Coincidence or Intentional?

by Bridgette

Coincidence or Intentional?

Barack  Obama  takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts

There appear to be three or more major documentary omissions that occurred regarding Obama’s nomination, his election, and are now being seen in eligibility lawsuits. When looked at one by one, we note the problems. But when viewed together, a pattern emerges. Leading up to his election, all pertinent information and documentation about his background was either lost, misplaced, hidden, fabricated, or sealed. These items could be included in this pattern of omissions, but we do not have the evidence in hand.

Here are three that show another pattern of fraud and deception and, I believe, intention.

Omission #1
The Democratic 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 position of President of the US. It appears there were two DNC Certifications prepared by the DNC. Copies of these were recently found online. Both documents were signed, dated and notarized by the same same people on the very same day. When comparing the two, it was noted on Document #1 that the proper legal text was used in the DNC’s “Official Certification of Nomination.” Document #2 was missing a portion of the text that clarified that both the presidential and vice presidential nominees were legally eligible to serve. Document #2 was sent to most States for their records. Not one State official noted the omission of a pertinent sentence. Following is the missing text in Document #2 regarding the constitutional eligibility statement:

” 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.”

Coincidence or intentional?

Omission #2

Cheney does not call for objections during the Electoral College vote as required by the Constitution. He was reading from a prepared script or the “Rules of Order.” Perhaps the script was altered like Document #1 above, and the specific wording to call for or accept objections was not there to be read. Was it omitted intentionally? At the point in the program where VP Cheney should have read the statement asking for objections, there was some activity out in the audience. Whatever was occurring, Nancy Pelosi jumped up from her chair thus interrupting VP Cheney, and everyone began clapping. When the applause ended, VP Cheney picked up from where he left off when the applause interrupted him. Perhaps he lost his place, or it was overlooked, or it wasn’t in the script he was reading, but the pertinent statement wasn’t read. Coincidence or intentional?

Omission #3

It was just noticed by Leo Dorofino that the DOJ’s brief in Barnett vs Obama (Orly’s lawsuit) omitted a few pertinent sentences from a paragraph they were citing to substantiate their case.

“Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…” Coincidence or intentional?

Even though I have read most of the cases, I hadn’t thought to compare paragraphs of information presented by the opposition, but perhaps there are others. Even though we can “see” a pattern of fraud and deception, the examples that are brought to light, and that can be substantiated might prove very valuable. Are there any other examples of which you are aware?

(AP Photo/Jeff Christensen)

13 responses to “Coincidence or Intentional?

  1. Bridgetteb,
    Thank you for authoring this post. When you have a post that you’ve been editing and it’s ready to publish, just click on the “publish” button near the top of the far-right column.

  2. Great job, Bridgette.

    #1 Omission: I believe there was a reason to have 2 different documents.

    #2 Omission: I remember sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for Cheney to call for objections and I will never forget Pelosi jumping up out of her chair like a spring just broke. Doubt we’ll ever know if it was on the paper Cheney read from.

    #3 Omission: IMO no accident happens in legal filings that carry that much importance.

  3. Great post Bridgette !

  4. The reason there are two different DMC Certification documents could be that not all states require that a presidential candidate meet the Constitutional requirements for president before their name is placed on the ballot.

    Then again, why does the DNC have two different certifications? What difference would it make in those states that do not require a presidential candidate to meet those Constitutional presidential qualifications before their name is placed on the ballot to have a certification that a presidential candidate meets those Constitutional requirements anyway?

    Here’s a link to jbjd’s latest post where a much better explanation is given:

  5. We did all of this last year at Darlin’s kitchen table. She already has all of this.

    By the way, same names Sleuth, yep, same names………..

  6. From our friend Mary over at Dead enders.
    on October 1, 2009 at 4:16 pm | Reply Mary

    Great Little Anthony vid.

    Jarrett’s family owns the land on which the main Olympic stadium will be built.

  7. They have been slobbering all over this since April 2008…Barky said he would have a front row seat from his mansion. What is the current status of the house that Rita Rezko contributed $625,000 toward the day before Barky settled for it anyway??? Anyone know?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s