Update 1: ...And Facts Don't Lie
Upon seeing the two DNC documents posted, I contacted several state election offices and requested copies of the DNC and RNC Certifications filed and in all cases, received the DNC version absent the constitutional eligibility reference. Since the RNC document included the constitutional reference in all cases, and the DNC document did not in all cases, I made the assumption that the same documents were fax-blasted to all states. Some states date-stamp and some don't. I have NOT viewed all 50 state filings. I recommend that each of you contact your state Election Commission office and obtain a copy of the document filed in your state.
It has been posted here that Hawaii received a version of the DNC Certification that included the constitutional text. I have not verified this claim due to time constraints. However, assuming that the "constitutional" version of the document was filed in Hawaii or other states, this only further raises the question - "why two different documents?" Contrary to the assumption made by the Hawaii Cert poster, whether a state requires Article II Ð Section I text in its certification process or not, the U.S. Constitution requires that all candidates meet those requirements. Further, asserting that only some states require the language in the Certification document explains why the DNC included that text in those certs. But it does NOT explain why the DNC omitted that text from all others. Why two certs?
The good news is Ð the Hawaii Certification proves that BOTH documents are authentic and official, that all matching signatures on BOTH documents are authentic and that the DNC used BOTH when only the one with constitutional text was necessary. It adds complete credibility to the story as both documents appear to have been not only drafted, signed and notarized by the DNC, but filed differently in different locations. Why not just file one version including the constitutional text?
Last, this story confirms that some form of a conspiracy to mislead and ultimately defraud voters took place at the top of the Democrat Party. No story in recent history is of greater gravity. Yet, some prefer to focus their attention upon John McCain, who was not only a well known war hero from a well known US Military family of distinction, but a Senate confirmed Natural Born Citizen who was NOT elected President. Others prefer to focus attention on a typo missed by spellchecker, and still others hope to derail the story by asserting that Hawaii's doc changes the only question raised by this report Ð Why TWO documents? Why eliminate constitutional text from any of them?
Update 2: DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!
The Obama camp had been using the defense that the DNC had properly vetted and certified Obama’s eligibility for months. Judge after judge had used that claim and the fact that Obama’s COLB (Certification of Live Birth) had been “Snoped – FactChecked – blogged and twittered” as “legal proof” that Obama was eligible for office, despite the very real fact that Obama has never released any authenticated proof on the subject.
Hmm. Lying Democrats, stupid, lazy, incompetent, probably Obamite judges... Oh, my!
Then we find out that the DNC did NOT certify Obama as eligible under Article II – Section I of the Constitution, in 49 of 50 states. The DNC had only filed such certification in the state of Hawaii, Obama’s alleged birth place. The other 49 states received a Certification of Nomination which did NOT certify Obama as constitutionally eligible for office.
- Both docs were real and both docs had been filed with Election Commission offices
- Only the doc filed in Hawaii certified Obama as constitutionally eligible
- Nancy Pelosi did in fact sign both documents, indicating awareness
- Both documents had been used before by the DNC, in 2000 and 2004
- Different states have different state statutes on the matter
- But the Constitution is clear, and the DNC ignored it
Read the entire report. There's even more.
It further appears that this Certification of Nomination which includes text concerning constitutional requirements is the basis for statements made by Hawaii officials, who have proclaimed that Obama is a “natural born citizen” on the basis that Nancy Pelosi said so in her false Certification of Nomination.
After all, NO actual birth certificate has ever been released by Obama. A COLB, which anyone born anywhere in the world could purchase from Hawaii in 1961, in fact at least two different COLB’s from Hawaii, are all that has been offered by Obama.
Really. It's fully worth your time. Go make some coffee or tea.
This is sssexxxy. Decadent. Sinful. Scandalous. Worse than Watergate.
Hundreds of American citizens did their own "telephone tag" footwork to help.
Turned out that almost all states failed to ensure valid proof of eligibility had been provided, failed to look at any actual proof alleged, merely, lazily, negligently, illogically assumed that "oh, well, of course somebody must've done their job... it's impossible that everyone made the same screwup, so, yep, the guy's obviously eligible".
The excuses given are all invalid. We know that if we tried such lame, worthless excuses for a lot of stuff, we wouldn't get anywhere- folks would think we're trying to commit fraud. Of course, however, we're talking about morally-and-ethically-relativist, Constitution-ignoring, negligent, lazy, corrupt, crooked, revolution-hellbent neo-communists with mental disorders here, so...
Note the date on which the document was signed. The day after the election!
Then note the date on the rubber stamp. One year earlier.
Let the White House try and explain this document, as well as all others.
The questions and evidence only keep on piling up, the deeper we dig.
Sorry, but this has to go to court. No question. The case is sound.
Any and all judges, from now on, who dismiss any claims, will only be proving that they're either grossly incompetent, negligent, stupid, or criminally, treasonously corrupt.
It's not a theory, as the reporter says. It's a real, demonstrated conspiracy. Anyone who asserts otherwise is the crackpot, the lunatic.
Funny how the same folks who accept that Obama's eligibility is "proven", that the "case is made" for it... are the same folks who refused to accept the obviousness of the case put forth by President G.W. Bush for the invasion of Iraq! The case for the overthrow of Saddam via war was far, far stronger than the case that Obama is legally the President!
Bear in mind that the US Senate actually confirmed and certified the natural-born citizenship of John McCain, as he was born to two US citizens, on US soil, on a US military base in Panama. That's what it means to be "natural-born", both born on US soil (not proven for Obama) and born of two US citizens (known and proven to not be the case).
The US Senate, however, never did this for Barack Hussein Obama. Americans must ask them why.
I still believe, from looking at all the apparently solid evidence, what I've always at least suspected: Obama is not the President because he doesn't meet the Constitutional eligibility requirements. Period.
Go ahead, anyone. Prove otherwise. Don't waste my time again with irrelevant rhetorical questions, inadmissible hearsay and dogmatic arrogance; I'll know right away if you are and will, as promised, summarily give you the boot back to your bridge.