Skip to comments.
The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie
RightSideNews.com ^
| September 10, 2009
| JB Williams
Posted on 09/10/2009 7:18:19 PM PDT by khnyny
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
To: RaceBannon
To: khnyny
I just hope JB Williams had the foresight to get a “certified” copy of Obama’s DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination from the SC Election Comm. If not, he had better race down where with a notary and get it certified before Obama’s people get to it, if they haven’t already.
ex animo
davidfarrar
22
posted on
09/10/2009 8:40:35 PM PDT
by
DavidFarrar
(davidfarrar)
To: OneWingedShark
Anyone send this to Glenn?
23
posted on
09/10/2009 8:50:08 PM PDT
by
Freddd
(Government run health care=paying more and being denied what we already have.)
To: tiki
Don't feel so bad. I copied it into MS Word and it didn't find it either. It returns "The spelling and grammar check is complete." message box with no problems found. Then I read it one more time and it jumped right off the page at me.
The typo was a mistake but omitting the legally qualified clause was no mistake. It was deliberate.
24
posted on
09/10/2009 8:50:47 PM PDT
by
eggman
(Obama's Spread the Wealth will work just as well as Spread the Liabilities (sub-prime mortgages))
To: Freddd
25
posted on
09/10/2009 8:53:06 PM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: OneWingedShark
I sure hope Shalifa A. Williamson is checking her ignition every time she turns her car on from now on.
ex animo
davidfarrar
26
posted on
09/10/2009 9:04:29 PM PDT
by
DavidFarrar
(davidfarrar)
To: khnyny
Wonder what the wording was on the Clinton, Kerry, and Gore nominations? Anyone have access to those?
To: Proud2BeRight
I have tried to pull them up too, but failed. I have also been trying to find out where it is the legal responsibility of the political parties to certifiy their nominees have met “their” legal requirments? That seems pretty strange to me.
ex animo
davidfarrar
28
posted on
09/10/2009 9:32:17 PM PDT
by
DavidFarrar
(davidfarrar)
To: STARWISE
You should get credit for this discovery, STARWISE! God bless you for all you do.
29
posted on
09/10/2009 9:51:29 PM PDT
by
Faith
To: khnyny
All ‘new’ news to me. Thanks for posting.
30
posted on
09/10/2009 10:05:16 PM PDT
by
Liberty Valance
(Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
To: abigailsmybaby; tiki
The typo was that both documents identified the party as the “Democrat Party”.
To: khnyny
32
posted on
09/10/2009 10:22:37 PM PDT
by
roaddog727
(It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
To: khnyny
33
posted on
09/10/2009 10:30:54 PM PDT
by
roaddog727
(It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
To: khnyny
Is there FReeper who’s an FBI-trained documents expert who can examine these documents? To the naked eye, there are some, perhaps understandable, differences also in the signature blocks:
The signatures on the first shown document (with the qualified phrase in it) look different from the others, as if someone was trying to trace or replicate them. Look closely at the “N” in Nancy and the ‘e’ in Pelosi. It even seems there was a different pen used, the first shown being somewhat thicker than the second. Then, the day, “28” is written in two different styles, and the notary’s “S” in September is written differently in each document.
If these are authentic and can be proved to be authentic, the DNC and the parties involved have a serious problem on their hands.
34
posted on
09/10/2009 10:55:09 PM PDT
by
EDINVA
(A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul -- G. B. Shaw)
To: khnyny
I'm not clear on whether the lack of certification on the documents is supposed to be legally significant on its own, or just evidence that Obama is not qualified. There's no constitutional requirement that a President certify or prove that he's qualified for office, merely that meet the qualifications.
I know of state statutes that require candidates for most offices to make a sworn statement that they meet constitutional and statutory qualifications for office, but I haven't seen one that applies to Presidential candidates. Colorado, the state the document in the article was addressed to, has no such requirement.
If there is such a statute in a state Obama won, however, then that would mean the electors in that state were not appointed "in such manner as the Legislature" directed. If that occurred in enough states, then neither the President or Vice President were constitutionally elected. Since the Presidential term has already passed, the operation of the 20th Amendment and 3 U.S.C. § 19 would make the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, acting President. That's not an appealing prospect.
If few or no states have such a requirement, then these documents, while intriguing, are essentially irrelevant. They don't prove that Obama isn't qualified, just that the DNC failed to certify to the state boards of election that he is qualified - something it does not appear they were required to do.
Unless someone finds convincing evidence that Obama was actually not born a U.S. citizen, then this isn't going anywhere. His failure to provide a U.S. birth certificate probably won't be enough, since it looks like the burden of proof is going to be not on him, but on the party claiming he is unqualified.
To: Faith
Aww .. thanks ... I’m a born sleuth .. LOL.
36
posted on
09/10/2009 11:43:03 PM PDT
by
STARWISE
(The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
To: The Pack Knight
Democrat Party .... the party of voter fraud, corruption, lies, prostitution, sex trafficking, money scams.... did I forget to ad anything in there ?
To: EDINVA
" If these are authentic and can be proved to be authentic, the DNC and the parties involved have a serious problem on their hands. "
Not Watergate,
To: The Pack Knight
" If that occurred in enough states, then neither the President or Vice President were constitutionally elected. Since the Presidential term has already passed, the operation of the 20th Amendment and 3 U.S.C. § 19 would make the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, acting President. That's not an appealing prospect. "
You forget, she IS one of the main co conspirators in this mess, and she will have her day in court and prison.
To: khnyny
Imho, this is an important story "An" important story?
This is THE story of the century!
This discovery has the potential to turn the country on its head -- the mind boggles.
This will either be THE biggest story since 1776 -- or, it will be VERY quickly buried in an orgasmic orwellian move the likes of which history has NEVER seen.
I don't see any other possibilities. It either sees light of day, and becomes THE turning point in this nation's history -- or, it will be airbrushed out of history with brutal efficiency, and NO mercy shown to anyone who would try to rehabilitate it.
My biggest fear is that it will be buried, effortlessly, because for MOST people, it'll be "too many words, too boring, and besides, the big game is coming on tonight" -- and for those who COULD shout it from the rooftops, it'll be an easy choice between laying it ALL on the line, or, preserving the ol' golden goose (as long as they can keep picking off two-bit hustlers at Acorn and whatnot, they will have a nice job).
40
posted on
09/11/2009 2:28:19 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
([expletive deleted])
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson