Skip to comments.Calling Donald Trump: Pelosi manipulated Obama certifications of eligibilty (2 versions!)
Posted on 03/30/2011 6:11:28 AM PDT by cycle of discernment
Allegedly Pelosi issued two different certifications verifying the eligibility of Barack Obama for the Presidency, which were both prepared on the same day and notarized by the same individual.
The Certification of Nomination sent to the state of Hawaii mentioned the Constitutional requirement:
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 through 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..
The Certification of Nomination sent to the other 49 states did not mention the Constitutional requirement:
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..
If this is true, it would appear that in Pelosis view, the Constitutional requirements for Presidential eligibility are optional in 49 out of 50 states or it could simply be a legal safety hatch for any future unpleasantness.
One might hypothesize that Hawaii, knowing that there could be a potential Constitutional problem, demanded legal cover.
One wonders, in such a scenario, if any of the other 49 state Democratic National Committee organizations knew about the different Certifications of Nomination?
Perhaps Nancy had to submit the Certifications, so we could then learn what was in them.
Maybe - and Im just spit-balling here - maybe Nancy had a responsibility as a Congressional representative and according to her oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Or is the oath optional too?
All of the above is, of course, speculation because only a crazy racist would detect any incongruities when two different Certifications of Nomination are used.
So, how did we get to where we are today?
Despite all that has been written, the real theme of the 2008 Presidential race was wishful thinking.
Nobody believed that Hillary Clinton would lose the Presidential primary to Barack Obama. Republicans hoped that McCain could somehow pull off a miraculous come-from-behind victory.
This is not the first time I have heard of this.
I call her “Pelosio”....
Pelosi should be indicted for fraud and perjury, then frog-marched in an orange suit into federal prison.
Here is a live link guys:
Pelosi, why the two Certifications of Nomination?
This is true.
It’s been well documented.
Right these are the same arguments but being made by Donald Trump. Don’t know if that will make a difference, but if it makes more people read,realize and become aware of how much trouble the Democratic party & Nancy Pelosi went through to avoid revealing Obama’s birth certificate and altering forms in preperation for Obama’s run, maybe it will create a stir!
I think that is the most telling moment.
Just curious. Why would Pelosi send out the certification? Who sent the cert on McCain? Is the responsibility defined somewhere (i.e. “the highest elected official of the party”)? I would think it would come from the party chairs....
bump for the donald...
Can anyone put the 2 images on this thread - to make it easy for the good guys?
Of course many of us know about the other “curiosities” that make this matter murky, until Obama proves he is a natural born citizen:
* Obama’s furtive meeting with SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts several days before his inauguration in 2009, a very unconventional act, amid multiple lawsuits that were furiously being filed with the SCOTUS at the time.
* SCOTUS Justice Thomas’ comment, during a congressional hearing, that “we’re avoiding discussion about [Presidential eligibility].”
* The law review article of 2007, written by a young lawyer at the law firm whose partner was on Obama’s election committee, which decried the “natural born” requirement of the Constitution. Why bring up that obscure point out of the blue?
* Obama spending millions to fight lawsuits in court rather than just producing the dang document and putting all questions to rest.
* When Obama’s mother [an addle-brained idiot who did not like her own country] married her second foreigner, the Indonesian, and moved to Indonesia, did she renounce her son’s citizenship and get him an Indonesian passport?
* Did her marriage to BHO Sr make her son a British/Kenyan citizen first, because she was not yet 19? Was her marriage to BHO Sr even legal because he had a wife already back in Kenya?
My sense is that the SCOTUS is waiting for a lawsuit with standing to come before them. I expect that Roberts and Obama’s meeting was polite and cautious and that, if anything, Obama would have verbally just assured Roberts that he was fully eligible.
I for one am glad that “the Donald” is doing this. The media is afraid of big celebrities who address controversial issues — they can bludgeon Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann — but they seem to defer to the Donald Trumps and Arnold Schwarzeneggers of the world.
Nothing to see here, literally. The DNC certifications for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000 were handled the same way and writen with the exact same language right down to a typographical error.
why leave out constituional wording?
When? When has the left ever cared about the Constitution?
Yes, but these two versions say different things.
That is the issue.
“The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one,” he wrote. “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,” he wrote.
WND contacted the Democratic National Committee multiple times over three days to request an explanation of the two images, including whether one might be a forgery. A spokeswoman in the press office confirmed, “We are aware of it,” but declined to elaborate.
“In most states,” Williams writes, “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.”
Read more: 49 of 50 states never saw certification of eligibility? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=111286#ixzz1I5iVYWLF
Read more: Eye-popper: Is Nancy Pelosi in on eligibility cover-up? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=109363#ixzz1I5i3zSqu
The reason being is that the Democratic Party of Hawaii (DPH), specifically Brian Schatz (now the Lt. Gov of Hawaii) refused to affirm that BHO II met the constitutional requirements to hold office as was required by Hawaii state election statutes.
