Wednesday, November 10, 2010
'There is no specific federal agency' to review candidates for federal office
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...
[Full Article]Labels: birth certificate, eligibility, Obama, usurper
Sunday, September 26, 2010
ObamaFraud: The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie
The Mistake, The Evidence, Obama is NOT a constitutional president
By J.B. Williams
September 10, 2009
See: The Theory is Now a ConspiracyÑISee: The Theory is Now a Conspiracy -- III
-Please read update at bottom of article
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."
 Click to enlarge |
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:
 Click to enlarge |
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;"
 Click to enlarge |
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?
The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie
Ð Update 09-11-09
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.
I was first made aware of these two documents when an anonymous reader sent them to me. The documents were posted here Ñ Document #1 and here Ñ Document #2 and I provided these proper links in my September 9, 2009 column Tennessee Grand Jury Joins DOJ in Obstructing Justice.
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?
If I missed any typos here, I apologize!
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.comRecent articles by JB Williams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—II
An Ongoing Citizen Investigation, Certification of Obama's eligibility
By JB Williams
September 15, 2009
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.
See: The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—I
See: The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—III
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!
Thanks to them, within 24 hours of releasing The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie, I would have to reconsider some of my early assumptions in that column.
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!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Theory is Now a Conspiracy – IIIDNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!
By JB Williams
September 25, 2010
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.
This story caused a firestorm of interest, comment and speculation across the web, leading Bob Unruh at World Net Daily to ask, What does Pelosi know about Obama’s eligibility?
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!
Labels: Barack Obama, birth certificate, eligibility, Obama, usurper
Monday, August 2, 2010
[WorldNetDaily.com]
Posted: July 31, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
A candidate for Congress in New York's 2nd District, a seat now held by Democrat Steve Israel, says there is a "usurper" in the Oval Office and impeachment isn't the solution since "that would imply that he held the seat in a valid manner in the first place."
The comments by Constitution Party candidate Anthony Tolda were reported on a blog calling on Obama to release his records.
"For our Constitution to continue to exist much longer Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro must be removed from office," the candidate's statement said. "I would not seek to impeach him, as that would imply that he held the seat in a valid manner in the first place."
Tolda's speech was captured in two segments on video:
In it, he references the "usurper" in the office of the president.
But the blog expands on that, noting that Tolda was asked specifically about Obama's eligibility to be president.
The candidate responded, "There is a process to remove seat holders that are not able to legally hold a seat. Until now the highest seat that was removed from the holder in this manner is a seat(s) in the U.S. Senate.
"I will seek to begin this process as soon as I am sworn in. Although I do not intend to pursue an impeachment, I would assist in any efforts started by others inoffice to impeach. Only so long as I can verify that it would not nullify my plans for the annulment-type removal that has been used on senators unfit to legally holdoffice in the past," he said.
He also pleaded for help with his campaign to take on the leading candidate in the race, Israel.
Tolda is just the latest in a long list of prominent individuals and leaders who have posed similar questions.
Indiana congressional candidate Marvin Scott
Indiana congressional candidate Marvin Scott was responding to call-in questions from campaign supporters recently when he was confronted with a question about his position on the eligibility issue:
Scott, who is challenging Democrat incumbent Andre Carson, said, "Certainly, we have a right to know as citizens of this country. And that particular question has to be vetted over and over again to assure the public that the people who are representing us are fair and have ascended to that particular position because they have met allof the requirements, and therefore they are entitled to by a vote of the populace to be there."
Scott has been a professor of sociology at Butler University for nearly 20 years and for nine years was president of a management-consulting firm.
He's served as a consultant to public schools, colleges, universities and federal courts. His website explains he's running for the House of Representatives because Republicans have a "long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home."
Sen. David Vitter, R-La.
Louisiana's Vitter says the dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president should be resolved in court.
"I support conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court," Vitter said, according to an Associated Press report citing a videoof the event.
