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.

 

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie

page: 1
38
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+12 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie


www.rightsidenews.com

The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one. One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama. The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of President is the version that was filed with every state in the country...
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama
Threats, media manipulation on Obama eligibility - We have proof
eBay seller releases video of 'Obama birth certificate'
Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Here is the original:



And here is what was submitted by them to the states, SHOWING that the same people who did this DELIBERATELY OMITTED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE!



Critical to understanding this story is this:


Last, the fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was underway, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful.


So now we have this in ADDITION to all the other stories on the Obama issue.

1) The trial case of Taitz/Keyes, now scheduled, and which may well proceed into discovery. In this case there are now to different BC's, one from the hospital and one from Kenya, which both corroborate each other.

2) All of the other SCOTUS cases thrown out for lack of standing

3) The damning investigation of Obama administration threats of intimidation to the networks and talk show hosts not to discuss the BC issue.

I mean really. What more is it going to take to understand that something is very wrong with this picture? The elimination of the constitutional clause is about is damning as it can get, and a clear case of fraud and even treason, at the highest political level in this land. This is outrageous!

Credit to ATS member Stormdancer777 for sending me this in a U2U (someone send an applause his/her way please for uncovering this)

www.rightsidenews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on Fri Sep 11th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
I can tell that the signatures on the first document have been superimposed onto the second document. Acually I bet a first grader could tell you that. It is clearly a copy of the same document, the signatures have been photocopied onto it, they match too perfectly and are not sized correctly on the second document. Now for me, the real conspiracy here is faked this second document?

I would say that Shalifa's commision date expiration ( the second line in it) is completely forged as well, and the 'N' in Nancy Pelosi as well. Other than those two forgeries, the rest is an exact photocopy.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by space cadet]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 


Nope, I just looked very carefully, and look at those signatures very carefully. There are differences, for sure. But nice try.


You can see the sigs are close, but just different enough to show they were signed at different times.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Look again man, Shalifa's is def forged. And someone messed with the N in Nancy Pelosi, like they practiced it over the original document. The second document is also missing the watermarks that are clear on the first document, at the bottom of the page. It is a fake.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 




I did a down and dirty comparison to 2 things I saw on the right hand side is from the first document and the left hand is the second.

Now look the 28th is written defiantly from form one to form two strange.

Now look at the N look how they are completely different from each another if it is a copy why would they be different?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 


You need better eyes, I think. The signatures are pretty obviously separate signings:



I could go into deeper detail, but look at the signatures back and forth a few times, you can see the obvious differences (the P in 'Pelosi' and A in 'Alice' should be enough to convince you, and if not there are plenty of others).

Edit: You guys are quick!

[edit on 11-9-2009 by EsSeeEye]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ashnomadonte
 


That is a practice mark. Check out the 'dotted' letters, the 'i's' on the page. On Nancy Pelosi's name it is exactly the same on both documents, aslo on 'Alice and on Travis, no one signs exactly the same every time. Superimpose one over the other and you will see. And check out this link too.

www.wisegeek.com...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by space cadet]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by ashnomadonte
 


That is a practice mark. Check out the 'dotted' letters, the 'i's' on the page. On Nancy Pelosi's name it is exactly the same on both documents, aslo on 'Alice and on Travis, no one signs exactly the same every time. Superimpose one over the other and you will see. And check out this link too.

www.wisegeek.com...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by space cadet]




No there not look I put them together and they are in different places and look at the defiance between document 1 and 2 they are different.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


You show one and say 'here is the original' then show the fake one. Okay, so why is the 'original' covered in photocopy spots, you know, all the black dots all over the paper. Your 'original' isn't even an original, even it is a photocopy. Show a real copy of a DNC nomination, a blank form to compare to. The stars in the letters DNC on your 'original' are messed up because of photocopying, in the second document you can clearly see where the 'N' of 'DNC' is still messed up.

