The Mistake, The Evidence, Obama is NOT a Constitutional President?

Okay, found this elsewhere and did a search but didn't find it posted here yet..

So, according the website this article titled THE MISTAKE, THE EVIDENCE, OBAMA IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT , linked at the end of the post....

The DNC had 2 Official Certificates of Nomination.
One that included that the candidates were qualified to serve under the Constitution and another that just said that they were nominated with no reference to being legally qualified.
According to this website. it was the latter that was presented to the 50 state Electoral Offices and not the former.......

IMPORTANT: IMAGES OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE AT THE WEBSITE....

One DNC Official Certificate of Nomination reads..

"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 of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and 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. "

(bolding mine)

However a very similiar document was delivered to the 50 state DNC offices whose offices certified it to 50 State Electoral offices.

The document that was presented by the DNC in all fifty states for the 2008 Presidential election, was almost identical, and was also missing the following text...

"- and 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....."

The legal text on the official certification of Nomination presented to the 50 state electoral offices was limited to...

"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 of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:...."

So could this be the smoking gun that truth seekers have been looking for? It seems the Birth Certificate route so far has been unproductive and yet there SEEMS to be , according to the documents on this website, documents issued by the DNC that
pretty much point the finger to shadowy goings on with the switching of these 2 Official Certificates of Nomination.

Please read in it's entirety at this link......

www.canadafreepress.com...

What do you think? Is this for real?



[edit on 27-9-2009 by Flighty]

[edit on 27-9-2009 by Flighty]

There is another thread discussing this topic:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But in reply to your "proof" that Obama was some how unconstitutionally elected, whats relevant to the constitution is the confirmation by congress and the electoral college in December following the elections. The constitution only requires the electors and congress to vote and confirm the elibility of the candidate following the election win. Obama was voted in by the electors and his eligibility was confirmed by congress.

Now this is a petty attack regarding Obamas eligibility. What forms were sent out and what minor differences are irrelevent to what the constitution sees as defining, and that is the confirmation and votes by the electors and congress, to which Obama was elected in December 2008.

SG

[edit on 27-9-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Thanks for the reply and the link to the already ongoing discussion.
I did a search for it but couldn't find it.

Mods can close .....sorry for that...