Posted on 06/15/2010 2:40:03 AM PDT by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Why are you cherry picking facts? Have you looked at the submissions in New Hampshire? Why was the New Hampshire submission/certification amended with the US Consitution clause removed?
In fact New Hampshire even stated that it was odd and initially stated there would be a full investigation and after 3 weeks they stated there was no budget to do an investigation...
The link you sent us to only shows one example and not proof from every state. Why are you so willing to leave out the facts that don’t fit your agenda?
Good question[s].
sfl
Excuse me, but I never said one damned word about whether or not Obama is a US citizen, did I? I may be gullible, but you are an idiot.
Pay attention. Another poster has already posted "the rest of the story". There is no need for me to repeat it and waste Jimrob's bandwidth.
“Excuse me, but I never said one damned word about whether or not Obama is a US citizen, did I? I may be gullible, but you are an idiot.”
This is not the first time I have been called an idiot. And my mother was wrong too!
No. You need to pay attention. Another poster has already taken that other poster's post apart @ #14.
But good try anyway --
Hey, if his opinions are good enough for you, well....
If you want to defend World Nut Daily as a legitimate news source, please, be my guest. I'm sure it will be highly entertaining. You might want to look back at some of the sensationalized stories they've run in, oh, the past 10 years that have been completely debunked before you make a complete fool of yourself, though. Then, get back to me.....
Is the ineligibility issue one of those for you????
No. I haven't said one damned word about Obamalamadingdong's eligibility, have I? This is the second comment on this thead directed at me about my interpretation of Obamalamadingdong's eligibility with no basis in fact. You might want to polish up your crystal ball a wee bit. Seems to have something on it that is fouling your view into my psyche.....in other words, never assume, grasshopper.....
They include, however, the facts that prove their case. Barry is not the child of US citizens.
_________________________________
Correct, they need to throw his black ass out of office!
You seem to think that the Chair of the Democratic National Convention in a presidential election year may prescribe whatever wording he or she deems appropriate for the certification of the party’s presidential nominee.
The links I provided show two examples for two different nominees in two different years in two different states with “through” misspelled as “though” in both. Do you have two examples that demonstrate how the standard DNC certification was any different in 2008 than it was in 2004 and 2000?
I never stated or implied that there aren’t legitimate questions regarding Obama’s records. You seem to think that I believe Obama is eligible to be POTUS.
Did you know anything about Wilson and the Progressive Agenda before Glenn Beck began his history lessons? You seem to think that I don’t understand the dangers of the Progessive Agenda.
You make too many assumptions.
Do you believe that the MSM is telling you 80% or higher of the story?
So then where is WND wrong on the eligibility issue????
Hawaii’s laws require it. Where is your evidence that the 2008 DNC certification for Hawaii is any different from the 2004 and 2000 certifications for Hawaii?
The point is...they amended the certification in New Hampshire to remove the Constitutional verification language. Why would they do that?
New Hampshire wasn’t the only state where they did this. That is where the question needs to be asked...not showing what they did for a state in 2000 and 2004...who cares about that?
We should care about why did they deliberately remove the Constitutional verification language from their previously submitted New Hampshire certification?
My point to you...you seem to want to debunk ANY issue with the certification question with an example that pertains to one state’s certification from previous elections with no further discussion on the relevant descrepancies and actions by Pelosi and the DNC.
I blogged about Coolidge and Harding years ago as a way to curb the impeding economic disaster when the Progressive Bush was in office. I have blogged about the miscreant Progressives years before Glenn Beck ever mentioned it.
My only assumption was that based on your posting and your profile that you make way too many assumptions and think somehow you debunked something with a small sliver of the whole pie.
The evidence is in the 80% of information behind your post that was conveniently omitted —
BuckeyeTexan wrote:
The 2008 DNC certification form sent to every state except Hawaii was worded exactly the same as in 2000 for Gore and in 2004 for Kerry, including the fiendishly deceptive misspelling of “though.”
So, if Hawai’i was sent the form with “… 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” but the other 49 states had it omitted in 2000, and 2004, WHY?
Why was it omitted in 2000, or 2004 as well, for 49 of the 50 states?
Where is your evidence that the DNC amended certifications to remove the Constitutional verification language?
The reason that the 2000 and 2004 certifications are relevant is obvious, but I’ll spell it out again. The verbiage on the standard DNC certification did not change in 2008. It’s the same as in 2004 and 2000.
And if WND had an ounce of integrity behind their so-called journalism, they’d research and report on whether or not the DNC rules dictate the specific verbiage to be used in the certifications. They won’t tell you the answer to that question because it doesn’t fit their agenda.
Amendments are made to comply with rules. The chair of the Democratic National Convention in a presidential election year doesn’t prescribe his or her own language for the certifications. He or she must follow the party rules.
So what are those rules? Does anybody know? Is anybody willing to report the whole story? Not WND, that’s for sure.
So you have no such evidence. That’s what I thought.
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.