Main Menu

Birthers attack DNC documents

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi

This is early in the story. The have published an article making some serious allegations against the Democratic party, and Convention Chairwoman Nancy Pelosi in particular.

The gist of the claim is that there is a standard certification that the Democratic party sends to state election officials for their candidates for President and Vice-President. After Obama’s selection as the Party’s candidate these certifications were duly signed an notarized. So far so good. But they claim that none of them were actually sent out because the Democratic party officials (and Pelosi in particular) knew that Obama was not eligible. Unwilling to perjure themselves, they sent out an altered version that omits this key phrase:

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 makes this claim:

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.

The question arises, is the certification customized for each state? The exemplar that TheBirthers provide is stamped as received by the South Carolina Election Commission. South Carolina law Section 7-13-350 discusses the required certification and has this to say:

Political parties nominating candidates by primary or convention must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification to the authority charged by law with preparing the ballot. The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each candidate certified meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he has filed. Any candidate who does not, or will not by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, meet the qualifications for the office for which he has filed shall not be nominated and certified, and such candidate’s name shall not be placed on a general, special, or municipal election ballot.

Therefore: the DNC Certification image shows would not meet the requirements of South Carolina law.

So what do we know exactly?

The grander claim made by, that the abbreviated certification was sent to “every state”, is blatantly false; they lied about it. A copy of the certificate filed in Hawaii has been happily residing on this web site since last February 23, 2009, and it says that Barack Obama is eligible. [Here is one case at least where in Hawaii we get to look at the “long form”.]

One might reach the conclusion that the SC Certification on web site is a fake and this was my original reaction, though I felt uneasy that anyone would forge a document that would be so easy to check out with the SC Election Commission  and if fake, be exposed.

Finally, a commenter here suggested that the required certification was provided separately by the South Carolina Democratic party, which they indeed did and it may be that the DNC document is authentic, but being misrepresented. Another commenter provided a copy  lacking the eligibility language in a Washington state court filing. So the evidence as it stands now suggests different versions for different states and that the SC version is authentic.

In any case, I stick by the headline from my February article: Pelosi swears: Obama is eligible.

As I said at the outset, this is early in the story. One thing is sure: you can’t trust birthers.

, , , ,

39 Responses to Birthers attack DNC documents

  1. sarina September 11, 2009 at 7:44 pm  (Quote) #


    You are brilliant!

  2. Bob September 11, 2009 at 7:57 pm  (Quote) #

    South Carolina Code sec. 7-13-350 requires a statement that “each candidate certified meets…the qualifications for the office for which he has filed.” (So does Hawaii Revised Statute sec. 11-113(c)(1)(B).)

    Yet the South Carolina certification doesn’t contain the “legally qualified” verbiage that the Hawaiian certification does contain. Why is that? Because the South Carolina Democratic Party made the necessary certification in a letter. “Mystery” solved.

    This article making the rounds in birfer circles overlooks some very basic points:

    1. There’s no fraud as the two versions don’t contradict each other. While one does affirmatively certify that Obama was legally qualified, the absence of the that language is not the same as a statement that he was not legally qualified.

    2. There’s no logical reason for the DNC to make two separate certifications if it knew one was false. If, as the article implies, DNC officials were trying to avoid a perjury trap, this wouldn’t be the way to go about doing it. (What, were they minimizing their perjury exposure by “only” falsely certifying in the states where such certification was necessary?)

    3. That the RNC’s certifications all (allegedly) contain the “legally qualified” verbiage only proves that the RNC is slightly more efficient at the certification process.

  3. jvn September 11, 2009 at 8:21 pm  (Quote) #

    I think at this point some of the “birthers” are just yanking the chains of the few “true believers” in the cause.

    Some people are willing to believe anything.

  4. NBC September 11, 2009 at 8:40 pm  (Quote) #

    I found this file which indeed shows an abridged version was filed in SC, however, there is also a letter stating that the candidates meet all the requirements. I have posted a more indepth analysis on my site

    Although still in draft I decided to publish it prematurely

  5. NBC September 11, 2009 at 8:42 pm  (Quote) #

    Note: The same document was also filed in Washington and released in the filing by Pidgeon

  6. NBC September 11, 2009 at 8:44 pm  (Quote) #

    Great minds think alike 🙂

  7. Dr. Conspiracy September 11, 2009 at 8:55 pm  (Quote) #

    Thanks for that additional information. I have updated my article.

  8. NBC September 11, 2009 at 9:02 pm  (Quote) #

    So far I have Hawaii in the corner of ‘full disclosure’ and South Carolina and Washington in the corner of ‘abridged disclosure’ with explanatory letter.

    Also note that Obama stated in various State filings that he met the requirements for Presidency and in Arizona he even claimed to be a natural born citizen.


