The Al-Qaeda flag has been flying high over Libya and the governments of the western world that helped remove Gaddafi from power don't seem to mind at all. The flag, which contains the phrase "there is no God but Allah" with a full moon underneath, has been photographed flying beside the new national flag of Libya at the courthouse in Benghazi. The courthouse in Benghazi is where the "rebels" established their provisional government, and it is where the "media center" for communication with foreign journalists was located during the fight against Gaddafi. So it isn't as if the al-Qaeda flag has been flying over some insignificant building. But this should be no surprise. It has been known all along that al-Qaeda was very heavily represented in the army of "the rebels" and among the leadership of "the rebels". Now, thanks to Obama, they have taken over Libya and they intend to impose a brutal form of Sharia law on the entire Libyan population. (Read More.....)
President prepared to use war as re-election campaign tool
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Friday, November 4, 2011
Barack Obama has told America’s allies that the United States will attack Iran before fall 2012 unless Tehran halts its nuclear program, a time frame that suggests Obama is willing to use war as a re-election campaign tool to rally the population around his leadership.
A subscriber-only report by DebkaFile, the Israeli intelligence outfit which has been proven accurate in the past, reveals that shortly after the end of NATO operations in Libya at the start of this week, “President Barack Obama went on line to America’s senior allies, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Israel and Saudi Arabia, with notice of his plan to attack Iran no later than September-October 2012 – unless Tehran halted its nuclear weaponization programs.”
According to the report, the window of opportunity for an attack before Iran moves the bulk of its nuclear processing underground is quickly evaporating.
Obama’s directive contributed to the flurry of reports this week about NATO powers putting their Iran war contingency plans on standby.
“Obama’s announcement was not perceived as a general directive to US allies, but a guideline to blow the dust off the contingency plans for a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities which stayed locked in bottom drawers for three years,” states the report, adding that “Obama’s announcement spurred Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Israel into girding their navies, air forces, ballistic units and anti-missile defense systems for the challenges ahead.”
The imminent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is part of a program to re-arrange the United States’ presence in the Gulf. This dovetails with numerous reports over the past few weeks that large numbers of U.S. troops are being stationed in Kuwait.
“Military sources in the Gulf report that NATO and Persian Gulf leaders are treating the prospect of a US strike against Iran with the utmost seriousness,” states the article, adding that America plans to rebuild its Gulf presence as part “of a new US focus on cutting Iran down to size.”
The timing of a potential fall 2012 attack would of course coincide with Obama’s attempt to secure a second term in the White House. If by that time the United States has embarked on yet another military assault in the Middle East, it would undoubtedly play to Obama’s advantage, just as George W. Bush cited U.S. involvement in Iraq as a reason for voters not to “change horse” in the middle of a race back in 2004.
As we have previously reported, influential neo-cons within the U.S. have made it clear to Obama that they will give him political cover and an opportunity to resurrect his flagging political career if he launched an attack on Iran.
In February last year, vehement Israeli-firster and signatory to the infamous PNAC document Daniel Pipes wrote a piece for the National Review Online entitled, How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran, encouraging Obama to “salvage his tottering administration” by giving orders “for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity.”
Rumors that Israel was preparing for an attack on Iran have been rumbling all summer, but they really came to the fore in early October when US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visit was used as an opportunity by Israeli hawks to convince Panetta to green light the attack. Just ten days later, details emerged of a highly dubious assassination plot in the United States that was blamed on Iran.
This week has seen a barrage of news and leaked information which confirms that Israel, the U.S. and the United Kingdom are all on a war footing in preparation for targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Much of that information came as a result of deliberate leaks by former Israeli intelligence chiefs Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, who are attempting to derail the attack on Iran and remove Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from office.
DebkaFile has proven itself to be accurate in predicting the precise time frame of conflicts in the past, correctly reporting back in July that the war in Libya would come to a head in early September, which is when rebels seized Tripoli and Gaddafi went on the run.
Should Obama and the United States’ NATO allies lead the attack on Iran, Israel itself is likely to take a back seat, according to reports which suggest the Zionist state will concentrate on defending the home front against likely reprisal attacks carried out by Hizballah.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
While his own administration tries to ram through legislation that would give Obama the power to shut down parts of the Internet under a “national emergency,” Obama himself decries Egyptian authorities shutting down the Internet for their own “national emergency”.
I know that Congress and those who influence Congress are out for loot, power, their own personal goals, and perquisites, but at my end, which is the receiving end, the outcomes flowing out of Congress enslave. From my perspective, understanding their motivations means very little: Congress to me is simply a powerfully destructive institution that ties America up in knots. It enslaves. What else than enslavement would you expect an institution with such massive power to produce? Certainly not a beneficent regard for the persons it controls or for the public interest. Enslavement is its most important product (at my end). A recent case in point is the internet kill-switch legislation re-introduced by Senators Collins and Lieberman. See, for example, this discussion and comments. Just as President Truman once seized the steel mills, future Presidents might seize the internet. They’d have the congressional authorization and the gradually-built up precedents to make this pass judicial muster. They could close down free speech. For government officials, this is a rational augmentation of their power, but from where I sit, and I hope you and many others sit, it’s outrageous totalitarian control. More enslavement.
Reminding free speech advocates and libertarians that bad bills are like zombies in DC, the “internet kill switch” will be revived in the Senate. Still sponsored by Maine Sen. Collins and Sen. Lieberman, the Sen. Snowe supported bill has been revised and will presented once more...
...What should be most concerning is that this “kill switch” is being proposed and is backed by two Republican Senators. No doubt freedom and liberty activists country-wide will be melting the phones when this hits the Senate floor again.
A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a "national cyberemergency," and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year...
What can an undemocratic government to do to control its people? If tear gas and rubber bullets don't work, take away their Twitter and Facebook access, of course. And if the people still don't fall into line, cut off their Internet and mobile phone access entirely. That's exactly what the Egyptian government did today when confronted with citizenry taking to the streets and demanding regime change. The surprising thing isn't that a corrupt, authoritarian regime would launch this kind of state-sponsored denial off service attack on its own citizens. Nor that it is willing to jeopardize its economy by cutting its businesses off from world markets. No, the thing that surprises me is that the U.S. government has plans for its own Internet Kill Switch...
Egypt pulled the plug on the Internet. A Senate bill would give Obama the power to do the same--or something like it.
First it was Facebook. Then it was Twitter. Now, in the face of massive protests in the streets of Cairo and throughout the country, Egypt has pulled the plug on the entire Internet for its citizens. As this chart from Arbor networks shows, Internet traffic mounted steadily in Egypt steadily over several days, then suddenly and precipitously dropped to nil at 5:20 PM EST yesterday.
The U.S. has condemned the move--in a tweet, no less.
Such a flagrant violation of communications--possible only in the less free corners of the world, right? But since last summer, when a Senate bill was introduced by Joe Lieberman, the U.S. has been considering an Internet "kill switch" of its own. Full text of the bill, "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset," can be found here. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," Lieberman said in June.
As recently as three days ago, CNET reported on a "renewed push" to implement the bill. Plenty of people criticized the first version of the bill, but the latest version has raised even more red flags. The revision bans judicial review over executive decrees. "The country we're seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court," Steve DelBianco of the NetChoice coalition told CNET. "Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure."...
As was witnessed Thursday in Egypt, the embattled government acted to shut down the Internet as demonstrations fueled by social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter threatened to overwhelm the ruling party.
While pulling the plug on the World Wide Web might seem like a measure relegated to the governments of Iran, Egypt and China, it turns out that just such a proposal is being considered in the United States Congress. Championed by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the bill would give President Barack Obama (and those who succeed him) control to snuff out the Internet in one fell swoop during a so-called "cyber-emergency," AOL News reported in July...
[Webmaster - Time is running short. We may not have the Internet much longer as we know it in it's current form. We may soon no longer have access to free, unfiltered, uncensored news and information. Take the time now to download all the PDF's, MP3's, and videos you can before the free Internet gets shut down. Start preparing for the shutdown now so that you will still be able to educate and train yourself and others when this time comes. Familiarize yourself with alternative forms of communications such as amateur ("ham") radio and shortwave radio. VVVVVVV]
[Webmaster - Here are some free downloads to get you started. There will be many more to come. VVVVVVVV]
"The man Rothschild chooses that man will become President of the United States," Texe Marrs was told by an insider. So, who was Rothschild's Choice in 2008? The answer is obvious: Barack Hussein Obama!
The fourth Baron de Rothschild, Lord Jacob Rothschild of Great Britain, has been called the 21st Century's "King of Israel." He and other Rothschilds preside over the planet's greatest banking cartel, and Wall Street firms Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citibank, and others bow to Rothschild dictates. Politicians in world capitals, Washington, D.C., London, Paris, and Tokyo grovel before their awesome power.
Rothschild's Choice documents the astonishing rise of a young, half blood "Prince" of Jerusalem, a Communist adept named Barack Obama who won Rothschilds' favor and was rewarded for his slavish devotion to their sinister Agenda.
Here are the revelations that dissolve the mystery of Obama's meteoric, virtually unheralded rise to global prominence and his elevation to the highest seat of superpower government the White House.
Although it received very little coverage in the mainstream media, Barack Obama made some comments about globalism during his speech in Mumbai, India that were very eye-opening. As he was discussing the new realities of world trade in 2010, Obama warned against "those who see globalization as a threat" and he spoke of the "integrated world" in which we all now live. But is merging the entire globe into a one world economy, a one world financial system and a one world labor market really the best thing for the American people?
For the past two decades, all U.S. presidents have been heralding the benefits of merging the American economy with the rest of the globe. George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have all steadfastly supported the emerging one world economy. These presidents have each used different terms to describe this process such as "globalism", "globalization", "an integrated world", "the global economy" and even "a New World Order", but they have all meant the same thing. All of these presidents have sought to integrate the United States even more deeply into the developing one world economic system...
A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day.
It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according thedocument.
The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. It explains no one was required to do so...
After having examined the suspicious ink toner device for six hours and found it to be a dud, bomb experts at East Midlands Airport only reversed their decision after being ordered to re-inspect the package by US authorities following President Obama’s Friday afternoon speech in which he claimed that the devices did in fact contain explosives.
This telling contradiction in the timeline of the cargo bomb plot fiasco proves that the story was being hyped and manipulated from the very early stages.
How did Obama and his terror chief John Brennan know that the East Midlands package was an explosive device virtually at the same time bomb experts had only just discovered the device at East Midlands Airport and before they had even had the chance to analyze it?
A spokesman from the Metropolitan Police stated: “Following initial examination explosives officers were satisfied that the package presented no immediate danger.”
Authorities at East Midlands only reversed their earlier assessment after “(US) authorities urged the British to look again, a US official said,” reports the Nottingham Post.
So is it credible that bomb professionals whose expertise and training is focused around detecting explosives, failed to do so after a six hour sweep, only to change their minds after being ordered to look again by the US government?
What did Obama know and when did he know it? The timeline strongly indicates that US terror authorities knew about the East Midlands device before East Midlands bomb experts had even discovered it.
Police and bomb experts at East Midlands have refused to comment on the confusion.
Al-Fayf had infiltrated the Al-Qaeda group in Yemen who were behind the plot. Going on past evidence of how almost every terror scare was contrived with the aid of federal agents or their Al-Qaeda informants provocateuring the terror group into action, Al-Fayf was probably responsible for grooming the patsies, whose mental incompetence, as again is the case in most instances, prevented them from building sophisticated enough bombs to be successful.
However, despite the fact that authorities not only in the UK but also in the cases of the Newark and Pittsburgh packages, initially gave the “all clear,” according to CNN, Obama, having already been informed of the plot the night before, simply contradicted the very experts who had dismissed the devices as duds, claiming the packages contained explosives. This soon mushroomed into a media scaremongering blitz about powerful explosives that could have knocked dozens of planes out of the sky.
The contrived series of events has been swiftly exploited as a means of intensifying US attacks on Yemen, which was instantly blamed as the source of the alleged attack, despite a female student who was arrested as the prime culprit later being released after it became clear she was the victim of a “set-up,” according to her lawyer.
