http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583 This is something that NOBODY seems to be talking about.
Why should anyone be talking about Birther idiocy? It is as timely as Pet Rocks and as credible as the "We neve landed on the Moon" conspiracy theories.
You've linked to that article before, and it was ridiculed then. http://www.politicalforum.com/consp...birthers-bunch-nut-jobs-7.html#post1062505374 The entire premise of that article is that a slight word difference between two certificates of eligibility prepared by the DNC proves Obama isn't eligible to be president. Never mind that there is no requirement, anywhere, discussing the precise language that needs to be included in such a certification. Only that the parties provide one. So they could have produced a one-line document saying "Barack is our guy, and we think he's eligible to be president", and that would have been fine, legally speaking. This is the same sort of micro-parsing that income-tax protesters use to "prove" that the only people legally required to pay income taxes are government employees, or foreign nationals, or whatever their particular hobby horse is. Stop recycling debunked trash.
You're avoiding the main questions: WHY did the DNC draft, sign and notarize the two slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination document, with one of those documents having complete legal language, and one of them missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama? Why is it that the version which is absent of 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?
Who cares? Show me why it matters. For instance, your line about "complete legal language" is made-up bunk. There is no requirement that the certification contain any particular language. Both certifications are legally just fine. See above. What was filed is what was required. The specific language used has no bearing on Obama's eligibility to be president. Stop recycling debunked trash.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive assertion. All I am asking is why something exists. And in response, you're asking me to justify why I should even be asking that question? Just give a reasonable answer as to why two differenr versions exist.
The burden of proof sailed long, long ago. The voters voted, the Electoral College elected. Congress confirmed. the Chief Justice swore in. And Obama became President- twice now. But Birthers......they are the ultimate recyclers.....recycling the tired old Birther BS over and over- and demanding other people prove it again. Birthers lol.
And that would be you. You're claiming this has some impact on Obama's eligibility. How? No, you're suggesting it affects Obama's eligibility, without bothering to specify how. Please make a specific claim that can be evaluated, instead of simply throwing stuff up against the wall. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/birthers-forge-ahead/ The party made the certification in a separate letter, because each state has slightly different requirements. So they did a general notice that could go to all 50 states, and accompanied them where necessary with a letter that met that specific state's rules.
#1, how do you know they didn't? #2, who cares? You have yet to demonstrate how any of this matters. I bet the precise language is slightly different from cycle to cycle. It doesn't matter at all, but you could seize on that, too, if you wanted to see a conspiracy where none existed. Differences don't matter unless you have a logical reason why they do.
First you wrote, "There is no requirement that the certification contain any particular language. Both certifications are legally just fine." Then, a short while later, "The party made the certification in a separate letter, because each state has slightly different requirements. So they did a general notice that could go to all 50 states, and accompanied them where necessary with a letter that met that specific state's rules." Which one is it? And why didn't the Republicans create different versions? Is it because their party didn't require it? And if the Republicans didn't require it, why would the Democrats want to all of a sudden in 2008?