It's also significant that the AP reported on Vitter's comments. The news wire has stated the president's "birth certificate" has been made public even though the imageof the document posted online actually is a "certification of live birth," which was available to those not born in Hawaii.
Vitter was responding to a constituent Sunday at a town-hall meeting in Metairie, La., who asked about Obama's "refusal to produce" a birth certificate.
The AP reported the crowd applauded the question.
Vitter said he didn't have personal "standing" for litigation. But he said he supports the efforts to bring the question to court.
"I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it," he said.
He said "first and foremost" Americans need to "fight the Obama agenda at the ballot box starting this fall."
Vitter said, according to the AP report, that the matters of the nation are too important to be diverted by distractions.
U.S. Rep. Steve King
U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, appears to have suggested he's not entirely satisfied that all the questions about President Obama's eligibility have been answered fully.
The issue came up as he talked about the national debt in a recent address in Congress, televised by C-SPAN and posted on YouTube:
The congressman referred to the estimated $44,000 that each child born in the United States owes at the moment of birth as his or her partof the federal debt.
"We worry about them carrying a student-loan debt … maybe $40,000 in student loans," he said. "We'll, I'd be happy to take that $40,000 loan and a guarantee of a college degree and think that child could pay that off."
But for the $44,000 in federal debt obligations, all the individual gets is access to citizenship in the United States of America, he said.
"Little baby with ink on their foot, stamped right there on the birth certificate – there's one in this country we haven't seen," he said. "But the footprints on those we have seen. Those little babies owe Uncle Sam $44,000."
U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C.
Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., said Obama was born "not in Hawaii." He gave the answer during a tongue-in-cheek "interview" on the satirical Colbert Nation show.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30 p.m. EDT / 10:30 p.m. CDT | |||
| South Carolina's 4th District Primary - Bob Inglis | ||||
| ||||
Inglis was being grilled about whether he was a conservative.
"Are you conservative enough for the 4th District?" Stephen Colbert asked.
"I sure hope so," Inglis responded.
Inglis noted he had been endorsed by the National Rifle Association and the Christian Coalition.
Then Colbert said, "Complete this sentence. 'Barack Obama was born in ...'"
"Oh," said Inglis, "Not Hawaii."
Champaign, Ill., mayor Gerald Schweighart
A few weeks earlier, the mayor of Champaign, Ill., Gerald Schweighart, said Obama should produce his birth certificate.
The mayor was asked about Obama and responded he doesn't think he's "American."
"If you are not willing to produce an original birth certificate, then you've got something to hide," he said. "If he doesn't have something to hide, produce it."
Others raising questions are Tennessee state Senate speaker Ron Ramsey, Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze, U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and many others with similar questions.
Ramsey said, "I don't know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or not. I don't know what the whole deal is there."
But Ramsey also said he doesn't believe citizens are concerned about Obama's citizenship status.
"But I'm going to tell you something," he said. "When you walk out on the street down here, people don't really care about this issue."
There also have been efforts to raise the question of Obama's eligibility at the state and national levels. Several state legislatures are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. Among the states where election qualification or eligibility requirements are being considered or developed include Oklahoma, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia and New York.
Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero
Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has suggested that legislation could be adopted to release Obama's birth records and satisfy critics.
While Espero said he believes Obama was born in Hawaii, he explained, "My decision to file the legislation was primarily a resultof the fuss over President Obama's birth records and the lingering questions."
Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze
Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze sponsored a proposal to demand eligibility documentation from candidates for political office, including the president. Ritze, who says he regularly gets questions from his constituents about Obama's eligibility, said an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" on the issues ofcandidate qualifications and eligibility.
U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
In March 2009, Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., proposed H.R. 1503, known as the Presidential Eligibility Act. It is still pending in a House committee and has nearly a dozen co-sponsors, including Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind.; Ted Poe, R-Texas; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas; John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; and Kenny Marchant, R-Texas.
The measure seeks to "amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate … to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen
Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.
