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 ...
Hawaii law requires that the certification include a statement affirming that a political party’s nominees for president and vice president meet the Constitutional qualifications for the office.
See #39 for the answer to your second question.
What evidence do you have that the DNC certification for all 49 states [except Hawaii] was the same for 2000, 2004, and 2008???? You only provided it for 2 states.
That’s two more examples than you’ve provided. I’d say I have more compelling evidence to support my argument that the standard certification has not changed.
So I ask you for some evidence, any evidence at all, and your answer is essentially “show me more evidence than you already have.” Really?
So then you have no evidence that your post #2 is actually correct.
I’d say I have more compelling evidence to support my argument that the standard certification has not changed.
You have only 2 out of 49 states that had the same wording since 2000???? Furthermore, you have chosen to cite an Obama website as evidence, a website that omits the facts that don't fit their agenda, and they provide only 2 states.
And that's "compelling" for you.
LOL -- you are quite easily compelled.
I gave you two examples from two different years from two different states for two different nominees to demonstrate that the verbiage on the standard DNC certification didn't change in 2008.
Really? You're going with the "that isn't compelling evidence" argument?
Okay, you win. My two pieces of evidence are far less compelling than your zero pieces of evidence.
His hearty chuckling might have clued you into something when he said that.
Not hard to find if you are really interested in finding out the truth.
Eight months ago...
So, did that actually happen?
The point is...they amended the certification in New Hampshire to remove the Constitutional verification language. Why would they do that?
and
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?
The link you provided does not say that the DNC amended anything in New Hampshire or any other state. It says that NH State Rep. Lawrence Rappaport requested an investigation based on the Canadian Free Press article by J.B. Williams.
But as we now know, J.B. Williams was wrong. Here's his original claim for reference:
However, this document [with the constitutional eligibility certification] was never delivered to a single state DNC Office for state certification, and it was therefore, never presented to any state Election Commission as certification of these candidates, although I do have a copy of this notarized document myself.There was one certification for Hawaii, which was required by law, and one certification for the other 49 states. When the NH SOS figured that out, he probably decided not to pursue the investigation, but that's just a guess.Instead, a very similar document was delivered to fifty state DNC offices, which those offices certified to each of fifty state Election Commissions, who then date-stamped the document and stuck it in a file cabinet, and proceeded to place these “certified” candidates on the ballot.
You are becoming the Hanoi Jane of FR...
Read the update section that blog page. Last section - THAT IS THE POINT. Why are you trying so hard to subvert the truth? You present things done in the past as proof that what they did this time is ok...that is exactly how the Progressives roll...they game the system and then claim precedent just like you are.
The fact of the matter is that the DNC, Pelosi submitted a certification that omitted the Constitution verification clause - Why did they do it?
McCain’s certification had it.
You keep playing games with the facts to cloud the issue.
Why do you think the DNC submitted a certification with the Constitutional clause removed? Let me explain why...because the DNC AKA Progressives don’t believe in the US Constitution and by allowing Obama in office they have yet again destroyed another important tenant of our Constitution...but don’t let the facts get in the way of your propoganda attempts Jane!
UPDATE: I’ve received a copy of the certification the DNC filed with the Indiana Election Division. It is identical to the second document linked to above in the first paragraph which does not include a certification that Obama meets the constitutional eligibility requirement. You can view it by clicking here. Indiana law clearly provides that a candidate for president and vice president must meet the constitutional requirement. I.C. 3-8-1-6 reads: “A candidate for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.” The certification statute, however, does not include this requirement. I.C. 3-10-4-5 (a) reads: “The state chairman of each political party shall certify to the election division the names of the nominees of the party for President and Vice President of the United States and the state of which nominee is a resident.” By omitting the requirement in the certification statute, Indiana law fails to ensure compliance with the constitutional eligibility requirement it mandates under I.C. 3-8-1-6.Executive summary: The DNC sent the standard certification form to Indiana, which does not include a Constitutional certification. Although Indiana law requires that presidential candidates meet the Constitutional qualifications to hold the office, Indiana law does not require political parties to affirm in writing that their nominee is Constitutionally qualified. Therefore Indiana law fails to ensure compliance with its own requirements.
So that proves your claim how exactly?
You present things done in the past as proof that what they did this time is ok...that is exactly how the Progressives roll...they game the system and then claim precedent just like you are.
The fact of the matter is that the DNC, Pelosi submitted a certification that omitted the Constitution verification clause - Why did they do it?
You really don't get it, do you? Pelosi didn't omit anything from the 2008 standard certification. It's exactly the same as the 2000 and 2004 certifications. Where's the omission?
McCain’s certification had it.
Yes. The RNC has always included the Constitutional certification statement. The problem there is that McCain may not have been eligible either.