Two Wall Street Journal articles today make it plain that the Obama administration will use the incident to justify further military incursions into Yemen while beefing the CIA’s power to control secret “elite U.S. hunter-killer teams” that operate in foreign countries.
In another report entitled Yemen Covert Role Pushed – Foiled Bomb Plot Heightens Talk of Putting Elite U.S. Squads in CIA Hands, Julian E. Barnes and Adam Entous explain how the plot – supposedly masterminded by someone on the CIA payroll – will enable the Obama administration to shift “more operational control to the CIA” in its mission to violate the sovereignty of more nations in the name of the war on terror.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
Every scrap of evidence screams “false flag,” as authorities seek to crush resistance against invasive airport security measures, while Obama exploits event for domestic and geopolitical gain
The revelation that CIA stooge Anwar al-Awlaki, the Al-Qaeda leader who once dined with Pentagon top brass, is the supposed mastermind behind last week’s plane bomb plot, adds yet more weight to the already overwhelming evidence that the whole charade is another contrived false flag to both boost Barack Obama’s domestic and geopolitical agenda, while crushing the growing resistance against invasive airport security measures.
According to the London Guardian, Awlaki is now the “prime suspect” in the cargo plane bomb plot. He is also fingered as the mastermind by BBC News, and the London Telegraph amongst others. The man who allegedly made the ink toner cartridges that were later claimed to be deadly explosive devices was Saudi Arabian-born Ibrahim Hassan Al Asiri. Al Asiri is “in regular contact in Yemen with radical cleric Anwar Awlaki,” reports the Daily Mail.
Awlaki was also the spiritual leader of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, a fact that didn’t seem to concern Pentagon top brass who invited him to dine with them just months after the September 11 attacks despite the fact that he had personally colluded with the very hijackers who were alleged to have slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
As Webster Tarpley has documented, Awlaki is “an intelligence agency operative and patsy-minder” and “one of the premier terror impresarios of the age operating under Islamic fundamentalist cover” whose job it is to “motivate and encourage groups of mentally impaired and suggestible young dupes who were entrapped into “terrorist plots” by busy FBI and Canadian RCMP agents during recent years.”
Any Awlaki connection to the latest alleged bomb plot is therefore a huge smoking gun that the entire story, as every other piece of evidence also indicates, is a manufactured political ploy.
In the rush to pin the blame on US geopolitical target Yemen, a Yemeni female student was hastily fingered as the perpetrator, a “set-up” according to her lawyer, and she was quickly released. Indeed, according to Mohammed al-Shaibah, Air Cargo Director for Yemenia Airways, “there is no evidence to prove that this package came through Yemen.” He said there were no UPS or DHL cargo flights from Yemen within a 48 hour period prior to the supposed terror attack.
In addition, the United Arab Emirates’ Civil Aviation Authority rejected claims by US authorities that Flight 201 from Dubai contained any suspicious packages. “The Emirates plane that arrived today in the United States from Dubai did not contain any packages from Yemen,” the official Emirati WAM news agency quoted an unnamed source with the country’s civil aviation body as saying.
Within the space of 24 hours, the story was completely reversed and inflated into a massive terror plot involving dozens of suspect packages supposedly bound for synagogues in Chicago. How could packages that after being tested for explosives were labeled duds suddenly become ‘massive and powerful explosive devices’? This proves that the story was manipulated at an early stage so that it could be feverishly overblown and exploited for political purposes, just as a number of contrived terror alerts were issued for political gain by the Bush administration, as former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge admitted.
The plane bomb plot and how it has been swiftly exploited fulfills at least three political objectives.
1) Occurring less than a handful of days before what has been dubbed one of the most important mid-term elections for decades, the attack will serve to entice undecided voters back under the illusion of big government as protector, potentially saving a few key establishment Democrats their seats in the House and Senate. The fact that Obama completely reversed the initial announcements of security officials to claim that the ink toner cartridges did in fact contain explosives is a key indication that the White House is over hyping the story for political gain.
3) Blaming Yemen as the origin of the plot allows the US military-industrial complex to intensify drone attacks on a country that has become one of the prime targets for the next phase of the contrived war on terror. Just a day after the plane bomb charade, the New York Times aggressively pushed for more attacks on the country, citing the presence of CIA stooge Awlaki as a reason for doing so.
We are once again being manipulated and brainwashed into accepting draconian security measures through fear and lies. Only by exposing the fact that this chain of events was yet another false flag attack on the psyche of the American people and people globally can we hope to identify the real terrorists, those in positions of power, who are continually hyping the threat of terror to change our society for the worse.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
In addition to adding new urgency and a fresh dose of hysteria to the flagging war on manufactured terror, the toner bomb plot has provided an excuse to rationalize the global reach of the CIA.
“Officials said support was growing both within the military and the administration for shifting more operational control to the CIA — a move that would allow the U.S. to strike suspected terrorist targets unilaterally with greater stealth and speed,” reports the Wall Street Journal today. “Allowing the U.S. military’s Special Operations Command units to operate under the CIA would give the U.S. greater leeway to strike at militants even without the explicit blessing of the Yemeni government,” or the American people who, as usual, remain woefully uninformed.
Corporate media does its part to justify expanding war on terror into Yemen.
The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) conducts several covert and clandestine missions, such as unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, special reconnaissance, psychological operations, direct action, counter-terrorism and war on drugs operations.
Exploiting the obviously contrived Yemen toner bomb plot (see Paul Watson’s article today) as an excuse to shift more operational control to an unaccountable CIA would reduce conflict between the CIA’s National Clandestine Service and the more clandestine parts of USSOCOM. It would also consolidate operations.
Moreover, a commissioned Pentagon study revealed that such a move would allow the CIA to maintain its covert capability and be the “sole government agency conducting covert action.” The DoD found that under U.S. law and the Constitution it does not have the legal authority to conduct covert action, nor the “operational agility” to carry out these types of missions.
Since the creation of the National Security State in the late 1940s, the CIA has used covert operations to consistently overthrow governments and install favored actors in power. “Covert action should not be confused with missionary work,” said Henry Kissinger in 1975 after the U.S. government betrayed the Kurds of Iraq.
