The Mistake, The Evidence, Obama is NOT a constitutional president

No Drama were you an ASVAB waiver?

Originally Posted by budsmoker87

shut the FUCK UP

you have nothing useful to say

thanks for the article nodrama

I don't think I've ever seen anything useful come from you other than to reinforce your delusions with a few others on here.

anyone else just feel the presence of pure evil whenever they see obama gives me chills

Originally Posted by TheHighClub

anyone else just feel the presence of pure evil whenever they see obama gives me chills

You want a blanket pussy

Originally Posted by jeffchr

Obama is a dangerous man. Obama is so dangerous he could leave the US vulnerable to something like 9-11, or hand over all our natural resources to corporate raiders hell bent on despoiling our great nation's native wealth, or he might unilaterally abrogate treaties, alienate us from our allies, lead us into aggression on foreign soil with trumped up pretexts.

Obama is so dangerous he might detain US citizens without the right of council or the right to see a judge; he might sign orders to torture detainees, attempt to funnel massive federal dollars to arms contractors with no oversight, perform millions of warrantless wiretaps in violation of the law and constitution, and fail to help our cities if they get flooded by a hurricane.

Obama might sink the US economy into such a pit that the next president will have to spend trillions to keep the entire ecaonomy from collapsing. He could hand over huge tax cuts for the rich, while running up deficits to fund a war killing a million people and inflaming the most volatile region in the world.

Or, if we are lucky, all he will do is take hundreds of days on vacation, mock the 9-11 families, cover up scientific research, expand poverty, and give a medal of freedom to anybody who keeps his mouth shut.

But, should any of this occur, we can rest assured that Rupert Murdoch would not rest until such a dangerous man were hounded out of the white house

Sounds like Bush to me...great point +rep......I got exactly what you meant

Originally Posted by hanimmal

OMFG.


This guy is an asshole. The document that he has on here is only one of 4 pages. The jerkoff says:


And what he failed to mention to all you idiots that buy this crap is that it was a 2 page document that got sent to the offices: http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpres...i-response.pdf

Here is the page that says exactly what he is implying it does not say:



The sick thing is that the office of elections took the time to send this to him (read the cover letter from the link I put), and he still decided to trick you all and stir up this stupid controversy. And you bought it.

This is exactly what I am talking about, don't trust anything that you read, because it is garbage until proven by research on your own. It is only entertainment. And what is worse is that the google search that I did had 3 pages of different websites that are 'covering' this lie, top of the list was Shaun Hannity.

And that is where you are getting your news. This would be laughable if it was not so gross.

Thanks Hanimmal. I see where your going with this, and its already explained, there is an update at the link I first provided. All the way at the bottom. FYI I don't get my news from this source, its just something I ran into from another site that was linked. My first time on that site actually.

Now it makes me wonder why Hawaii got the correct texted one, but so many other states did not. .....things that make you go HMMMM.

Well I am glad this guy gets called out on his BS. And think that it is funny that he automatically jumps back into the conspiracy theory.

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.

Two different parties use two different forms! Oh no! How do we know that this guy did not get both pages from most states? And that a few states he got people that did not really care and just sent him the first page, that showed Pelosi's signature because they is what they wanted? Hawaii shows that it is there, and if it is indeed fax blasted like he says, doesn't it make more sense that they would all have both pages? "His Assumption" that is all he goes on with this article, assumptions and then find a couple things that are real to support his claim, while disregarding the info that goes against it.

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 – 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?

This guy is going to write a story and doesn't have time to fact check it to be sure it is correct? Hell I fact check my own posts on this site, much less if I was going to write a national letter.

See he got called on his BS, and then deflects by saying why 2 different documents? Did you see the documents, they looked very clean. But really who cares if it is 2 pages or 4 or 1? Do we know what anyone elses looked like? Does it really matter? We don't really know that the others did not get those, just going on this guys word really is not prudent, as he does not have time to fact check. How do we not know they got them? Oh he wants you to call. But the people that follow this bs are not going to care, this article is all the evidence they need.

And even if they only wanted the one page, and that is what they gave, so what? I know when I file stuff, I don't give them everything I have all the time. Usually I just give what I am required to give. But hey I guess you feel that does not apply to Obama.

The good news is – 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?

How does having two legal and fully legit documents that counter his claim that there was none and that

"The Mistake, The Evidence, Obama is NOT a constitutional president"

I mean seriously! How does these legit documents make that claim true????

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 – Why TWO documents? Why eliminate constitutional text from any of them?

This guy is a tool, how does having legit documents that are both signed and filed correctly mean that it is a defrauding? I love that he is upset that his story is false and he got called out on it by saying that they are 'hoping to derail' it with proof? I mean how dare people call out writers when they blantantly make shit up!

Sorry couldnt get past about the 5th paragraph when they felt the need to pump up the readers of the articles like "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…

seriouly if you have facts about something dont try and sell it to me, makes them look like they are trying to hard