Why did Nancy Pelosi take the special effort to sign two different certificates of nomination, the second of which (below) specifically eliminated the clause "Qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution"?
The normal certificate of nomination looks like this:
I believe Hawaii was the only state that got a DNC OCON (Official Certification of Nomination)saying that Obama was Constitutionally eligible. The DNC was forced to make that OCON specially for Hawaii because Hawaii statute requires that SOMEBODY certify Constitutional eligibility (either the national or state party) and the Hawaii Democratic Party refused to certify that - specifically taking out that language from their standard Hawaii OCON by removing one physical line of print which left their HDP OCON without the required language that only the HDP could certify (the language that said Obama was specifically the candidate of the Hawaii Democratic Party.
The question that could/should be investigated is why Brian Schatz (who is now lt governor but was then the chairman of the Hawaii Democratic Party) refused to sign an oath that Obama is Constitutionally eligible. Schatz was a Punahou High School grad who went to Kenya for the year in which Barack Obama and his fiance’ Michelle Robinson visited Kenya. The usual attorney that the HDP used was William H Gilardy, Jr - who was the attorney for Ann Dunham in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro, which involved custody and thus may well have included Obama’s birth certificate.
I think there was still the sense in some quarters back then that people [i.e.: judges, some GOP pols, etc.] might care. Had it been known at that time how little interest Obama’s shady, unvetted and fiercely guarded past/records would evoke, she might not have taken the trouble.
Re: Obama’s birthplace. I have made this point before but I don’t mind making it again. Obama did not approach the big name literary agency and request a large advance to write a book. He, a man w ZERO literary credits to his name, was approached by them. It could be argued that it happened simply on the basis of his being the first president of the Harvard Law Review ‘of color’. I don’t buy that for one instant. He was approached because of his background as a mixed racial birth in Kenya. That detail added the color and intrigue to his bio the literary agency believed would make his book a good investment.
There is no other explanation for the agency’s actions. They gave $165,000 plus numerous perks to this man who, as I mentioned, neither approached them first nor had a single publication to his name. Their published bio of him is proof of how they planned to sell his work: as a Kenyan-born, mixed race man whose career launched w his selection as pres. of the Harvard Law Review.
It’s not reasonable to believe the agency made this type of investment based on ungrounded rumors. They knew. I.e.: they knew he was born in Kenya. That is why they made the rare move of offering him a contract out of the blue. He had a very fascinating origin/trajectory—one they believed they could parlay into book sales—and one in which the Kenyan birth was central/crucial.
This is the simplest and most obvious explanation for the publication that listed Obama as born in Kenya. Not that he told a lie, but that the agency knew the truth before they even approached him. The simplest and most obvious explanation generally turns out to be the correct one, and this case is no exception.
This explanation also explains one of the most telling and significant facts that has come to light so far: the missing wk in the National Archives of foreign arrivals to HI. A wk that *just happens* to correspond w the wk Obama claims he was born. Many of the most convoluted, least provable theories floating around ignore that missing wk. Why? Why postulate unprovable theories at the expense of actual facts? The missing/excised wk is a crucial fact/clue. Any theory that ignores it is just blowing smoke.
See post #95.
BRIAN SCHATZ refused to sign a document claiming Obama is eligible under Article II.
BRIAN SCHATZ either submitted a legally worthless document (since it did not meet the criteria) or he was trying to commit fraud and ‘slip it by’.
BRIAN SCHATZ actions are very telling. But no reporter has had the guts to question him. Reporters are puppets now-a-days.