In the 1980s, former CIA agent John Stockwell estimated that the agency has run thousands of covert operations since its inception, “all designed to disrupt, destabilize, or modify the activities of other countries.”
We are told the Obama administration is behind the effort to put the CIA’s “elite U.S. hunter-killer teams that operate secretly” inside Yemen, but the effort transcends any perceived rule by the teleprompter reader in chief.
As author John Prados notes, the CIA does not answer to the president or Congress. “Covert action has never been under complete presidential control, even as presidents have total authority to order it,” he writes. Under the 1947 National Security Act, the CIA remains beyond Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that expressly reserves to Congress, not the president, the right to give letters of marque, the eighteenth-century equivalent of grants of combatant status.
Since September 11, 2001, U.S. foreign policy has shifted further into covert and illegal action in violation of the Constitution. Under Obama, the CIA has ramped up the covert war against CIA-ISI created elements inside Pakistan, an effort begun in earnest during the Bush regime.
In late October, Agence France-Presse reported that the CIA had authorized “officers and special operations military trainers to enter the country to intensify pressure” on “militants” created and supported through a collaboration between U.S. and Pakistani intelligence, although this is rarely if ever noted by the corporate media.
“The number of CIA personnel in Pakistan has grown substantially in recent years, [the Wall Street Journal] said. But the exact number is highly classified…. A senior Pakistani official said relations with the CIA remain strong but Islamabad continues to oppose a large increase in the number of American personnel on the ground.”
Since the staged underwear non-bombing last Christmas, the U.S. has steadily increased its military presence in Yemen and the Arabian peninsula under the guise of fighting against al-Qaeda and specifically the operative Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. born cleric designated by the government and the corporate media as the senior leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
“The U.S. military accelerated strikes against Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula following December’s failed attempt by the group to blow up a Detroit-bound American airliner. Since last December, the U.S. military has carried out a series of missile strikes on alleged al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. All of the strikes were approved by Washington’s ambassador to Sana’a,” the Journal reports.
The newly formed Yemeni branch of the intelligence contrivance known as al-Qaeda will continue its campaign of absurd non-bombings and will release propaganda videos featuring a raft of scary turban-donning “militants” on cue as the United States ramps up its military involvement in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa.
In the days ahead, as the mid-term election plays out with predictable results (as a highly controlled and orchestrated event), the manufactured terror threat that is not a terror threat will continue to dominate headlines. It is wholly irrelevant if the Republicans or Democrats control the House and Senate.
Regardless of who wins at the game of congressional musical chairs, the effort to exploit the manufactured war on terror will continue unabated and expand its reach into new fertile territory as the globalists attempt to extend their reach and seek to accomplish order through murderous chaos.
A US terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.
The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan that have "set the country on fire", said Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain.
Hasan, a veteran diplomat who is close to Pakistan's president, suggested the Obama administration was playing politics with the terror threat before next month's mid-term congressional elections, in which the Republicans are expected to make big gains...
President Obama's Department of Education, where Secretary Arne Duncan appointed a longtime homosexual activist who was part of the sometimes-violent Act Up organization to head his "safe schools" office, now is proposing to force colleges and universities to submit to a political agenda, according to critics.
Under the proposed federal rule change, institutions of higher education "would be required to have a document of state approval … to operate an educational program, including programs leading to a degree or certificate," explained an analysis by Shapri D. LoMaglio for the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.
"I think it is the greatest threat to academic freedom in our lifetime," former Sen. Bill Armstrong, now president of Colorado Christian University, told WND. "But only if you love liberty."...
When you add up the numbers of those who don’t agree with Beck on the Obama birth eligibility issue you find that a huge amount of Americans don’t agree with him.
He disappoints me greatly on this issue; Bill O’Reilly of Fox News is another matter, even he doesn’t know whether he’s a liberal or a conservative as he’s on both sides of the fence a lot. But Beck, though one of those ‘different’ libertarians at heart, has been very much on the conservative side of our country’s values. Now though he is saying, regarding the birth certificate issue, exactly what Obama’s nutcake followers are saying about it.
He has said that this contentious and growing wider in public desire for a legitimate and public airing of a valid document showing a complete non-redacted, legal Certificate of Live Birth “is he dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” He also has foolishly stated that public discussion of this controversy is like working for the Obama Administration.
Beck has put much stock in the argument that the announcement of Obama’s birth had been placed in two local newspapers in Hawaii, but those announcements are usually originated by the state government department that issues notices when such certifications are issued. And it is common knowledge that a “Certification of Live Birth” is not an original long-form ‘Certificate” of birth which shows the hospital’s name along with the attending or delivering physician; the other short form shows neither and is not considered as proof of actual birth due to the lack of those items...
FORT MEADE, Md. – An Army judge has made it "impossible" for a career medical officer to get a fair hearing on charges he refused to deploy to Afghanistan because of concern that obeying orders in the chain of command under an ineligible commander in chief would be illegal, his attorney says.
The rulings came today from Col. Denise Lind, who, in effect, told Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin to pound sand. Rocks actually. He faces up to four years at hard labor if convicted in his case.
"We got absolutely slammed today," said Paul R. Jensen, lead counsel for the defense. "It's impossible for us to have a fair trial under these rulings."
Jensen continued, "The judge did what she thought was right, but the result is to deprive us of any opportunity to have a defense."
Lakin believes any order issued under Obama's authority as commander in chief of the armed forces may not be valid because his eligibility to serve as president is unproven. After fruitlessly requesting the Army to verify Obama's eligibility to serve as president, Lakin wrote directly to Obama asking for proof of eligibility...
WASHINGTON – Glenn Beck may pooh-pooh the issue of Barack Obama's presidential eligibility, but some of his most loyal fans are emphatic in demanding, "Where's the Birth Certificate?"
On Beck's own website, a thread started today shows those concerned about Obama's unwillingness to document that he is a "natural-born" citizen, as the Constitution requires, running 9-to-1 over those who believe it's a non-issue.
At 2:11 p.m., a reader posted a comment on his website, The Blaze, about Democratic House Majority Whip James Clyburn's warning that if the GOP takes control of Congress in January, it will issue subpoenas regarding Obama's eligibility.
