To: seekthetruth; Danae; penelopesire; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; Pablo Mac; ...
HOLD THE PHONE!
I posted that DNC doc yesterday on this thread - post #19.
After I did, I did another search and found ANOTHER one on Count Us Out, and I saved that because it was cleaner and clearer and not smudgy. Initially, the first version showed an overwrite of the N in Nancy .. and I thought it looked like it was started with a faulty pen and then written over.
I was just going to delete the first smudgy version and keep the 2nd one in my image account. THEN I READ THEM BOTH!
***THE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED IN THE 2ND VERSION. I've had the first one for awhile, have no clue where I found it. This is the money clause:
".... the following were duly nominated as candidates for said Party as President and Vice President of the United States respectively and 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 Cleaner, 2nd Version
".... the following were nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively." 
What's that all about ?? Pelosi re-thought her liability in the language of the first version and altered the text?
173 posted on
07/30/2009 12:53:13 PM PDT by
STARWISE
(The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
To: STARWISE
Correction on the 2nd: were DULY nominated
174 posted on
07/30/2009 12:56:55 PM PDT by
STARWISE
(The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
To: STARWISE
The second one has a stamp on it (Received August 29,2008)
but the first one doesn’t?
Nothing the DNC does surprises me anymore.
175 posted on
07/30/2009 1:01:31 PM PDT by
azishot
(Please join the NRA.)
To: STARWISE
Does the later one supersede the other document? I don’t see where it says it supersedes the previous document. If that was Pelosi’s intent, then the DNC should have destroyed the one that says “Legally qualified to serve” document before it got out into the public domain.
To: STARWISE
The curl of the T in Travis is different too. One curls straight up the other curls inward.
To: STARWISE
Just for emphasis the new improved version drops this phrase:
...and 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:
Since I
assume the version with the
RECEIVED
AUG 29 2008
SC ELECTION COMM.
is the official one, he was never
officially certified as
Constitutionly eligible to hold office.
Why the change? Nancy knows the truth and wants plausible deniability when TSHTF.
MOO.
180 posted on
07/30/2009 1:19:42 PM PDT by
null and void
(We are now in day 191 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
To: STARWISE
the notary has the same date on both....
181 posted on
07/30/2009 1:20:28 PM PDT by
rolling_stone
(no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
To: STARWISE
this could show intent to deceive....I see some smoke..
185 posted on
07/30/2009 1:24:22 PM PDT by
rolling_stone
(no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
To: STARWISE
To: STARWISE
If you haven’t yet - your find could use it’s own thread!
To: STARWISE
WOW!! They were both sworn out and signed the same day. What is going on with the democrat party? Do a few select know the truth and are getting nervous now? Remember..Nazi Pelosi did not sign that stupid resolution in the house about Obama’s ‘Hawaii birth’ either.
204 posted on
07/30/2009 1:45:50 PM PDT by
penelopesire
("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
To: STARWISE
please post a thread on these 2 images and their content differences.
Regards,
3
210 posted on
07/30/2009 2:06:07 PM PDT by
Triple
(Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
To: STARWISE
This is crazy stuff! Keep digging!
To: STARWISE
Great find! To my untrained eye, it appears the signatures have been overwritten. Why? I can only guess it may be because an over-written signature is a poor attempt at hiding the fact that the document previously signed, was a photo-copied.
Then, the wording was changed. And photo-copied again. By that time the signatures would have faded...
Please make a post of these two documents. It’s a stunning find.
217 posted on
07/30/2009 2:27:10 PM PDT by
Fred Nerks
(fair dinkum!)
To: STARWISE
Her is a sample of Nancy Pelosi's signature:
From Speaker.gov
Seems to be some differences to me, just sayin
225 posted on
07/30/2009 2:47:03 PM PDT by
Las Vegas Ron
(Move over NetZero - Obama's in the house!)
To: STARWISE
235 posted on
07/30/2009 3:14:13 PM PDT by
Fred Nerks
(fair dinkum!)
To: STARWISE
238 posted on
07/30/2009 3:32:30 PM PDT by
Fred Nerks
(fair dinkum!)
To: STARWISE
241 posted on
07/30/2009 3:38:19 PM PDT by
pissant
(THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
To: STARWISE
Check your properties for the first one or put it through a hex editor, it may show you where you originally grabbed the image.
You’ve got to get copies of those two forms to all the attorneys working on the eligibility issue, Andy Martin etc.
That’s a bombshell if we can bring it to light.
242 posted on
07/30/2009 3:40:45 PM PDT by
Brytani
(DC Freeper Convention and National Tea Party - FreepMail Me for rooms and convention info!)
To: All
Look at the signatures on the one that says constitution... the signatures have been traced over. You can see a fainter line and the writing is shaky as if trying to not make a mistake.
250 posted on
07/30/2009 4:00:14 PM PDT by
autumnraine
(You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out!)
To: STARWISE
Starwise,
Do we feel pretty good about the integrity of both docs, i.e, the dates of creation of both?
Trying to be sure that one wasn’t altered for wild goose chase purposes by the Left.
295 posted on
09/13/2009 2:36:41 PM PDT by
BP2
(I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