  9. Shrieking Wombat September 11, 2009 at 9:20 pm  (Quote) #

    Folks, I have to share:

    “The biggest news she informed me of was the fact that Charles Lincoln went AWOL on her about a week ago, leaving her high and dry, and she hasn’t heard from him. Also, the new attorney she was suppose to be bringing on turns out to be Charles Linclon’s 26 year old assistant, Payton. Orly told me that Payton showed up with not a nickle in his pocket. She gave him $500.. He had nothing with him. Orly and he got into a little squabble about him telling her what to do. Orly said he left, I suppose with the car Orly gave to him which had been donated. Lincoln came the next day and Orly hasn’t heard from either since.”

  10. Sally Hill September 11, 2009 at 9:33 pm  (Quote) #

    I’m not sure what to make of this new story – but one thing I do know when I read it – SPIN.

    Can we all say dizzy now?

    We are rolling in the floor laughing at the excuses you have come up with here on this blog.

  11. Bob September 11, 2009 at 9:35 pm  (Quote) #

    I’m not sure what to make of this new story – but one thing I do know when I read it – SPIN.

    I know! Birfers have no shame!

    We are rolling in the floor laughing

    “We”? You and the Queen?

  12. Rickey September 11, 2009 at 11:22 pm  (Quote) #

    That would be Peyton Yates Freiman, often identified as Charles Lincoln’s “legal assistant.” Freiman is not an attorney.

    So Orly’s “new attorney” turns out to be the assistant to Orly’s disbarred assistant.

  13. Welsh Dragon September 12, 2009 at 6:32 am  (Quote) #

    He’s also an artist, graphic designer , scientologist and Lincoln’s property manager.

    Oh and he was Lincoln’s “getaway driver” when he went on the run!

  14. BlackLion September 12, 2009 at 10:59 am  (Quote) #

    Have any of the birthers or their supporters ever wondered why no real attorney will get involved or support their cause? I mean disbarred attorneys, graphic designers pretending to be attorney assistants, poker players that used to be an attorney, a guy that could not pass the bar, and a DWI attorney are the best the movement could come up with? With the number of attorney’s and constitutional scholars out there and not one would get involved. You would think that they would get the hint. But not. So they continue on with their so called quest to remove the duly elected President of the US, looking more and more foolish each day. Truly hilarious stuff…

  15. Dr. Conspiracy September 12, 2009 at 11:27 am  (Quote) #

    Berg, Apuzzo, Taitz, Donofrio and Kreep are all attorneys in good standing. Whatever your view of their skills, they are “real” attorneys. [OK, we could debate Orly since she has never tried a case, etc.]

    There is one review article out of Emory Law School that is somewhat sympathetic to the notion of non-citizenship for the children of certain immigrants, although not in the nObama context. I linked to it a comment I made on my article De Vattel for Dummies. The author, Mr. Mayton wrote:

    The history that underlies our supposed adoption of jus soli has its flaws. And as the second claim requires that birth be within a substantial relation with the United States, this claim better meets the conditions set by constitutional text, that of the Fourteenth Amendment as it provides citizenship to “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. As shown by ordinary heuristics, the “subject to the jurisdiction” condition entails a meaningful affiliation with the United States. This affiliation, though, is not well determined by allegiance and consent. These terms are not consistent with the leading case nor are they entirely consistent with baseline notions respecting the obligations of a sovereign to those who would be citizens. The appropriate baseline is better seen as one of “fairness”, of fairness as reciprocity. Fairness as thus determined does not consist of a deontologically determined set of obligations and rights. Rather, fairness is more flexibly and generously built out of some better parts of human nature, parts essential to what recent scholarship identifies as the “civic minimum” in the liberal democratic state.

  16. Bob September 12, 2009 at 12:31 pm  (Quote) #

    Only Berg and Apuzzo make their living from being an attorney. And there’s certainly no one of any gravitas: Bork, Olsen, Volokh, etc.

  17. aarrgghh September 12, 2009 at 3:25 pm  (Quote) #

    blacklion said:

    have any of the birthers or their supporters ever wondered why no real attorney will get involved or support their cause?

    and this little detail is, to use poker parlance, the “tell” that gives away their empty hand — that no hi-octane attorneys with proven track records, like ken starr or alan dershowitz or gloria allred etc etc, are pursuing what would be a career-immortalizing case, leading to the first-time-ever deposing of a president, and the first black one, at that.

    that’s because no “real” attorney would throw away their reputation on such inane no-win codswallop as the eligibilty “question”. all that’s left are the quacks and the cranks.

  18. Mario Apuzzo September 12, 2009 at 6:06 pm  (Quote) #


    Who ever that DWI attorney is in that illustrious group can come in handy for you folks.

    Oh, by the way, many are called but only a few are chosen.