The original post included a video clip of Beck and guest Dinesh D'Souza dismissing the eligibility issue.
But within hours, more than 100 comments had been posted, and according to WND's tally, 45 of those comments questioned Obama's eligibility, and only five supported Beck's position...
A key Democrat in Congress is trying to drum up support for his party by warning voters that if the GOP moves into the majority in November, Republicans will issue subpoenaes over every possible issue they can assemble, including Barack Obama's eligibility for office.
The claim comes from House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., who told the Grio website in an interview that there would be gridlock in Congress should Democrats fail to maintain their majority...
Disagreement arose today among supporters of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor facing military court-martial for refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan after questioning Barack Obama's constitutionaleligibility to be president.
A group of retired military officers organized as the Veterans Council and the United States Patriot Union in Sheridan, Wyo., issued a white paper calling on Lakin's legal defense team to change strategy.
The so-called "White Paper No. 3" urged tea-party members and Congress members who signed the "Pledge to America" to support Lakin's right to discovery at his court-martial. The officers want Lakin to obtain Obama's long-form birth certificate and other relevant birth documents from Hawaii's Department of Health, as well as college and law-school records, to determine whether the president applied as a foreign-exchange student.
On Sept. 2, Army Col. Denise R. Lind ruled in a preliminary hearing to Lakin's scheduled October court-martial that Lakin could not pursue Obama's presidentialeligibility as part of his legal defense...
It long has been documented that when Barack Obama was picked by the Democratic Party to be its 2008 presidentialcandidate, only one state – Hawaii – was sent a document from Nancy Pelosi certifying that he was qualified under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Now a series of blogs reports are heating up the issue again, this time revealing documents that showed it apparently was Hawaii's local Democratic Party that refused to include that certification on its paperwork naming Obama as its candidate.
Even today, the Hawaii Democratic Party was staying mum, declining attempts by WND to obtain a comment on why it handled the 2008 presidential race paperwork as it did.
The original report came from a commentator at Canada Free Press who revealed the Democrats failed to certify their candidate's eligibility in 49 of the 50 states.
"In most states," writer JB Williams said at the time last year, "it appears that the DNC never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know to be false."
As WND reported, Williams released copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Obama as their nominee for president. One contains language affirming his constitutional eligibility, filed inHawaii where state law requires the specific language, and another omits the language, filed in the remaining 49 states.
The issue also has been addressed on a YouTube video already:
The blog reports cite each other, as well as apparent Democratic Party documents posted online from the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections.
The images reveal the change in wording that Hawaii Democrats adopted when Obama was their candidate.
In choosing Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in 2000, this was their statement:
"THIS IS TO CERTIFY 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 and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national Democratic Parties by balloting at thePresidential Preference Poll and Caucus held March 7, 2000 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 14-17, 2000 in Los Angeles, California."
Hawaii state Dem certification in 2000
The wording was almost identical on behalf of John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004:
Hawaii state Dem certification in 2004
But in 2008, the words missing include "the provisions of the United States Constitution." It states, "THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at thePresidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008, in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2009, in Denver, Colorado."
Hawaii state Dem certification in 2008
At "Fellowship," the blogger explained that each state party must certify that their candidate is constitutionally eligible to be president.
"What the Democratic Party of Hawaii's 2008 Certification of Nomination left out are these words: 'of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and,'" the blogger wrote.
"In other words, by omitting the above words, the Democractic Party of Hawaii (DPH) was signaling the following: 1. DPH is merely certifying that Obama is legally qualified to serve as president by virtue of the ballots of the Democratic Parties of the 50 states. The DPH is not certifying that Obama is legally qualified to serve as president under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution! 2. The DPH is also saying that Obama and Biden are NOT the chosen candidates of the state ofHawaii," he concluded.
The butterdezillion blog noted "the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama's eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past."
It was Williams who earlier released copies of two documents apparently prepared by national Democrats to certify Obama as their nominee for president.
The first includes a verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then-candidate for vice president, "are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."
One image of the certification for Barack Obama's nomination, including the affirmation Obama and Joe Biden "are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution"
The second form obtained by Williams appears identical. They both have the same typographical error in "though," but in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is gone.
Another image of a certification, on which the certification of eligibility has been removed
Williams reported that Republicans use a document universally that affirms their candidate's eligibility and that Democrats have used the form that omits the certification language in previous elections. But he nonetheless questions why the DNC certified Obama's eligibility only inHawaii.
Democratic National Committee officials have declined to comment on the issue of the multiple images. Pelosi and the White House also have declined to respond.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits over the dispute question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Though we live in an era when all undesirable facts are often blindly labeled "conspiracy theories" by political operatives with an agenda at risk, a very real conspiracy unfolds every now and then.
While it is indeed true that not all theories are actual conspiracies, like when Hillary Clinton developed an imaginary "right-wing conspiracy" out to get her husband, when in fact, the semen stained dress provided all the necessary (but unfriendly) facts and a perfectly logical explanation for all of those nasty rumors Ð it is also true that some conspiracies are much more than just crackpot theory.
To be a bonafide conspiracy, two or more individuals must knowingly conspire, plot or plan an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious act. In politics or law, an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act, is a "conspiracy." Not in theory, but in reality.
Such is the case today!
A political national committee, the Chair of the Party convention, the Secretary of the Party, Party offices in each of fifty states, and maybe many Ð many more, have knowingly and wantonly defrauded the American election system and more than 300 million American citizens.
They plotted and planned an act of evil, unlawful, treacherous fraud in a blind quest for unbridled political power, and they hoped that you would never catch it. They almost got away with it too...
They snuck it past fifty state election commissions, congress, the US Supreme Court and Justice Department, the Federal Elections Commission and countless members of the Electoral College nationwide. Not a single member of the, as Limbaugh says, "drive-by media" caught it either, or if they did, they decided to become complicit for their own political reasons.
But as is always the case with liars, cheats and thieves, they slip up Ð make a silly mistake Ð overplay their hand Ð leave evidence lying around that they had forgotten about. And as with all chronic liars, they eventually get caught in their own web of lies.
Then, one day, someone stumbles into that evidence, and the house of cards comes crashing down around them. It's almost poetic...
