OOPS!
Sorry. The Canada Free Press article below was from September of 2009, not this year. So it’s old news except for an interesting coincidental reference from a current article in WorldNetDaily.
Anyway
The Democratic National Convention’s documents certifying the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate in 2008 caused a flurry of interest in birther circles when they first came out. The claim was that unlike the statement in prior years, the 2008 statement for all 50 states omitted a phrase stating Barack Obama was eligible to be president. Nancy Pelosi, the DNC chairperson and signer of the document (along with two others), they said, was unwilling to commit perjury. That quickly proved a lie when the properly-signed statement to Hawaii was found containing the eligibility language. The story quickly changed from 50 states to 49 and birthers tried to make that somehow significant. The number 49 is no better documented than the number 50 was.¹
Recycling
The Canada Free Press blog, has revived this old story with a new twist, citing an unnamed “document and handwriting expert, a graphologist,” saying that the signers of the Hawaii document intentionally lied, as evidenced by qualities in the signatures. The graphologist wrote:
All three signers of the certification that included the constitutionally eligible clause were aware that it was not true at the time they signed it. Each of the two certification documents was signed by the three subjects.
Who is that masked graphologist?
This brings to mind another “handwriting analyst” who claimed he could tell that two individuals wrote the Obama Indonesian school registration. That was the all-purpose expert Ron Polarik, PhD who made the claim at the Free Republic forum in August 2008. It would not surprise me in the least that Dr. Ron Polland (aka Ron Polarik) is the source of the pedantically written paragraph on the Canada Free Press blog.
Some people do claim to be able to detect deception in handwriting, such as in the article “How to Detect Lying with Graphology” at eHow.com. The marks discussed in this article cannot be applied to the CFP claim because the actual analysis was not provided in the article.
Personally I equate graphology with phrenology and palm reading, little more than a pseudoscience. The court wrote in the case of Daniels v. Cummins 66 Misc. 2d 575 – NY:
We agree with the several caveats against graphologists being permitted so to testify and the attendant problems stated by Osborn (supra, p. 351): “If general human character qualities could be correctly inferred from all these variations, then what is called graphology would indeed be a science, but when the graphologist connects with a particular single quality a definite character value, the unscientific and ridiculous nature of the performance is readily seen. Writing does indicate manual skill and certain artistic qualities, or lack of them, but does not show honesty, or dishonesty, or disease and other important phases of human nature.”
The interested reader may enter the following terms in a search engine to read more on this topic: graphology pseudoscience. See also the Wikipedia article on graphology.
Enter WorldNetDaily
UPDATE:
A WorldNetDaily article last week also recycles this old news in its article: WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA? Hawaii Dems button-lipped on Obama eligibility status. That article says:
It long has been documented that when Barack Obama was picked by the Democratic Party to be its 2008 presidential candidate, only one state – Hawaii – was sent a document from Nancy Pelosi certifying that he was qualified under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. [emphasis added]
The hyperlink in that article goes to an earlier WND article, which itself says:
A commentator at Canada Free Press who earlier exposed the Democratic National Committee used two separate forms to affirm Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president has heard back from readers and research – and now reports Democrats failed to certify their candidate’s eligibility in 49 of the 50 states.
The hyperlink goes to the very Canada Free Press article discussed here! And here we see that WND lied about what the Canada Free Press said, for this is what they said:
At no point in the string of documents filed by the DNC or Obama, did anyone certify to the state of Arkansas that Obama was eligible for the office he sought. This is true in many states… though not all 50 states have been reviewed as of this writing.
WND cites the Canada Free Press as having checked all 50 states, but the very article the link to says no.
¹Now the Canada Free Press discloses that not all 50 state filings have been examined.
Democratic Party of Hawaii Refused To Certify Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFwqUi3zR0
How bout some newly released news?
Hawaii Dems button-lipped on Obama eligibility status
Doc missing statement candidate ‘qualified’ under U.S. Constitution
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=207197
Go ahead and spin that you brainwashed obots!
