Posted on 04/12/2011 11:12:10 AM PDT by American Dream 246
New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nominations for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 were to visit more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws, media accounts and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a private hearing with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from the Hawaiian ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailypen.blogspot.com ...
Yep. The DNC prepared those two different forms in 2000 because they knew Obama would run for Prez.
That’s not ridiculous at all. /s
Is there an internet copy of these other doc’s?
I did?? Wow, I am smarter than I thought... LOL That was pretty good!
I tell ya, mind like a steel sieve over here... and you thought I was kidding LOL
Perhaps you could tell me why they did prepare two different forms. Obama’s rise to power was planned for long before 2000.
Thank you! Thank you and THANK YOU!!!
They had to. Hawaii refused to put the constitutionally eligible language on its submission. That language HAD to be there, but Hawaii refused. Thus, Nancy Pelosi did it for them.
Yeah. Give me a minute. I need to put them on my homepage. I’ve posted the links several times but never remember to update my page.
“but merely a custom.”
That is exactly why it could end up being the speaker of the house sworn in.
Time will tell. But I find it interesting that many here tend to defend this administration.
It was? Got a link for that claim?
The speaker of the house is next in line. If any doubts are placed on the VP, then the next in line is the Speaker.
Read an article in 08 or so about this where legal counsel had brought up this very issue. It was not any of those investigating this either. I dont remember who, but, he wrote that if it were him, he would get Obama to get his BC out ASAP because it could cause great harm and an absolute constitutional crisis where there is nothing in the Constitution to cover the issue-that is a constitutional crisis.
That is why I talked about this with that retired federal judge. He explained that he believed it might be covered under the tenth where it goes back to the states and if not the states to the people.
The best is if this asshole OBAMA would simply step down. I dont see that happening.
Test tubes number 14 an 152.....
bust will appear next to “W” in the history books.
unless of course the congress does the right thing and VOID his election. This would erase any mention of obama being the President. The next President would be legal 44 th. President.
Curiosity is probably paid just like jamese777. They have one goal in mind: Telling you you’re wrong. That’s all.
Like turn in your time card to the DNC for the tonights postings?
What can I say. All I know is the poster said they don’t bother reading the articles posted and just want a synopses. and given the total crap they dish out to people who actually take the time to do the research and read the articles through, its just a freaking insult.
I said it was lame, I would have chosen a different word, but that would have gotten me banned.
I have ZERO problem with someone arguing a point from a debate standpoint. Ultimately it makes our arguments stronger and encourages further research. Up to a point. But to know that someone is doing that and not even bothering to READ the things discovered, and critiquing it on top of it... thats just BS. Total BS.
Thats my 2 cents.
It says so much more about curiosity than it does FR, or the birthers or anyone else. I will let their message stand, it speaks for itself.
I’m sure our impartial Attorney General Eric Holder will get right on this./s
You know, it’s like we don’t even have a Dept. of Justice anymore.
Sorry but there is only one constitutional way to remove a person who has been sworn in as president. And that is impeachment and conviction.
The states have NOTHING to do with anything about this matter once he was allowed on the ballots.
While the Democrats are not above any enormity. A trial over a fundamental fraud might be more than they could handle. It would not be about “lying about sex” and, therefore to some, forgivable. If Urkel was impeached it would take on an uncontrollable aspect.
Besides the RATs might have learned that they would have retained the presidency in 2000 had they convicted Slimey. Gore would have won running as an incumbent.
There is none. There is a supposition that because five or six hours cannot be accounted for it was to go to said meeting.
There is however no doubt, if Urkel himself, is to be believed that he is not a natural born citizen. According to his own autobiography his father was a citizen of the British empire and his mother underage therefore he cannot be a natural born citizen. That evidence is stone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
