Archive for the ‘Democrat Party’ Category

North Carolina does not allow online voting, but according to Civitas, SBE staff authorized an Obama campaign website, Gottaregister.com, to use a web-based registration program. The SBE’s chief lawyer responded to the charge with a plainly disingenuous 1984-newspeak answer:
Wright repeatedly denied that the SBE allowed online voter registration, insisting that it was “web-based voter registration”[ii] instead, as if there could be a “web-based” process that wasn’t online.
The technology from Allpoint Voter Services uses remote-control pens to transmit “signatures” over the Internet, according to techpresident.com[iii]. After entering voter information in an online form, the citizen “signs” it with a stylus or a finger. The Allpoint technology records the signature and then transmits it to one of two autopens – one in California, the other in Nevada[iv]. One of the pens transcribes the signature on to a paper voter registration form. Allpoint then mails the documents to local election boards – or is supposed to, a point we’ll come back to.
To say this is not “online” registration but “web-based” is like saying a certain vehicle is not a car, it’s an automobile. The point of having a “wet signature” – one in ink – is to provide a universally accepted way proving that a prospective voter is affirming in person all the facts on the form. To have an auto pen inserted at one point in this long computerized process is a far different thing. Even the Obama campaign called it online voter registration. Because, no matter how you twist words around, that’s what it is.

Barack Obama defeated* Mitt Romney by 166,214 votes in Ohio in 2012. That’s out of 5,489,028 votes cast. So Obama’s victory margin was just 3 percent, 50 to 47 over Romney.

But 20% of Ohio’s voters should not be on the rolls at all, according to a story in the Columbus Dispatch.

More than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is probably ineligible to vote.

In two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting-age population: Northwestern Ohio’s Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it’s a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible.

Another 31 counties show registrations at more than 90 percent of those eligible, a rate regarded as unrealistic by most voting experts. The national average is a little more than 70 percent.

Ohio’s elections chief, Secretary of State Jon Husted, sought help from Attorney General Eric Holder to clean up the state’s roles. You may have guessed how that went, as Husted is a Republican.
In a Feb. 10 letter, he asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for a personal meeting to discuss how to balance seemingly conflicting federal laws so he could pare Ohio’s dirty voter list without removing truly eligible voters.

“Common sense says that the odds of voter fraud increase the longer these ineligible voters are allowed to populate our rolls,” Husted said. “I simply cannot accept that.”

Holder’s office has never replied.

Among the ineligible voters who remain on Ohio’s rolls include 1.8 million dead people and nearly 3 million who have registered to vote in multiple states. Both of these situations are ripe for voter fraud and it just so happens that fraud did occur in the last several Ohio elections, including 2008 and 2012. Obama won both of those.

BY BARBARA SHELLY
The Kansas City Star

It’s looking like a long summer for Kathleen Sebelius.

That was going to be the case anyway, what with the pressure of getting state-based insurance exchanges — the meat of the Affordable Care Act — up and rolling in the face of obstruction from Congress and Republican-controlled states like Kansas and Missouri.

But now the former governor of Kansas and current U.S. Health and Human Services secretary has placed herself in the sights of scandal-hungry Republican lawmakers and political operatives.

In the words of one strategist, they are looking at Sebelius as “the fourth scandal.”

Scandals one, two and three, for those who don’t watch Fox News or breathlessly follow every Beltway occurrence, would be Benghazi, the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative nonprofit groups, and the Justice Department’s pursuit of phone and email records of journalists.

Republicans are hoping scandal number four will turn out to be Sebelius’ acknowledgment that she solicited financial donations from H&R Block Inc., the tax preparation firm, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She wants the money to go to Enroll America, a private nonprofit group that is gearing up to promote the Affordable Care Act and help people enroll in the new insurance exchanges. And yes, some of the staffers in Enroll America worked for President Barack Obama’s campaign.

Frankly, I wish Sebelius had refrained. She is careful, and I’ll be surprised if it turns out she solicited any business or group that her department regulates or does business with, which would violate federal law. But it doesn’t look good for the HHS secretary to be out with hat in hand, even if Republicans in Congress created the problem by refusing to allocate adequate funds to properly roll out the federal health care law.