The Mistake
Aware of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II Ð Section I constitutional requirements for the office of President, what well-seasoned professional politician would be stupid enough to sign their name and stake their personal career upon certifying Obama as eligible?
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are nominated at their respective Party Conventions.
Believe it or not, each Party is assigned the duty of vetting and certifying the legal eligibility of their own candidates. I know, like asking the fox to guard the henhouse, right. But hey, we are talking about a country which still thinks there is a separation of powers between the High Court and the Executive branch, which seats that court by way of political appointment, confirmed by congress, which wants a piece of the judge and expects a few political favors too.
The Evidence
In this case, the Democrat Party was responsible for vetting and certifying Barack Hussein Obama as legally eligible to seek the Oval Office. The U.S. Constitution has only three very specific requirements for the job. The proper legal text used on the DNC Party "Official Certification of Nomination" document reads as follows, and I quote;
"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively 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."
Yes, I know.... there is a typo in there. Not my typo, it belongs to whoever prepared the official document at the DNC. Did you catch it?
The document is signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Colorado Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson. It is dated August 28, 2008.
However, this document 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.
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.
The "Official Certification of Nomination" that was presented by the DNC in all fifty states for the 2008 Presidential election, in which Barack Hussein Obama became the new President of the United States, was almost identical, and it too was signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson, dated August 28, 2008.
But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote;
"- 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."
The legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket was limited to, and I quote;
"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:
Oops, another typo? The reference to Obama's constitutional eligibility was missing... An accidental omission?
The text certifying that Barack Hussein Obama was "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution" had been removed from the document sent to the states. And yes, I have a copy of this version of the DNC Official Certification of Nomination letter too!
In fact, this version is in Election Commission files of all fifty state Election Commission offices, state DNC headquarters, complete with date stamps, matching signatures, even the same Notary of Public authentication, and absent the constitutional text.
Just in case you are wondering, the answer is yes. This version also includes the same typo present in the version not submitted by the DNC, but including the constitutional text, which means both documents have the same place of origin.
The individual at DNC headquarters who prepared this very important document was not only a poor typist... they were sloppy enough to leave both versions of the signed documents lying around.
Now this is the stuff real conspiracies are made of!
The Implications
Please, allow me to connect the dots here...
The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one.
One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of President is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama President.
Oh, there is one more important document in this story.
The RNC "Official Certification of Nomination" for John McCain and Sarah Palin reads, and I quote:
"We do hereby certify that a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the Unites States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;"
The certification of constitutional eligibility is there in the RNC Certification of Nomination presented to the state Election Commissions. It's there in the document which the DNC had prepared, signed and notarized, but did NOT deliver to the states.
But it is NOT there in the DNC Certification of Nomination that the DNC used to certify and elect Barack Hussein Obama President and Joseph Biden Vice President of the United States of America.
Last, the fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was underway, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful.
Are you still wondering why Barack Obama has spent nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer's funds to race Department of Justice lawyers around the country to stop all cases questioning Obama's eligibility before discovery can force Obama to open up his top secret life?
Now I realize that leftists, I mean liberals, no "progressives" Ð don't like getting all bogged down in minutia and nit-picky details like the Constitution, but this is actually very serious business here. We are talking about the top-down leadership of the ruling political Party knowingly and wantonly defrauding voters by way of playing monkey business with fraudulent election documents.
As Al Gore once said, the debate is OVER!
There is no honest debate on the matter anymore. Obama is NOT a constitutional president, which is to say, we do NOT have a constitutional federal administration at present and every anti-American policy of the last six months is also, BINGO! Ð Unconstitutional!
What is still in question however Ð does any court in America have the backbone to do what must be done? Ð And what do the American people do, if not one court in the nation has that kind of constitutional backbone today?
Obama's DOJ has thus far been successful in blocking the people's access to the courts by claiming that no American citizen, including another presidential candidate, has "proper standing" to demand proof of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office he fraudulently holds.
To be very clear, the RNC nomination form filed with the states certifies that John McCain met all constitutional requirements for the Office of President. But the DNC nomination form filed with the states is absent any such language.
I know what I conclude from these facts, but what do you conclude from these facts?
More importantly, what will a court of law conclude? Will they ever even agree to hear the evidence?
First, thank you all for your comments. It is vital to the future of our beloved nation, that every American patriot awaken from apathy and engage in the defense of freedom, liberty and justice. The comments on this story demonstrate that this is happening, none too soon.
I want to respond to several comments regarding this story.
A poster has taken issue with a couple typos in this column. They make a good point, but more importantly, prove a very important point about this story in that process. Typos are more common than not, and that's why it is significant that the same typo appears in both versions of the DNC Certification document. Like my column typos, which spellchecker missed in both cases, they are a way of identifying the authenticity and place of origin of a document. I usually take great pains to cross all t's and dot all i's just to eliminate any opening to discredit a story strictly on the basis of a typo. In this case, the story is of such magnitude, that it was more important to get the word out than to wait for the normal editing process. My apologies for the typos, but they change nothing.
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?
This is a very typical strategy of the left, and its purpose is to deflect attention away from the real crisis at hand, and focus attention upon typos, other candidates not elected, and technicalities that change absolutely nothing about the story or the only question of concern, why two different certificates and why omit the reference to constitutional eligibility regarding a candidate who clearly does not meet those requirements?
I reported what I found in a clear factual manner, and even the comments seeking to discredit, further confirm the basis for the story. So, in the end, I must ask, what do you make of all evidence presented?
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB. Williams can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
For a few years now, I have been stating that there is no political savior, no silver bullet and no government agency that was going to save the United States of America from the heavy hand of federal tyranny wrapped around the throat of every American citizen, namely American taxpayers.
As it was in the beginning, so shall it be today. It is the average American, not the powerful politician, or the Ivy League elitist, or even the so-called “eyes and ears of the people,” the press, who must rise up by the millions and demand control of their country, acting as a single unit in the defense of freedom and liberty, not partisan power.