  19. Mike Fuller September 13, 2009 at 10:41 am  (Quote) #



  20. richCares September 13, 2009 at 11:01 am  (Quote) #

    if delusions make you happy, continue, just hope that reality won’t destroy you. Do you teach your children such hate?

  21. dunstvangeet September 13, 2009 at 11:19 am  (Quote) #

    Do not feed the troll…

  22. Dr. Conspiracy September 13, 2009 at 12:51 pm  (Quote) #


    Which freedoms have you lost so far?

  23. Bdaman September 13, 2009 at 1:27 pm  (Quote) #

    by John Charlton

    Rep. Lawrence Rappaport, and his wife
    (Sept. 12, 2009) — New Hampshire State Representative, Lawrence M. Rappaport payed a visit to Mr. William Gardner, the NH Secretary of State, on Thursday, Sept. 10th.

    His stunning request: an investigation of Barack Hussein Obama’s presence on the NH 2008 Ballot.

    Gardner’s stunning response: an investigation will commence.

    I interviewed Mr. Rappaport by email, and asked him, on what basis did he make his complaint; he responded, “The basis for all of this is possible fraud. I don’t know what penalties will be assessed if fraud is proven.”

  24. Dr. Conspiracy September 13, 2009 at 1:41 pm  (Quote) #

    This little bit is spreading across the Internet from the nObama front blog “The Post and Email”. Now before you say, Dr. C is off on a tangent smearing the Post and Email, let me list their recent articles:

    # Patriots, let’s go spend that Political Capital!
    # Attorney Taitz battles Attorney Generals — Discovery to Begin!
    # Editorial: Sept. 12, 2009 — The Sleeping Giant Has Awakened
    # NH Rep. Rappaport Requests Investigation of Obama’s Eligibility
    # More than 1.8 Million Tea Partiers Storm D.C.
    # First, the Billboard Campaign, and Now the “Undead Revolution”
    # Ind. 2008 Presidential Candidate files Amicus Curiae Brief in Barnett vs. Obama
    # Editorial: Sept. 12, 2009 — Tea Party Patriots March on Capitol
    # Rhodes’ Hearing Postponed to Noon, Monday
    # Air Force Employee Impersonates U.S. Senator, to malign him
    # Judge Carter orders Motion for Rogatory Discovery to be heard
    # YahooNews continues to hound an American Patriot
    # Captain Rhodes to get Emergency Stay Hearing, Today at 2 PM
    # JB Williams exposes DNC conspiracy in 2008 General Election
    # Editorial: Sept. 10, 2009 —YahooNews, leading the way to Dictatorship

    Leo Donofrio has picked up on it.

    However, everything on Google is derivative of one highly partisan source. Is this any more true than their other article: “Discovery to Begin!”?

  25. Bob September 13, 2009 at 2:03 pm  (Quote) #

    Just like Taitz demanding that Kentucky(?) officials investigate ineligbility.

    An article about the birther once said something like “they confuse politeness with agreement.”

    This report of a conversation about Rappaport’s conversation with Gardner has gone through at least two filters.

  26. AdrianInFlorida September 13, 2009 at 2:23 pm  (Quote) #

    The Birthers, if nothing else, are very good at lying, deceit and embellishment. They accuse the President and his supporters of lying, they need to look in the mirror first.

    They can “take back their country” as soon as enough of them vote for ‘Their’ candidate.

  27. aarrgghh September 13, 2009 at 2:33 pm  (Quote) #

    mike fuller said:


    y’know, given that, realistically, no birfer lawsuit will ever see any more success than we’ve already seen thus far, which is none, and given that, realistically, obama will not be impeached or removed from office, and given that, realistically, unless health care reform dies, obama will win reelection to another term, comments like mike’s amount to nothing more, realistically, than the constipated, impotent, hollow, hate-radio-fed howling of the politically neutered.

    it’s as if he said:


    … and it makes just as much sense. but i don’t mind mike’s howling, not after two terms of his brand of idiocy being validated by the worse. preznit. evah.

    no, these days it’s music to my ears.

  28. Dr. Conspiracy September 13, 2009 at 11:31 pm  (Quote) #

    I have heard it said that “if the moon were made of green cheese, mice would be happy there.” That said, I have never seen nor heard of mice looking longingly at the moon.

    Nevertheless the nObama tribe seem to be looking longingly at Obama’s demise at the hands of the courts (or the military) because of an eligibility issue.

    From this I would conclude that mice are more practical than nObamas.

  29. NBC September 14, 2009 at 1:08 am  (Quote) #

    Seems that there may be as many as 50 documents, one for each state, signed and notarized. So much for two documents

  30. Expelliarmus September 14, 2009 at 3:36 am  (Quote) #

    Maybe even 51 statements. I don’t know what is signed for purposes of the D.C. ballot…..