You keep playing games with the facts to cloud the issue.
Between the two of us, you're the only one playing games with the facts. You keep asserting that the DNC omitted text from their standard certification when they clearly didn't because it is unchanged from previous years.
Why do you think the DNC submitted a certification with the Constitutional clause removed?
They didn't. The 2008 standard certification sent to every state except Hawaii was exactly the same as the 2000 and 2004 certifications, including the misspelled word.
the DNC AKA Progressives don’t believe in the US Constitution and by allowing Obama in office they have yet again destroyed another important tenant of our Constitution
Now that we agree on.
but don’t let the facts get in the way of your propoganda attempts
The only propaganda on this thread is from WND.
So they removed the Constitutional langauge in 2000...they still removed it. Thats the point...they create precedent by sliding things through under the radar...it is just too bad that you are too foolish with your hatred toward WND to see what is going on here.
Remember you are the one aiding the enemy here NOT WND.
And how do you explain the signed copy that includes the Constitutional language? Maybe the same person that created Obama’s bogus birth certificate created that too?
If anybody REALLY wants to see Obama’s original birth documents, political pressure should be brought to bear on the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii, Mark L. Bennett to convene a Grand Jury investigation and subpoena Obama’s birth records [without Obama’s permission] as is permitted under Hawaii law.
Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18(b)(9) states that a confidential vital record can be released to: “A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;”
In Hawaii, the Attorney General has independent subpoena power so any judge in the state could sign a court order for such a subpoena.
There isn’t much time because Attorney General Bennett is likely to be out of office after the elections of 2010. The Attorney General is a Governor appointed position in Hawaii and Governor Lingle is term limited.
I’ve been amazed at the LACK of political pressure that has been brought to bear from within the national Republican Party on the Republican Governor and Attorney General of Hawaii to resolve this issue. It should have been resolved BEFORE the election.
Obama wrote a book 13 YEARS before he ran for President about his father’s African birth and life. That book was a number one bestseller once he announced for the presidency and yet there was such minimal followup by his political opposition.
I have no idea if the DNC standard certification ever included the Constitutional certification. So I don't know if they removed it in 2000, but if they did that action wasn't associated with Obamao. I'm sure WND will get right on that though and report the facts.
it is just too bad that you are too foolish with your hatred toward WND to see what is going on here. Remember you are the one aiding the enemy here NOT WND.
I'm aiding the enemy by making sure that freepers have correct information on this issue? WND isn't doing conservatives or freepers any favors by reporting half of the facts. This isn't the first instance of their poor journalism. They've misreprented the truth and the facts on the Obama eligibility issue multiple times. Here are two that stand out in my mind.
And how do you explain the signed copy that includes the Constitutional language?
I've answered that question at least twice on this thread, but I'll do it again. Hawaii law requires political parties to affirm in writing that their presidential nominees meet the Constitutional qualifications to hold the office.
The reason you don’t see the pressure from the RNC is they are no different than the DNC...just warp speed 8 to tyranny as opposed to warp speed 10.
Bush is a progressive...they love huge government, love any excuse to trample our rights.
When this is exposed and someday the truth will come out - ALL the people involved in allowing this to happen will have to be held accountable and that includes both the DNC and RNC.
You should stop attacking WND...everyone knows they are “right” biased...so what. You read between the lines...but you keep cherry picking and you are supporting the regeme that is destroying our country.
You are playing the same fools game Obama has played with apologizing to the world...let’s be polite and apologetic and the world will respond. Well they responded and now they are taking advantage of weak America.
WND screwed up the story about the Ark of Covenant too...so what they make mistakes.
Why don’t you take some time and attack the Atlantic, DailyKOS, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc...
It is odd that you focus on WND and claim you are looking for the truth and you want to be polite to liberals.
Let me sum it up for you...liberals would like to see you put in a re-education camp some day. They want to crush God and all of your faith. We are at war with liberals just like we are at war with Muslims - why do you think liberals keep siding with Muslims - enemy of my enemy is my friend.
You need to stop hiding behind a banner of the “truth” and you better start fighting to save this country - you are going to be eaten alive.
The reason you don’t see the pressure from the RNC is they are no different than the DNC...just warp speed 8 to tyranny as opposed to warp speed 10.
Bush is a progressive...they love huge government, love any excuse to trample our rights.
When this is exposed and someday the truth will come out - ALL the people involved in allowing this to happen will have to be held accountable and that includes both the DNC and RNC.
Also, any prosecuting attorney in the nation can at least attempt to subpoena Obama’s birth records with a valid court order from a judge. Just imagine the publicity that would bring to the issue in the minds of the general public.
It was Grand Jury investigations in Paula Jones and Whitewater down in Arkansas that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Was this post of yours pre-approved by Axelrod and company who are paying your salary????
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.