And so it is…
Over a million average Americans traveled from over forty-five states across the country, to gather in Washington DC this past weekend, in peaceful opposition to all that is wrong with our current federal government run wild. But that was only one public demonstration of the largest gathering of citizens in US history, of all political, ethnic, economic stripes, with one purpose in mind. Saving their country!
So it is in this story…
On September 10, 2009, I released a column that created a firestorm across the nation. The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie brought to national light, a story that had apparently been brewing on a few tiny little citizen blogs for months.
The two DNC documents were originally emailed to me in pdf attachment form, by an anonymous reader. That email included a link where the documents had been posted and I first mentioned and linked these documents in my column of September 9, 2009, Tennessee Grand Jury Joins DOJ in Obstructing Justice.
Upon reviewing the docs in pdf form and online, I picked up the phone and started dialing state Election Commission offices, requesting copies of whatever had been filed by the DNC in 2008. Within moments, documents started rolling off of my fax machine and all of them were the DNC Certification of Nomination form that was absent any certification of constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden.
It was on this basis that Part I of this story was written and released, feeling confident in the pattern and verifying with certainty that the DNC had failed to certify the Obama-Biden ticket as meeting all legal constitutional requirements for the offices they sought, at least in many states.
Not only did this column ignite a firestorm of interest across the political spectrum, crashing the Canada Free Press servers from sheer traffic volume off the charts, it ignited an army of citizen investigators ready and willing to jump in with both feet and participate in gathering additional information from their home districts across the land. I have received a volume of information via fax and email from different states since, and more is pouring in…
There are too many citizens involved to list or even know them all, but they are all an equal part in this ongoing effort to expose what could be the coup of the century, and I thank them all!
In Part I, I made the assertion that the “short form” (the one without constitutional certification) had been filed in all fifty states. That assumption was incorrect. It now appears that the short form was filed in only forty-nine states, the “long form” (with constitutional certification) being filed in Hawaii only.
I also neglected to check what form the DNC filed in 2004 for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. It turns out that at least in some states, the same “short form” document missing constitutional certification was filed in 2004. In my state, they only hold documents for two election cycles and then discard them. So I have not looked at any documents from earlier elections, but clearly, the “short form” DNC doc was around before 2008. Still…
Two Different DNC Docs
As readers aware of the Hawaii “long form” document suggested, the Hawaii doc validates BOTH DNC docs as “authentic” since both were prepared, signed, dated and notarized on the same day by the same people, and both were delivered to state Election Commissions as certification for the Obama-Biden ticket. That ends all speculation about whether or not both docs are real and authentic.
And as another reader pointed out, Hawaii state statute 11-113 requires this language.
This certainly explains why the “long form” document including this language was filed in Hawaii. However, it does nothing to explain why this same document was not used in every state in the country, since the US Constitution and election laws require that all candidates meet these requirements, and that the Parties certify that their nominees meet these requirements. Further, most states seem to have very similar statues to that of Hawaii. Candidates must meet and the Parties must certify compliance with all requirements for office.
RNC Certifications
For the record, throughout the years and states investigated thus far, the RNC has not failed to certify their candidates as nominees who meet all legal constitutional requirements even once.
In every case, the RNC has filed the same form in every state with the following language included.
The Question Remains
Why two different documents from the DNC?—And now, more questions arise…
The good news is this—two documents means two sets of signatures from the same individuals at the same time. Like many readers, I too noticed that while the signatures on the two DNC docs looked very similar, there were some anomalies, specifically, in the document including certification of Obama’s eligibility.
As I am not a document or handwriting expert, I sent the documents for professional analysis, to someone who is in that profession. They too offered their credentials and services and accepted NO form of compensation or benefit for doing so.
The graphologist who inspected both documents has prepared and delivered an official report, of which I have an original copy. The graphologist has agreed to let me use the findings and has further agreed to testify to the following under oath if asked. For obvious reasons, I will not disclose the identity of this individual at this time.
The full report is very detailed and somewhat lengthy. But here is the meat of the findings…
This alone might explain why there are TWO DNC certification documents.
Hawaii, in the unique position of being the alleged (but not yet proven) birth place of Barack Hussein Obama, demanded that the letter of the law be followed and that the proper certification language appear in the DNC certification for Hawaii.
You will remember that Hawaii officials have on several occasions asserted that “Barack Obama is a natural born citizen,” without offering a single shred of evidence or even a detailed explanation for how they arrived at that place of certain knowing.
It’s easy… They had a document signed by Nancy Pelosi that certified this to be the case.
But why wasn’t that same document filed across the country? The graphologist may have just answered that question.
Far Reaching Implications
The US Constitution has very specific requirements for the office of President and Vice President and NO federal or state statute supersedes those Article II requirements.
The political Parties and each state Elector is charged with the legal responsibility of vetting and certifying that the candidates they nominate meet all necessary legal requirements for the office sought. The RNC has done that, the DNC has NOT, except in the case of Obama’s alleged birth place, Hawaii.
Where does this place Nancy Pelosi? In a place of knowing, aiding and abetting? How about the Secretary of the DNC, or the notary of public?
What about all of the state electors or the 49 state Democratic Parties who rubber stamped the DNC document lacking certification of constitutional eligibility, not once, but more than once?
What about the members of congress who were to certify the overall election results as not only tabulated correctly, but legit?
The citizen investigation on this matter continues and there are so many average Americans involved in collecting evidence at this point, that they won’t be able to hide everything from everyone involved, nor silence a single individual who holds all of the cards, because Americans all over this country are looking at documents and asking questions.
Why TWO DNC certification documents? The RNC has only one…
Never mind what I make of this information…. What do you make of it?
This is obviously a developing story. I encourage all readers to engage in the investigative process directly, and assume nothing. I made that mistake once already!
When I first became aware that the Democratic National Committee prepared, signed and notarized two slightly different Certification of Nomination documents for the Obama-Biden ticket in the 2008 election, I was shocked and after verifying both documents as real, I wrote about it in The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie released on September 10, 2009.
The question was obvious – Why TWO different DNC Obama certification documents, and why did one have proper certification of constitutional eligibility in it, while the other had that certification deleted?
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.
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.
On September 15, I released a follow up report, The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—II in which I was able to provide answers to many of the questions swirling around the two DNC docs.