  31. kimba September 14, 2009 at 7:35 am  (Quote) #

    And the Territories: Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Mariana Islands… I think that’s all of them.

  32. Mary September 14, 2009 at 8:20 am  (Quote) #

    I think you meant 57 states, didn’t you?

  33. Black Lion September 14, 2009 at 9:30 am  (Quote) #

    And Donofrio’s article was cross posted over at tROSL…I found the following paragraph at the end of Leo’s article to be a tad bit disingenous…

    “But the Supreme Court has, in various cases, indicated that the native born son of an alien is not considered to be “natural born” even if he is a US citizen at birth. “Natural born” does not mean a person is a different type of citizen with different rights. Rather, it is a circumstance of birth required by the framers – as a national security measure – to be President and Commander In Chief.”

    Now if you were unfamilar with the law and SCOTUS rulings you would think that his statement is true. Totally amazing. However in the birther world, as long as your are smearing President Obama, you are believable whether or not you have any evidence…

  34. Greg September 14, 2009 at 10:26 am  (Quote) #

    “Natural born” does not mean a person is a different type of citizen with different rights. Rather, it is a circumstance of birth required by the framers – as a national security measure – to be President and Commander In Chief.

    Leo tries to get out of the frying-pan of “super-citizen” a distinction between “natural born citizens” and the “native but not natural born citizens” not seen in any historical context, but lands in the fire of a distinction between citizens based on the alienage status of their parents. The first is ahistorical and a misreading of the precedents, the second is against the clear interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

    The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that distinctions between US citizens based on their national origin is subject to the highest scrutiny. Discriminating against someone based on their alienage status, in other words, based on whether they, themeselves, are citizens or aliens, is subject to strictest scrutiny, with a couple of narrow exceptions. Discriminating against someone because of their parents’ alienage status (parent = alien, child = citizen) is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented, but would probably raise the same exact concerns as distinctions based on national origin or alienage status.

    Plyler v. Doe was close, but not quite analogous, because the children were also undocumented in that case, however, the court said that putting limitations on the children violated fundamental fairness:

    [V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual — as well as unjust — way of deterring the parent.

    Quoting Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972).

    Leo tries to save it, by claiming that it’s not a different right that NBC’s have that other citizens don’t, but please, if the qualification clause had said, “natural born white citizen,” there would be no question that that would violate the later passed 14th Amendment.

    The NBC clause doesn’t require an inquiry into whether the President’s mom and dad were citizens, or resident aliens, or permanently domiciled in the US when he/she was born. That’s the clear judicial history on the subject. But, if it did require such an inquiry when the Constitution was written, it cannot require it after the passage of the 14th Amendment.

    So, careful what you wish for, Leo.

  35. Lupin September 14, 2009 at 12:10 pm  (Quote) #

    Mike Fuller sounds like a Lovecraft character invoking Great Chthulhu. I’m surprised he doesn’t end his parags with “Iäi Shoggoth!” or something like that.

  36. Bob September 14, 2009 at 2:11 pm  (Quote) #

    Birfer catfight over who “found” the certifications (and their important, and how everyone else is ruining it). And claims of being Neo-Nazi fronts, for good measure.

    Popcorn time!

  37. Black Lion September 15, 2009 at 11:14 am  (Quote) #

    Even worse Leo has decided to write one of his infamous articles regarding the issue…Of course he makes it into some great conspiracy theory….

    An excerpt…

    So, the next thing necessary was to review the prior certifications used by the DNC in 2000 and 2004 to see if they contained the “legally qualified” language.
    Those were provided by reader Justin Riggs in comments to this blog. Kerry’s 2004 certification is here. Gore’s 2000 certification is here. Neither contains the “legally qualified” language.

    This would appear to end the argument… unless we reverse the question.
    Everyone has been asking, “Why was the legally qualified language left out of the DNC certifications?“ But maybe we need to turn the question around and ask the following:
    Why was the “legally qualified” language inserted into the DNC certification for Hawaii?
    Is it possible that Hawaii specifically required an assurance from the DNC that Obama was eligible?
    If so, why would Hawaii require such an assurance?

  38. Dr. Conspiracy September 15, 2009 at 11:24 am  (Quote) #

    I think the focus of the investigation should be on how egregious the original lie was (that all stated received the same certification as South Carolina).

    Until the number of states lied about is determined, it is premature to ask the question of why Hawaii’s is different (if it is unique at all).

    Donofrio provides an example of a certification for Gore and Kerry (I couldn’t find which state). This proves the bald faced lie originally fabricated that the DNC deleted the language. Yes, nobots, you were lied to big time (again). But Donifrio has fired without aiming too.


  1. I'll show you Obama's Birth Certificate when... - Page 8 - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars - September 14, 2009

    […] Is the language required on a ballot form different in different states? Yes, of course it is.…s-forge-ahead/ […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.