"It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen," she told the Arizona Capitol Times.
Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges
Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she has been getting questions from other states about H. 2442, a proposal she sponsored to require future presidential candidates to show they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen." The bill is co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers who also want state officials to independently verify the accuracy of documentation.
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga.
Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., sent a Dec. 10 letter to the White House formally requesting that President Obama address questions about his place of birth – and thus, whether he is qualified to be president. Deal, who is running for governor, said several months ago he would ask Obama to prove his eligibility.
"I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available, and it leaves many things to be desired," Deal said in November.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin
Even Sarah Palin, former vice-presidential candidate and best-selling author, affirmed that questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for office are legitimate.
"I think it's a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records – all of that is fair game," Palin said. "The McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area."
Former House majority leader Tom DeLay
In October, former House majority leader Tom DeLay offered his views on Obama's birth, saying, "Why wouldn't the president of the United States show the American people his birth certificate? You have to show a birth certificate to play Little League baseball. It's a question that should be answered. It's in the Constitution that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be president."
U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Asked whether he believes Obama is eligible to be president, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said, "What I don't know is why the president cannot produce a birth certificate. I don't know anyone else who can't produce one. I think that's a legitimate question."
U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.
U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said he believes Obama was born in the U.S., but he also said he thinks the president is trying to hide something:
"I believe he's a natural born citizen of the United States. Therefore, even if he acts un-American and seems to go against American interests, he's still an American-born citizen," he said. "All that being said, probably Barack Obama could solve this problem and make the birthers back off by simply showing ... his long-form birth certificate."
Because that isn't happening, "There's some other issue there."
"I don't know what it is that he doesn't want people to see the birth certificate. I don't think it has to do with his natural-born citizenship," Franks continued. "He's spent an awful lot of money to keep people from seeing the birth certificate. ... I think it has to do with something else."
Feminist icon Camille Paglia
Even feminist icon Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point. "Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling," she wrote.
New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport
In September, New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport, R-Colebrook, said he was tired of telling his constituents that he's not sure of Obama's eligibility to serve as president. He met with New Hampshire's secretary of state, William Gardner, who oversees the state's elections, to demand answers.
"Regardless of where he was born, is he a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution? I don't know the answer to that," Rappaport said. "My understanding is that … a natural born citizen had to be someone with two American parents. If that's true, his father was a Kenyan and therefore a British subject at the time. Then there's the issue: If he was born out of the country, was his mother old enough at the time to confer citizenship?
"I expect somebody to come up with the legal answers to this," Rappaport told WND, "and so far that hasn't happened."
Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz.
In his Jan. 26 appearance on "Hardball," former Rep. J.D. Hayworth was asked by Chris Matthews, "Are you as far right as the birthers? Are you one of those who believes that the president should have to prove that he's a citizen of the United States and not an illegal immigrant? Are you that far right?"
Hayworth replied, "Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were, and we were the age we said we were, to play football in youth sports. Shouldn't we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and is who they say they are?"
"Should the governor of Hawaii produce evidence that the president is one of us, an American?" Matthews asked. "Do you think that's a worthy pastime for the governor of Hawaii right now?"
"No, I ... Look, I'm just saying the president should come forward with the information, that's all," said Hayworth. "Why should we depend on the governor of Hawaii?"
A video of the interview follows:
Prominent commentators
A prominent array of commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Lou Dobbs, Peter Boyles and WND's Chuck Norris and Pat Boone have all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama eligibility issue is legitimate and worthy.
Longtime New York radio talker Lynn Samuels did the same. "We don't even know where he was born," she said. "I absolutely believe he was not born in this country."
WND has reported on multiple 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 question whether Obama 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.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and his appointment of lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation.
While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
Labels: Barack Obama, birth certificate, fraud, usurper, World Net Daily
Sunday, May 16, 2010
THE FRAUDULENT - BARACK OBAMA AKA BARRY SOETORO
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]