There’s no reason to spin an article on WND. They are already pre-spun.
Yes, the Hawaii Democrat Party actions might lead credense to Tim Adam’s claims:
Tim Adams, former Senior Elections Clerk for Honolulu, Says Barack Obama was Not Born in Hawaii
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcZBpWl1wo4
People continue to wait for Obama’s Long-form BC, the identity of the hospital Obama was born at and name of the doc who delivered him and some first-hand witnesses to Obama’s supposed Hawian birth.
I stopped reading after the first bald-faced lie:
Such a thing has never been documented at all to my knowledge. What is WND’s source? They cite their own September 27, 2009 article: 49 of 50 states never saw certification of eligibility? and where is the documentation for the claim in that article? Why none other than J. B. Williams of the Canada Free Press, who wrote just two days before in the article above, which is the topic of this thread:
OOPS!
How much is a ‘little more’? Personally, I call it a little less than a pseudoscience.
John and “Ouch” are pathetic….They are recycling the same discredited claims….The youtube “evidence” is a joke. I wonder when they will finally get a clue and realize that Barack Obama is the President of the US.
I predict that after Barack Obama leaves office the Texas board of education will require all history books listing US presidents to include an asterisk next to Barack Obama’s name.
Being the DPH cert is different from the DNC certs then how is that recycling? It appears the FAKE doc is the one recycling old news, LOL
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37528165/2000-2004-2008-Democratic-Party-of-Hawaii-Certifications-of-Nomination-for-Presidential-Candidates
Oh, and, Obama AKA Soetoro is the purported President. History will not judge the imposter very well…
“…lead credense to Tim Adam’s claims”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
john, what a clown you are, still quoting that descredited liar Tim Adams. So Tim Adams a part time clerk in Hawaii was able to get info on Obama while Obama was voting in Chicago. Get a life john, being locked into silliness gets old, don’t you think.
john and ouch are not smart enough to notice that the birther issue is going nowhere. all those WND made up stories are having no effect, why is that?
Birther propaganda won’t survive historically. That bullshit falls to the wayside. Obama will be remembered as a sincere and important President.
A funny post by old birther former Cmdr. Kerchner….
“A supporter sent me by email this list of OBOT debating tactics she has observed over the weeks and months in trying to debate them. I thought I’d share it with you all.
————————
These are the OBOT TACTICS I have deduced thus far:
1. They conflate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” (NBC) hoping nobody notices, and focus on the hidden birth certificate to distract from the constitutional issues. They neglect that per the 20th amendment since Obama was never certified as eligible he’s not any legal president in the first place.
2. The bots say “subject” is the same as “citizen”, OK fine more or less.
3. Then the bots say English Common Law (ECL) says ‘natural born’ just means born in-country, because even though they haven’t proven Obama was born in-country, they hope that will suffice to make him a natural born citizen. But the Constitution is based on Vattel, though they grasp straws to deem ECL relevant.
4. Then the bots say that all “born citizens” are “natural born citizens”; well this is false and doesn’t even make any logical sense based on #3 because most “born citizens” in US Code 1401 are NOT born in-country, so how could all of them be ‘natural born’ which directly contradicts the definition the bots gave in #3?
5. Then the Obots portray NBC as a mystical term that nobody knows the definition to, because NBC is missing by term and definition from USC1401/14th amendment. But really, there’s only a few permutations jus soli or no jus soli, jus sanguinis no parent, one parent or both parents and combinations thereof. All but jus soli jus sanguinis both parents are covered by USC1401/14th, so obviously that missing “one” is not a statutory citizen, thus must be the holy grail “natural born citizen”…AND IT IS!