Someone needs to get Brian Schatz on record why he deviated from the prescribed statutes in 2008.
Nobody believed McCain was going to pull a miracle out of his buttocks and many, like me, were perfectly willing to sit at home and help foist the current Dummy in Chief on American and the world, if only to teach them a lesson about their ludicrous Utopian ideas.
Without Sarah, Mubarak would have won in a landslide so lop sided and epic he would have had a mandate giving him even more power to do what he wants.
Next year we will take back the Senate and hopefully the Presidency. At that point if they don’t immediately, on day 1, swiftly and decidedly roll back mush of this idiocy, I will drop out of voting all together and never look back.
If there was, would an announcement in the local newspaper be sufficient? Would a short form BC with limited information be accepted? Would a document shown to be a forgery be allowed? Would we farm this job out to FactCheck.org?
How about a long form official BIRTH “CERTIFICATE”. Along with proof that both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth? (like copies of their birth certificates or naturalization records). Not too difficult.
Hawaii legally requires the Constitutional language. The other states didn’t. It’s not the issue you’re making it. Nothing was done for Obama that wasn’t done for Kerry and Gore.
The Hawaii Democrat Party is the one who changed their certification for Obama not the national DNC.
Tell him, butter.
Obama care - dead
Start treaty - dead
DADT - dead
Kagan and Sotomyor - fired
Fed judges - fired
US attorneys - fired
The list goes on and on.
See how much fun we can have if we play our cards right?
Trump's timing is perfect.
You can remove the word “allegedly” She did it.
In Oct 2008 when BHO went to HI to visit the sick Grandma he had a meeting with the HI elections supervisor. the HI state Democratic party was refusing to issue a nomination certificate for Barry due to the fact that he could not produce docs verifying eligibility. State of HI law requires the Dem party to issue a nomination cert that specifically says the candidate is eligible “under the Constitution of the United States”. They would not do it.
Enter Nazi Pelosi. She signed a DNC nomination certificate for Bam that used the words “under the Constitution of the United States” and sent it to the HI elections supervisor. Through a loophole in HI election law he used that cert to put Barry on the ballot. Not wanting to commit fraud more than once Pelosi sent nomination certificates to the other 56 (sarc) states leaving out the language “under the Constitution of the United States” And that Virginia is how the Easter Bunny was born.
I have given up all hope that SCOTUS will allow any case to be heard.
The only way Obama will leave the White House is if the Democrat leadership see him as too great a liability to the Party and want him gone.
Actually, I completely agree with you. Obama will never leave the White House until his own party abandons him.
That’s how Nixon left. He was going to ride out the impeachment proceedings in the Congress until Howard Baker, Senator from Tennessee (R), told him that his party was not going to support him anymore. Baker was an honorable man, amidst many honorable Republicans, who said that the good of the nation was more important than “winning.”
It almost happened with Clinton’s embarrassing revelations in 1998-99. Some Democrats began whispering, “is it time for us to let him go?” But the Dems, in 1999, were not as honorable. They waited a few weeks and watched the political winds. They noticed that the friendly MSM was re-hashing the Democratic party line that in spite of the President’s dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, “it’s only about sex!” Polls showed the populace agreeing with the MSM. So the Dem leaders never had the “come to Jesus” meeting with Clinton, as Baker had with Nixon, and the nation had to endure another 2 years of that pervert and his impeachment and trial to boot.
As for Obama, there are many scenarios under which his party might abandon him. But it would be one wild time.
* If Obama defied a court order to produce a birth certificate, then the White House would be in contempt and this would quickly rise to the SCOTUS. This is never good and his popularity would quickly plummet even further. I expect he would also decline to run in 2012.
* If the SCOTUS ruled that Obama was ineligible for office, and ordered him to resign, there would be riots in the inner city nothing like the nation has ever seen. Recall the LA riots; the same would be repeated in every inner city in the USA. There is no way the MSM could try to ascribe blame for this to the GOP, conservatives, or Fox News. It would have been Obama’s deception all along.
* If Obama refused to resign, there would be a impeachment
proceedings in the House and an impeachment trial in the Senate that would destroy the Democratic party for two election cycles. I think that if Obama refused to leave office every Democrat in Congress would eventually abandon him.
I can envision many scenarios for which the Dems would give up on Obama. But the matter needs to get into Federal courts first, and have a Federal judge order Obama to prove his eligibility.
And 40 years of conservative rule...
What the DNC sent to 49 states was the same as they had done for other years and SHOULD mean that they certify the Constitutional eligibility because when they say the candidate was “duly chosen” it should mean they were chosen in compliance with DNC bylaws, which say that the candidate must be Constitutionally eligible. That’s good enough for most states’ requirements.
