to keep our biases (everyone has them) in check when we do this.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I've emailed for North Carolina.

I added to the email:

Also, is it necessary that the Certificate contain language stating that the person nominated meets the constitutional requirement for office?

In case you start receiving a lot these requests, and wonder why, it’s because of this article:
www.rightsidenews.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I received a reply from IN:


Brad King
Co-Director
Indiana Election Division
(317) 232-3939
(800) 622-4941
bking@iec.in.gov
If a person is unclear concerning election law provisions, the Election Division can be used as an interpretive resource. However, where your legal rights are concerned, you must consult with your own attorney to be fully and properly advised.



The .pdf document he attached is AN EXACT DUPLICATE of the S.C. filing (it lacks the "Constitutional" language.)

So, now we HAVE to ask, "Why file different versions in different states?

Can't think of a single good reason; but, several bad ones.

I've saved the pdf with the same label it that came with the attachment.

As soon as I collect the others, I'll let you know.

jw



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Great job. I think it would be good if you could post it here for comparison. Who knows where this could go with all our documentation.

I am waiting for Texas, as I think you are.

I am wondering if the states have any liability in this since they seemed to have failed to notice or flat ignored the requirement for eligibility.



new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join