JOHN ADAMS SAID THAT ALL GOOD LAWYERS SHOULD KEEP A COPY OF THE LAW OF NATIONS BY THEIR BEDSIDE…
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, ARE THOSE BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS”
—
SJPP
————————-
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
————————-
Take a look at US law…
US CODE 1401 Nationals and Citizens At Birth in USA
These are REQUIREMENTS
a) born in-country subject to jurisdiction (Jus Soli with only US jurisdiction)
b) 1 US native parent in-country (Jus soli, One Parent Jus sanguinis) = Obama , by bot definition
c) 2 US citizen parents born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, Two Parents Jus Sanguinis)
d) 1 US citizen parent + 1 national born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)
e) 1 US citizen parent born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)
f) unknown parentage found in USA under age 5 (Miscellaneous)
g) 1 US citizen parent w/5 year residence or military or gov’t job + 1 alien born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)
h) 1 US citizen parent prior resident of USA + 1 alien born prior to 5-24-1934 out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)
So you can see the ONLY omitted permutation from ALL of the statutory definitions for “Born Citizen” is that for Vattel’s Natural Born Citizen, as in “Jus Soli, Two Parents Jus Sanguinis). Why? Because this is a natural born citizen, and they “don’t need no stinkin’ statute like mere “born citizens”. How beautifully poetic the irrefutable mathematical logic is!
And this is because as Vattel says, “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens.” and the title is Des Citoyens et Naturels, whereby citizens (statutory) are differentiated from natural born citizens EXACTLY AS IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE EXACT PATTERN OF CITIZEN VS. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (not the bot-made-up naturalized citizen v. born citizen).
The bot premise of 2 types of citizens being naturalized and born citizens so they can lump natural born citizens in with all other born citizens, FAILS utterly because FIVE of the EIGHT permutations for statutory US Citizenship aka “Citizens At Birth” are not even born in-country at all! Yet they are still “born citizens”!! So why do they keep harping on the birth certficate when they don’t even need it?
The logic of what the founders and framers intended and what USC 1401 as a statutory law addresses is clear as a bell to those who wish to see. The OBOTS deliberately obfuscate and put out disinformation in a rendition of a cold war KGB disinformation operation to confuse the enemy. There is no doubt in my mind that this disinformation operation is being planned and coordinated at the highest level using the far left George Soros funded entities such as the Center for American Progress. To the OBOTS the enemy is the truth and the Constitution. They will do and say anything to protect their Marxist/Communist messiah/usurper in chief.
Actually NO ONE on the pro-eligibility side ever does this, EVER.
That’s because birthers can’t read or they only read half of what you write and then try to draw their own context. Now being born a citizen is natural born citizen. I notice that Birthers like to try to pretend that the Wong Kim Ark case says something differently than saying Ark was Born a citizen. They then try to make a third class of citizen even though Minor V Happersett stated there are only two types of citizens. That is when they’re not claiming Wong Kim Ark was a bad decision. They also ignore when you mention the appellate briefs.
Agreed…Actually his “response” to the “obots” is basically how to avoid the truth by making stuff up….Hilarious. The birthers are famous for ignoring evidence. I mean they still claim that when Dr. Fukino stated that Obama was BORN in Hawaii they claim that she never really said that. Obama derangement is a serious disease for some.
JOHN ADAMS SAID THAT ALL GOOD LAWYERS SHOULD KEEP A COPY OF THE LAW OF NATIONS BY THEIR BEDSIDE…
Can anyone provide a source for this?
I searched in John Adams, John Adams, The Works of John Adams, 10 vols. [1856] at http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=2098 , and found only 2 references to bedside — none of which are even close to this quote. This is the complete writings of Adams — diaries, letters, etc.
Vattel is mentioned 5 times: One is on treaties, 2 are lists of people to read, 1 on judges, and “The idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.”
45 hits on the phrase “law of nations”. NEVER does it read like Adams is referring to any single book, it’s clear that the phrase refers to international relations. Some highlights:
“The best writers upon the law of nations tell us, that when a nation takes possession of a distant country, and settles there, that country, though separated from the principal establishment, or mother country, naturally becomes a part of the state, equal with its ancient possessions. We are not told who these “best writers” are. I think we ought to be introduced to them. ” (Vol 4) So de Vattel isn’t the ONLY, or even best known author of the law of nations.