A group of Republican senators, including Pat Roberts of Kansas, wasted no time calling for a “top to bottom review of the Department’s decision to move forward with the initiative.” Republican House members have weighed in with their own probe. The General Accounting Office has been ordered to investigate.

To a point, this is fair enough. Congress and the press both should be watching the administration. An independent, informed legal opinion as to whether Sebelius acted properly should settle this particular matter.

But it won’t.

One can envision the hearings. The outraged congressmen and the pompous senators grilling the secretary, with no answer likely to satisfy. The TV lights and live coverage on Fox. A new revelation (or non-revelation) popping up every couple of days. Is it any wonder good people are reluctant to go into public service these days?

It’s not really about Sebelius asking for donations. It’s about discrediting the president and ginning up fresh outrage over the Affordable Care Act in advance of the 2014 midterm elections. It’s about Republicans doing their best to prevent the president’s health care reform law from succeeding. It’s about promoting a narrative — the Obama administration as incompetent and dishonest.

The president’s steady poll numbers show that, so far, much of America isn’t buying it. Out in these parts, people are more worried about tornadoes than Sebelius’ money raising.

Washington publications report that at least a third of House committees are now preoccupied with investigating some aspect of the administration. It’s so much easier to grill officials than to earnestly seek solutions to the nation’s problems and actually get something done.

Therein lies the scandal.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/24/4252324/kathleen-sebelius-and-the-fourth.html#storylink=cpy

GET RID OF THESE CRIMINALS

The IRS scandal may have its roots in Illinois politics. Specifically, the 1996 U.S. Senate race between Democrat Congressman Dick Durbin and conservative Republican State Rep. Al Salvi.

More than a decade before his 2010 letter to IRS officials urging the agency to target conservative organizations, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin’s political career crossed paths with Ms. Lerner when she was head of the Enforcement Division of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and directly involved in the 1996 Illinois U.S. Senate race.
Al Salvi, Dick Durbin, Lois Lerner | Salvi photo source: Cal Skinner

Soon after the IRS story broke, Al Salvi told Illinois Review that it was IRS official Lois Lerner who represented the FEC in the 1996 Democrat complaint against him. According to Salvi, Lerner was, without question, politically motivated, and went so far as to make him an offer: “Promise me you will never run for office again, and we’ll drop this case.”

Salvi declined her offer. In fact he ran for Illinois Secretary of State in 1998.

But when he saw Lerner plead the Fifth Amendment before Congress last week, he recognized her. “That’s the woman,” Salvi said. “And I didn’t plead the Fifth like she did.”

In 2000, a federal judge dismissed the FEC case against him, clearing Salvi’s name and reputation.

Now with the revelations about Lerner, the IRS, and the intriguing connection to Durbin, Salvi shared with Illinois Review his experience with Lois Lerner.

The 1996 FEC Complaint against Salvi

During the last several weeks of the 1996 Illinois U.S. Senate campaign, two FEC complaints were filed against Salvi – one by Illinois Democrats about the way he reported a loan he made to himself, and another by the Democratic Senatorial Committee about a reported business donation.

Salvi made a personal loan to his campaign for $1.1 million to fund the last campaign ads in the expensive Chicago television ad market. News of that loan and the filed FEC complaint dominated Chicago media headlines towards the end of the campaign, suffocating the life out of Salvi’s threatening momentum.

“We couldn’t get our message out because day after day, the media carried story after story about the FEC complaint,” Salvi told Illinois Review in an exclusive interview.
Rick Santorum campaigns with U.S. Senate candidate Al Salvi in 1996 | Source: Daily Herald

After Salvi lost to Durbin, he was left to face the FEC complaints. The Commission alleged that the Salvi committee:

Reported bank loans to Mr. Salvi as personal loans from the candidate, never identifying the source of the funds;
Failed to report debts to the candidate;
Failed to file 48-hour notices for personal advances from the candidate; and
Failed to disclose campaign-related payments by the candidate to vendors and a bank.
A federal district court dismissed the case against Salvi in 1999, and the FEC appealed it to the 7th U.S. District Court of Appeals.