But Hawaii requires an affidavit saying the candidate is Constitutionally eligible. Normally the DNC didn’t have to worry about that because the Hawaii Democratic Party included the statement of Constitutional eligibility in their OCON (Official Certification of Nomination).
In 2008 the HDP refused to swear that Obama was Constitutionally eligible so the DNC had to do that part for Hawaii alone. Pelosi would have known that she had to sign a special OCON for Hawaii because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility - which she then did on the spot without having any official documentation for what she swore to.
It doesn’t seem like the HDP’s removal of the Constitutional language was planned out in advance, because they took out one physical line of printed words - including the only content that was actually legally required to be done specifically by the HDP (the statement that Obama was the candidate specifically of the HDP). So what the HDP ended up submitting did not meet the legal requirements.
As far as I know, we don’t know the official actions taken by Chief Elections Officer, Kevin B Cronin. I don’t believe anybody has seen the letter required to be sent out to Obama saying whether or not he qualified to be placed on the HI ballot. Obama was on the ballot so either Cronin ignored the HDP’s failure, or there was some kind of funny business that was, and remains, hidden. Neither the DNC nor the HDP OCON had a date stamp showing when it was received by the HI Elections Office, which is odd as well.
I do know that Brian Schatz was one of the people agitating for the long-embattled Kevin Cronin to resign, which he eventually did, shortly after the story of the HDP’s altered OCON surfaced.
There is definitely a lot below the surface that the HDP and DNC don’t want to answer questions about - which is precisely why there should be a legal investigation complete with depositions. The HDP took out that one line of text in response to something. Who took it out, how, when, and why needs to be investigated.
The 2000 and 2004 DNC certs for Gore and Kerry are the same as Obama’s 2008 DNC cert.
Here’s a link to the 2000 DNC for Gore for Hawaii. Same typo and constitutional certification. Nazi Pelosi didn’t do anything differently from previous DNC, except possibly the date it was submitted.
Hve you seen images of both Hawaii certification documents for Obama?
The eligiblity clause changes, in my recollection.
Butter ? what about this ? : ( Colorado on August 25 ( the mis-spelled part on both certificates ) ( though 28, 2008,) it should say, ( through ) , not, though, ) and this mistake is on both certificates that Nancy Pelosi signed.
Both Hawaii certification documents? Do you mean one from the DNC and one from the HDP? If so, then yes. I’ve seen them both.
There are 2 differerent ones from the DNC - one submitted and one like the one they submited for all the other states. - right?
No. The two that were signed on the same day were for Hawaii and then the other states. There weren’t two prepared for Hawaii. The article is misleading because the author really doesn’t understand the process and didn’t do any significant research. The DNC certificates sent to Hawaii haven’t changed since at least 2000. They’ve been different from the other states since at least then and possibly before then because that Constitutional requirement has been law for a long time there.
Consider this story:
Barack isn’t the biological son of Stanley Ann Dunham.
He is the son of an Indonesian hooker/barmaid who worked in one of the bars that ‘grandpa’ Dunham used to frequent. Grandpa got her pregnant, so they sent her back to Indonesia to have the baby. After the child was born, Stanley Ann went and retrieved it, returning to Hawaii so that her parents could arrange for proper ‘papers’ so that the baby would have US citizenship.
Where did Barry go to school? In his mother’s homeland.
Is it true? Show me a picture of Stanley Ann Dunham ‘pregnant’.
Consider Obama’s own words:
Still too young to know that I needed a race, as he describes himself in Dreams, Obama was sent back from Indonesia in 1969 or 70. Gramps Stanley Dunham began a bizarre project which involved introducing Obama to Frank Marshall Davis and making secret visits to Chinatowns disreputable Smith Street bars located one block away from Okas Corner Liquor Store. Obama describes the excitement of these visits in Dreams, page 77-78:
Dont tell your grandmother, he would say with a wink, and wed walk past hard-faced, soft-bodied streetwalkers into a small, dark bar with a jukebox and a couple of pool tables. Nobody seemed to mind that Gramps was the only white man in the place, or that I was the only eleven-or twelve year old. Some of the men leaning across the bar would wave at us, and the bartender, a big, light skinned woman with bare, fleshy arms, would bring a Scotch for Gramps and a Coke for me. If nobody else was playing at the tables, Gramps would spot me a few balls and teach me the game, but usually I would sit at the bar, my legs dangling from the high stool, blowing bubbles into my drink and looking at the pornographic art on the walls the phosphorescent women on animal skins, the Disney characters in compromising positions. If he was around, a man named Rodney with a wide-brimmed hat would stop by to say hello.
That’s the first I’ve heard of that. Would you happen to have a link handy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.