“But let these “best writers” say what they will, there is nothing in the law of nations, which is only the law of right reason applied to the conduct of nations, that requires that emigrants from a state should continue, or be made, a part of the state.” (Vol 4) Here Adams actually defines law of nations with no reference to Vattel, or indeed any author.
“The reasoning in the letter of our late envoys to France is so fully supported by the writers on the law of nations, particularly by Vattel, as well as by his great masters, Grotius and Pufendorf, that nothing is left to be desired to settle the point, that if there be a collision between two treaties, made with two different powers, the more ancient has the advantage; ” (Vol. 9) Vattel not the only author.
I suspect that it is another birthery myth, like the Madison quote…I am sure some birther made the claim and then it mushroomed to all of the other birther sites…
Two comments:
1. The statement in and of itself is absurd, “All good lawyers should keep a copy of (a particular book) by their bedside”.. Really? Did Clarence Darrow, F Lee Bailey, Louis Brandeis, etc. all have Vattel by their bedside? Somehow I doubt it. If I’m looking for a good lawyer to handle a business contract or defend me against a criminal charge, should I screen them on the basis of their bedside reading? Somehow that doesn’t seem wise. Nor, frankly, would their reading (or ignoring) Vattel have anything to do with their legal acumen.
2. Second, John Adams was a fine fellow. I enjoy the beer named after his cousin. But frankly, his opinions are just that, opinions. Read them, consider them in the light of all the historical facts and the many other opinions expressed since his day and draw your own conclusions. As was mentioned yesterday regarding the piece from The Economist , it’s long past time to stop fetishing the founding fathers. The founders didn’t try to make their world conform to some vision of 200 years before; they looked forward. So must we.
It’s a dubious quotation, but even if true it is irrelevant. I went through a collection of Jefferson’s writings and found a number of references to Vattel, but all are in regard to treaties. The writings of James Madison (Library of America) make two references to Vattel, neither of which is in the context of citizenship.
I keep waiting for the birther’s eventual promotion of Vattel to author of the constitution and 2nd US President. It’s a good thing birthers don’t travel outside of the US their entire lives, or I would worry they would turn his grave into a bizarre shrine or dig up his bones and have unnatural relations with them on the steps of the US Capitol after taping tea bags all over his skull.
Kerchner’s correspondent, quoted above, does just that, claiming that the Constitution is based on Vattel.
From the birtherworld the following….
BREAKING: Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals Filed for LTC Terry Lakin.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/breaking-petition-for-writ-of-mandamus.html
Via Safeguard Our Constitution; September 27, 2010 @ 2 pm ET – We have now filed our Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, but the trial court is going to proceed with a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday) as scheduled. Stay tuned for more news after the hearing.
Source; http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com
From the OC Weekly site…..
ksdb says:
@ Black Lion: The problem when these justices start quoting common law is that none of them seem to know what it is. For example, you quoted on that said, “Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
OTOH, Gray said, “the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
So now we have three exceptions, plus Indians … oh plus, Gray cites Justice Miller giving an even different interpretation of what the common law must mean …
“The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
ksdb says:
@ Black Lion: Gray said, : “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
Waite’s definition is verbatim from Vattel. Either Gray is acknowledging Vattel as being part of common law or he erred in this statement, unless you can find an English common law definition that jibes with what Waite wrote.
ksdb says:
@ Black Lion: You said, “More specifically to the established laws of the US. Because from the earliest legal rulings of the Supreme Court to state charters it is specific that we followed English Common Law.”
Not comprephensively and certainly not on the issue of natural born citizenship. I showed Justice Marshall citing Vattel six times in The Venus in 1814. Minor and Wong Kim Ark used that same definition. By focusing on anything but that issue, you’re simply providing a moot deflection.