The FBI was called in at one point to gather evidence on the case. According to Salvi, two FBI agents unexpectedly visited the Salvis’ home, and interrogated his elderly mother about her $2,000 check to her son’s campaign and where she got “that kind of money.”

Salvi says he saw the visits as nothing but intimidation, making it clear the FEC intended to use his case as a example to others.

At the same time, Salvi said, other conservative groups such as the Christian Coalition were besieged by the FEC demands. One time, representatives from several investigated conservative groups even convened on a conference call to compare notes on how the Clinton Administration was scouring their organizations’ financial and activity records.

In fact, Salvi’s case (and name) was highlighted as an example several times in the FEC’s monthly publication until the case was finally dismissed in 2000.

It was while dealing with the FEC complaint that Salvi says he first met Lois Lerner, then the head of the FEC Enforcement Division.

During one conversation with Lerner, she offered a deal Salvi says he’ll never forget, and neither will his brother and attorney, Mike Salvi.

“She said, ‘If you promise to never run for office again, we’ll drop this case,’” Salvi recalled.

Lois Lerner before a recent congressional hearing

At the time, Salvi said, he figured it was probably just Dick Durbin’s way of getting him out of politics.

Salvi said he refused Lerner’s offer because he knew he had done nothing wrong and wanted to leave the door open for future campaigns. In 1998, Salvi ran for Illinois Secretary of State while the 1996 FEC case against him continued.

Nearly four years and a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees later, federal judge George Lindbergh dismissed the FEC case against him, leaving the FEC attorney Lois Lerner — who was present and actively arguing before the judge — shocked.

“The judge said to Lerner, ‘Let me get this straight – Mr. Salvi loaning himself money is legal, and you have no complaint against that, is that right?’” Salvi said. “Ms. Lerner agreed. Then the judge said, ‘You just don’t like the way his attorneys filled out the report?’ Lerner agreed.”

Case dismissed, the judge said shaking his head and pounding his gavel, as Lerner objected.

“We never lose!” Lerner said to Salvi afterwards.

Despite all the Democrats’ efforts, Salvi never paid the FEC a dollar in fines or penalties.

Congressional Hearings On IRS Scandal

Salvi, now 53, said when he saw Lerner on television last week, those FEC hearings all came back to his memory — 13 years later. “I didn’t plead the Fifth,” Salvi said.

And the taxpayers had no choice but to pay for Lerner’s legal trail that lasted for over four years.

Durbin Asks IRS For Help in 2010

After the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case, many incumbent politicians became concerned about the activities of organizations like Crossroads GPS, which had announced it would be running issue ads against Illinois’ Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate Alexi Giannoulias, who was campaigning to succeed Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
President Barack Obama, U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin | AP

In October 2010, Durbin wrote IRS Commissioner Shulman about the tax exemption status of Crossroads – a job that would find its way to IRS official Lois Lerner.

I write to urge the Internal Revenue Service to examine the purpose and primary activities of several 501(c)(4) organizations that appear to be in violation of the law.

One organization whose activities appear to be inconsistent with its tax status is Crossroads GPS, organized as a (c)(4) entity in June. The group has spent nearly $20 million on television advertising specific to Senate campaigns this year. If this political activity is indeed the primary activity of the organization, it raises serious questions about the organization’s compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.

Other 2010 letters to the IRS with similar requests from elected officials may be included in four Congressional investigations now scheduled to take place in the next few weeks.

Salvi says it will be interesting to see how Lois Lerner, Dick Durbin, the FEC, IRS, and Illinois politics intersect as these investigations continue. It all ties back to Dirty Dick Durbin.

By J.B. Williams

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;
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;”

Print friendly | Contact Us
The Mistake, The Evidence, Obama is NOT a constitutional president
The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie

By J.B. Williams September 10, 2009 See: The Theory is Now a ConspiracyÑI
See: 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!

Reader Feedback

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