Nomination by acclaimation. Those are keywords too.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   
::plays Jaws Theme Music:::: Watch Out Obama, they are commin to get you!
They definately need to investigate this issue, but they wont, just like 911, they will just laugh and resort to name calling as their defensive tactic.
If he really wasnt born here, the consequences could be what brings this country to its knees, it may not take the economy to do it.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Following is a copy of the email I just sent to Orly Taitz:

Subject: Hi Orly, Critical new evidence of DNC coverup, could be vital to your case

Hi Orly,

First let me state I am firmly behind you all the way in your case against a would be usurper to our Presidency. And here is another breaking story you should most definitely be aware of: It is proof of a DNC conspiracy to intentionally remove the constitutional requirement clause from their final document submitted to the states. You may find a way for this to help increase the efficacy of your Keyes case.

www.rightsidenews.com...

I am the member TrueAmerican from AboveTopSecret.com and have ongoing discussions on this here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sincerely,
TA


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Hello everyone. I have not signed in this place in a while but this post motivated me to do so. I studied handwriting analysis, exactly like the fbi does (hint, hint) and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the same people signed said documents.

I do not know if it was Nancy Pelosi or Alice Germond who signed these docs but I can tell you that the "Nancy" who signed the 1st doc, also signed the 2nd, same with "Alice".

Here is a nice little doc to explain handwriting analysis

science.howstuffworks.com...

Hey if you have the cash, buy a book and learn for yourself

www.amazon.com...

peace



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Mr.X_
I studied handwriting analysis, exactly like the fbi does (hint, hint) and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the same people signed said documents.


I think I get the hint.


Thank you so much for your invaluable input. I am feeling the same. It does not appear to be a forgery to me either, and the differences in the sigs are just enough to show they are the same people, different signing times.

Most excellent thanks! Star for you of course!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
You know, I been sitting here trying to think of reasons why they would do this other than to conceal something, and I have come up with nothing so far.
I mean really, WHY would CONGRESS or any other part of our GOVT change a LEGAL certifercate that specifically states the REQUIREMENTS for office under our CONSTITUTION.
That is a LEGAL document in and of itself, and should be against the law to change any part of it. Thats the whole point of the document isnt it,
to prove proper status? Since this document has been altered, it is therefor invalid am I correct?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
Thats the whole point of the document isnt it,
to prove proper status? Since this document has been altered, it is therefor invalid am I correct?


Well its resulting validity raises a separate issue unto itself. Interesting point. But if you read the article, you will notice the author points out the RNC document as well, which has a similar constitutional reference!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


"The RNC "Official Certification of Nomination " for John McCain and Sarah Palin reads, and I quote:

"We do hereby certify that a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the Unites States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;"
"

This one at least states that McCain and Palin met the constitutional requirements. The DNC paperwork has OBVIOUSLY been changed to(like one poster earlier said)cover thier ass.
Man oh man this is baaaad news for Obama. I dont know what rabbit hes gunna pull out of the hat this time.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Exactly, my friend.

But hey, if you visit the ATS sister thread to this (under the two thread rule), I am already being accused of "personal suspicions and hatred" as my motivation for posting this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nothing could be further from the truth. You think I like this crap? You think I give one rat's ass what color or political affiliation he is? NO, I don't, and have said it many times.

But after so much on this guy, his lack of delivery on his promises, all the court cases in SCOTUS, the threats to the media, his signing of the order to lock down the archives, his secrecy of all his records, and now THIS????

You can't protest around here at all based on sheer facts, lest you be acused of some agenda other than truth.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   
No answer yet for why the so called 'original' would have photocopy fingerprints all over it.

Also, no motive.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I saw the other thread you posted, and saw who you were having to deal with
. I stopped trying to debate with that person long ago because I knew after reading so many of his/her posts that he/she could not look at things for what they are. I wont post to that person because frankly, its like arguing with a 5 year old. When SG gets pinned into a corner, first thing he/she does is scream foul. Can never admit he/she is wrong.

Dont worry bout it though, those documents speak for themselves, and its not like you are the one who "found" these documents, you are just relaying the message.

This is going to get out fast, just you watch.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join