You said: “Actually as we know Justice Gray cites Blackstone and English Common Law to determine that “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”
Gray was following a citation of Shanks v. Dupont that acknowledged you could be born IN THE UNITED STATES and not be a natural born citizen: “All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown,
and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that
crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of one and the citizens of the other.’ Who then were subjects or citizens was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her and were claimed by her as subject, the treaty deemed them such; if they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens.”
By the way, according to Obama’s Fight the Smears page, he was born in the allegiance of British law through his father.
The experts at CAAFlog say that there is zero chance of the petition being granted.
http://www.caaflog.com/2010/09/27/ltc-lakin-files-for-mandamus-at-army-ct-crim-app/#comments
Dr. Conspiracy: Personally I equate graphology with phrenology and palm reading
Actually, more accurate results are from iridology, then tea leaves.
It is disheartening (to me) to see Vattel constantly being truncated and misquoted.
I know these people lie, or are too mired in their delusions to see the truth, but it still is annoying.
I have not much experience with graphology, but I have always heard it to be used with reasonably good results in the French judicial system — sort of like lie detectors. Not 100% reliable, but delivers good results in most cases.
Of course it all depends on the professionals practicing it. I’m sure there are a lot of quacks and fraudsters around.
That’s what I get for hanging out with smart knowledgeable people; I learn something. Prior to this, I had assumed that John & Samuel Adams were siblings.
Wow, would it be amazing if graphologist actually existed for all those situations that you want to play a practical joke on a friend or for those parlor games. Such as writing one lie and on truth on a piece of paper and having the graphologist guess. It would be pure enjoyment for the entire family and friends. However, the write (person whose turn it is) must be outside of the room. We wouldn’t want graphologists to cheat by checking body the writers language.
So, Dr. Conspiracy, what do you think about the difference in the eligibility language on the DNC’s certifications from 2000, 2004, and 2008? What about the different DNC version to Hawaii for 2008? What about the differences on the Hawaii Democratic Party letter for these same years? I understand that not all 50 letters have been examined, and I am not asking about those. Just these specifically.
I am curious as to your take on the revisions and content of the actual letters (and whether you believe these are the actual letters), not opinions on the signatures or WND or CFP.
Good point. Is Obama a citizen? Check out this authentic Kenya BC!
So have you bought into the conspiracy? And now you are back to calling yourself Sallyven and not Scott Brown?
The certification forms are irrelevant unless you think that the state of HI is lying when they state that President Obama was BORN in HI. You would have to believe that they are lying, the State Department is lying, and others are lying to cover up for Obama being born elsewhere even though there has been no evidence to make anyone believe otherwise.
There can be simple explanations for this if it is true. Maybe the DNC decided to change the form. Maybe some lawyer did not think that the language was necessary. Who knows? But to bring this up as if it is an issue means that you are open to it implying that something sinister had occured. However look at the sources. WND, which has been caught lying on numerous occasions and at one time certified that Obama’s COLB was authentic. And CFP, which is a site that makes the Post and Fail seem sane. I would think that one would require some additonal proof and evidence rather than their supposition and innuendo.
sight unseen on any of the certifications i’d have to ask these questions:
is there a standard for the certification ?
was the standard met in all three instances ?
have the other parties ( not just GOP ) certificates been consistent over the same period ?
I am not “Scott Brown,” and I have never used any other screen name on this site other than Sallyven. Ask the Dr. if you don’t believe me.
And while I appreciate your responses, misha and Black Lion, I didn’t ask you.
I merely asked Dr. C some simple questions. I’m not making any accusations or assumptions. I sincerely wonder what the Dr. thinks about this information: Are the letters legitimate, and is there any significance to their revisions? He noted their existence and other site’s commentaries, but then gave no opinion and instead deflected with remarks on handwriting analysis.
Misha dodged the question entirely, and Black Lion, rather than answering, concerns himself with pondering what I could be thinking by venturing to ask such questions. Has he done more investigation into the issue himself, which he is implying that I should do?