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
More interesting however, is the news I got back from a document and handwriting expert, a graphologist, which asserted the following in a detailed analysis of both documents.
In short, the answer to Bob Unruh’s question at WND seems to be yes, Nancy Pelosi knew that she was signing a false statement on behalf of Obama. But she also knew that this false statement of eligibility would only be filed in Hawaii, which has a very specific state statute that requires that each party certify the constitutional eligibility of their candidates, using specific text.
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.
The Story Continues
After releasing Parts I and II of this ongoing investigative report, literally hundreds of American citizens have taken it upon themselves to call their state Election Commission office and request copies of what the DNC filed in their state. Many of those documents have since been faxed or emailed to me.
In all cases except Hawaii, the DNC form without certification of constitutional eligibility was filed by the DNC. Meanwhile, everywhere we look, the RNC used one universal certification document which included full certification of constitutional eligibility in every state, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.
The following explanations have been offered on the subject.
Only Hawaii has a state statute requiring such language
Other states don’t require certification of constitutional standing for office
The DNC certified Obama during the primary process
Certification is “implied”
Obviously, while Hawaii’s statute requires that such language be there in the certification of nomination, no state statue requires that such language not appear in the document. So, why didn’t the DNC use one universal doc like the RNC?
Upon further investigation, we did indeed learn that some state primary filings do include language of constitutional eligibility by each candidate. However, that is a statement made by each candidate, not a certification of compliance made by the Party which had vetted the candidate and certified.
And, I can’t believe that anyone needs me to explain the significant difference between “implied” and “certified?” A personal check “implies” that you have money in your account, which may or may not be true. But a “certified” check guarantees that you have that money in your account.
We are talking about the highest office in this land and the most powerful office in the world. “Implied” won’t cut it when the US Constitution itself has very specific requirements for this office, even if Snopes, FactCheck and Obama bloggers don’t care, the rest of America should.
NO DNC Certification in many States
Not only did the DNC NOT certify eligibility in their Certification of Nomination for 49 states, they didn’t certify during the primary process in many states either. In fact, in most states, it appears that the DNC never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know to be false.
While the RNC filed the same proper certifications in all states with 100% consistency, the DNC filed a variety of improper documents which essentially certified nothing. They certainly failed to certify that Barack Hussein Obama met all legal requirements for the office.
There is NO argument about it now.
Barack Hussein Obama fails to meet Article II – Section I requirements for the office of President because he is NOT a “natural born citizen” according to the foundation for that clause, the Law of Nations based upon Natural Law, which requires that one be the natural born child of TWO US citizens, born on US soil.
Whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, he is NOT the natural born citizen of TWO US citizens. He is the natural born son of a father who was at all times, a citizen of Kenya. Just as he adopted by natural law, his fathers name, he also adopted by natural law, his fathers citizenship. The efforts by Obama fans to use “anchor baby” arguments, claiming Hawaii as his birth place, fall short of the actual qualification.
But even more important, we now know that the DNC never certified to the contrary, except in Hawaii. The DNC never “certified” that Obama met all legal requirements for the office of president, like the RNC did for McCain.
Even in the primary filings, Obama filed documents like this one filed in Arkansas, which certifies absolutely nothing and isn’t even dated correctly at the signature line, also received from the Election Commission in Arkansas in November 2007, but allegedly signed by Obama in November 2008.
At no point in the string of documents filed by the DNC or Obama, did anyone certify to the state of Arkansas that Obama was eligible for the office he sought. This is true in many states… though not all 50 states have been reviewed as of this writing.
The US Senate never passed a resolution affirming that Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural born citizen” in accordance with the same definition the Senate used to make just such an affirmation on behalf of John McCain during the 2008 election.
Everyone in America knows who John McCain is, who his parents are, where he was born and that he is a true American war hero. Still, the Senate felt it necessary to pass a resolution affirming McCain’s “natural born citizen” status on the basis that he was the son of TWO US citizens, born on American soil at a US Navy base in Panama where his father was deployed at the time of John’s birth.
But nobody knows who Obama is or where he came from, as even his family in Kenya claim to have been present at his birth in Kenya, and no authenticated proof to the contrary has ever been presented.
Many Americans, at home, in congress and in the media, have assumed that Obama meets all qualifications because the DNC said he did. But in 49 states, they never said it, at least officially!
If you ask Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did she “certify” Obama as eligible under Article II, she would simply state that she never made any such certification, except in Hawaii… and she would be telling the truth!
The language necessary to certify Obama as eligible was omitted from the documents filed at 49 Election Commission offices, and in most of those cases, such certification was also missing in the primary filings.
Now, to be fair, the DNC had been omitting that language from their official filings for years. Refusing to certify their candidates as “constitutionally eligible” has been a practice of the DNC for at least a few election cycles now. Why?
The Final Questions
Why did the DNC certify Obama’s eligibility only in Hawaii?
Why did no state DNC office, DNC elector, or Election Commission office catch it?
Since the DNC made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
Without any such certification, isn’t it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen?”
Why did the DNC use TWO different docs, one incomplete, when the RNC used the same complete doc nationwide?
On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
When will every American demand answers to these and many more questions?
After four weeks of investigation, we certainly know a lot more than we did four weeks ago. Still, this three part report raises more questions than answers.
At the end of the day, we clearly have a political Party currently in power which gained that power by ignoring or intentionally subverting the US Constitution. At a minimum, they were very sloppy and derelict in their duty. At worst, they are complicit in a crime of monumental proportions.
Article II requirements exist, they are quite clear, the parties are obligated to vet and certify their candidates, and yet the DNC failed miserably in all categories. Still, the nation assumes that all was above board. On what basis do we now make that assumption?
This is the last in this three part report. If any more answers are to be found, the American citizens will have to demand them, the courts will have to agree to allow discovery in the matter and Obama will have to become the transparent president he promised so many Americans he would be.
Armed with this information, it is now up to the American people to decide what to do with this information. But one thing is vividly clear, nobody in the DNC wants to address any of these questions and Obama’s Department of Justice is too busy running interference for their Messiah to be bothered with such minor details as the rule of constitutional law.
It’s all in the hands of the people now! I hope you choose wisely!
