Resolving the Obama eligibility question

WND ^ | June 15, 2010 | Paul R. Hollrah

[rambo316]

The phrase, "… 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" was purposely omitted. Other than that, the two documents were identical … even to the misspelling of the word "through" in the second line of the certifications.

This tragic anomaly of American political history was first reported by writer J.B. Williams in a Sept. 10, 2009 article, titled, "The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don't Lie." Immediately upon publication of Williams' article, Obama doubters across the country began contacting their state election boards, requesting copies of the Democrat and Republican Party candidate certifications, and the full scale of the Democrats' deception was uncovered.

So, why would the Democrats eliminate the language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve "under provisions of the U.S. Constitution"? Is it not reasonable to assume that they knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve by virtue of the fact that he is not a "natural born" U.S. citizen?

So the question arises: What did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it? And is it Pelosi's certification of Obama's eligibility that the state of Hawaii now relies upon in their refusal to disclose the details of his long-form birth certificate?

[Yosemitest]

"Those who are out to destroy the country can be:
1) Indicted for actual crimes, tried, convicted and sentenced, or
2) Impeached, or
3) Voted out of office"

Key emphases on "CAN BE" ...but the DemocratsNational Socialists WON'T.

Bottom line: Barack Hussein Obama II ISN'T eligible under the US Constitution.
These CRIMINALS that say he is, ... will answer to the public, and I hope that will happen soon.