I wonder also, is it possible to have an intelligent discussion on this site without the vitriol?
I most certainly did not. I provided a link to an authentic Kenya BC, which should have helped you. Instead, you denigrate my efforts.
There’s nothing vitriolic about my response. It is completely rational. I feel so sad that you question my efforts.
Since you want a civilized discussion, I have two questions:
1. Was Sarah Palin born in Canada?
2. Is her spouse a functional illiterate?
There are two groups involved here, the National Democratic Convention and a state Democratic Party.
Now a couple of facts: For Hawaii the National Democratic Convention certified the eligibility of Barack Obama and the Hawaii Democratic Party did not. In South Carolina the South Carolina Democratic Party certified the eligibility of Barack Obama and the Convention did not.
The most plausible explanation is that someone reviewed exactly who should certify what (the party of the convention), and implemented that. (It may well be that the certifications from prior years were improper!) In South Carolina, the law required the party, not the Convention certify eligibility. In furtherance of my explanation, I suggest that you read the cover letter accompanying the SC Party certification that lays out in some detail exactly who is supposed to do what and that the SC certification by the party was what was required.
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-south-carolina-sec-of-state-respons.pdf
Pardon me. There must have been another Sallyven that used to post here. And there was no vitrol in the response. Many here have seen the “concern poster” gambit before. So of course one would be on guard when someone claims to have an innocent question.
Secondly of course you did not address the point I made. If the state of HI has declared that President Obama was BORN in HI, what does it matter what this so called document says or if it was different. As far as I can tell there is no law requiring the document or requred language for the document to have. So how could one speculate if there is no required standard language? What does the state law require if anything?
Third you claimed you did not actually examine the documents. Why not? And if you don’t want to address the so called certifications sent to other states, then that leads to another problem. What if they were changed for all of the states or a majority of them, not just HI?
See responsible people do research and look at the source of the allegation. Since this is coming from WND and CFP, the odds that this is actually a legitimate issue is between slim and none.
You can ignore this questions, that is your right. However then you kind of lose the so called intelligent discussion angle.
“Sallyven” may want to go to the following site…Please be aware that this issue was brought up by the birthers last year and got no traction because there was nothing to see there….Birthers are masters at recycling debunked talking points…
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/kramer-v-kramer/
“A poster name ‘Kramer’ has posted a link to a youtube video about the certification of nomination forms sent to Hawaii.
While most of this has already been rebutted (here, here and here), the simple fact remains that even if there was something sinister’ here, it does not matter since President Obama is clearly natural born by virtue of his birth on US soil.”
Dr. C, thank you for your response, however, I am not concerned with SC.
My question is regarding the information presented that, for the DNC, a different certification format was used in 2008 (from both the 2004 and 2000 versions) and apparently a different letter was used in 2008 for Hawaii (than for other states).
In addition, Hawaii’s state Democratic party issued a different letter for 2008 than it did in both 2004 and 2000.
In all of these cases, at both the National and State (Hawaii) level, the 2008 revisions concerned the Constitutional eligibility phrase.
So has Sven mutated into Sallyven?
LOL, don’t these nutcases have a life? The right wing loves the rich, most Democrats care for the poor and middle class, and these nutcases are oblivious to all that…they just keep on serving their rich masters, without the slightest clue that they are.
Rather than asking Dr C and others here to speculate, why don’t you address your questions to those who could actually provide answers-the DNC and the Secretaries of State of the various states? Candidate certifications, unlike personal data, are public information, so you should have no problem getting an answer.
If you truly believe that all members of the government are incompetent/corrupt then life becomes quite unliveable. You can’t get on an airplane, because you don’t trust the FAA. You can’t eat or take medications because you don’t trust the FDA, USDA, local health authorities, etc. You can’t get in a car because you don’t trust the DoT. You can’t even hole up in your house, because who knows about your local Building Dept.
When I use the phrase “little more” I mean “the same.”
This is an open forum, unlike the birther forums which are heavily moderated. If you make a comment here, it is fair game for anyone to respond.
Are the letters legitimate, and is there any significance to their revisions?
Who knows for sure if they are legitimate? However, I have to say that there are some things about the supposed 2008 certification which give me pause.
1. The 2000 and 2004 certifications list the e-mail address as @hawaiidemocrats.org but the 2008 certification lists it as @inbox.com. The domain for Hawaii Democrats is still hawaiidemocrats.org, so why would they change the e-mail address?
2. The physical address for the Democratic Party of Hawaii is incorrect on the 2008 certification. It says “1050 Ala Moana Blvd. #2660” but the correct address is 1050 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite D-26.
3. Then there is the spelling of Hawaii. Native Hawaiians spell it with an apostrophe, Hawai’i. In fact, that is how the name is spelled on the 2000 and 2004 certifications. But on the alleged 2008 certification, the apostrophe is missing, even though it is included in the logo. And that is how it is spelled everywhere on the party’s website, with an apostrophe. Also, the logo on the supposed 2008 certification looks like a cut and paste job to me. For one thing, it is too close to the top of the page (no border), and the actual logo has two stars, the second star being outside the oval. The star above the oval is missing from the 2008 certification.
http://www.hawaiidemocrats.org/
I don’t claim to be an expert like Ron Polland/Polarik (insert snark here), but there is enough about the 2008 certification which looks fishy to me that I’m willing to call it a probable forgery.
There was the time my cat presented me with a half-dead mouse, on the 8th floor of my building.
One thing that you have to be extremely careful of is the word “many” or “most” on a birther site. My article proves that WorldNetDaily lied about the evidence for 49 being the same. If Canadian Free Press had looked at “many” or “most certifications” they they could very easily tell us exactly how many they looked at and which ones they were, valuable information for someone who wanted to follow up on the others! The original claim was “all 50” and that turned out to be a lie. “49” was a lie.” I have only seen both the State and DNC certifications from two states.
Your quick dismissal of the SC information doesn’t look good for your objectivity. If you don’t care about SC, then you don’t care about understanding the process and getting at the truth. This is why birthers get uncivil replies here–too much history of hypocrisy.
In the interest of fairness, it appears that the Suite No. for the Hawai’i Democratic Party used to be 2660, but it is now D26. I do not know when it changed. But this raises even further concerns about the authenticity of the document, because the old suite number appears at the top of the certification and the current suite number appears at the bottom. What appears to be a pre-printed address on the stationery at the bottom also spells “Hawaii” without the apostrophe, which is totally out of character.
The Hawaii state party certification WND published is the same one I linked to in my article that I received February 23, 2009. My copy is not the same original image; mine looks like a fax. It doesn’t show folds and the top of the page is not cut off. The text is the same, though.
At what point did it become your decision to dictate who responds to whom?
It’s my understanding that in 2000, Hawaii received a DNC certificate that had the eligiblity phrase but it had been added after the fact. And deleted the phrase in 2004 and then added it back in 2008.
The state Democratic party had the phrase in 2000 and 2004 and deleted it in 2008. So you can see there has been some confusion. But the main thing is that President Obama was certified by the DNC as to his constitutional eligiblity.
I seem to remember a statement from the DNC that national candidates would be certified by the national party and state and local cadidates would be certified by the state party.
I suppose we will just have to wait until 2012, to see which committee certifies the President.
Do you know the source of the copy of the Hawaii certification? I’m not prepared to say categorically that it’s a fake, but the discrepancy in the suite number, the odd e-mail address and the spelling of “Hawaii” all make me suspicious.
I don’t remember now where I got it. However those “discrepancies” if anything speak to the document being authentic. A fake would have just copied a real one and changed the certification language, or one from a prior year.
Was this before or after your cat received a Certificate of Loss of Nationality?
I somehow copied the wrong quotation from Misha in my last post. Here is what I meant to quote: