What does Pelosi know about Obama's eligibility?

WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?

Online images for certification of nomination raise questions


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A commentator at Canada Free Press says he has obtained copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Barack Obama as their nominee for president in 2008 that suggest House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew there was an unresolved issue with his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution.

Writer JB Williams describes himself as a "no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy." And he say's he's gotten possession of copies of the documents in question.

The first includes a verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then-candidate for vice president, "are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."

One image of the certification for Barack Obama's nomination, including includes the affirmation Obama and Joe Biden "are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution"

The second form obtained by Williams appears identical, although the signatures are different, including the same strategic typographical error. But in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is gone.

Another image of a certification, on which the certification of eligibility has been removed

"Now this is the stuff real conspiracies are made of!" Williams, who also maintains his own website, wrote. "Please allow me to connect the dots here…"

"The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one," he wrote. "One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.

"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," he wrote.

WND contacted the Democratic National Committee multiple times over three days to request an explanation of the two images, including whether one might be a forgery. A spokeswoman in the press office confirmed, "We are aware of it," but declined to elaborate.

Likewise, WND contacted the office of Pelosi, but got no response over several days. And the White House declined to respond to multiple e-mails asking for a comment.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here.

"The fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was under way, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful," Williams wrote.

"Are you still wondering why Barack Obama has spent nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer's funds to race Department of Justice lawyers around the country to stop all cases questioning Obama's eligibility before discovery can force Obama to open up his top secret life?"

He described the discoveries as "actually very serious business."

"We are talking about the top-down leadership of the ruling political party knowingly and wantonly defrauding voters by way of playing monkey business with fraudulent election documents."

The documents show the "Official Certification of Nomination" of Obama, of "5046 South Greenwood Avenue" in Chicago and Joe Biden, of "1209 Barley Mill Road" in Wilmington, Del., as the party's candidates.

They were signed by Pelosi as chair of the Democratic National Convention as well as Alice Travis Germond, the secretary of the Democratic National Convention at its nominating meetings in Denver a year ago.

They were notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson of Denver.

Other bloggers also speculated that a document was signed with the verification of constitutional eligibility, and Democratic officials then decided to generate another without, suggesting at least an awareness of the issue involved.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits over the dispute question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery.

WND reported this week on a decision by a California judge to schedule a trial early next year on the arguments over Obama's eligibility.

U.S. District Judge David Carter tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for the case. If the case actually goes to arguments, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

Arguments over other online Obama images also have raged. His campaign and now his administration repeatedly has pointed to an online image of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii has documenting his status, even though such documents are not, in fact, proof. Critics have suggested the image itself is fraudulent.

And in just recent days, WND reported Lucas Smith, the man who tried to sell an alleged Barack Obama Kenyan birth certificate on eBay, filed court papers insisting – under threat of perjury – that the Obama birth certificate in his possession is the genuine article.

The document above is alleged by Lucas Smith to be Barack Obama's original, authentic birth certificate from Kenya.

California attorney Orly Taitz, who is working on the California challenge now scheduled for trial, posted on her blog Smith's declaration, which claims he obtained the alleged birth certificate from Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, and insists it's real.

"The true and correct photocopy of the birth certificate obtained is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A," the declaration reads. "I declare, certify, verify, state and affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing statements of fact and descriptions of circumstances and events are true and correct."

Smith's affidavit, which includes a copy of the certificate, has been filed with Carter, whose works in the Central District of California.

In his filing, Smith declares that he traveled to Kenya in February and paid off a military officer in order to obtain a copy of the birth certificate from Coast General Hospital in Mombasa. The declaration also states that the hospital administrator signed and sealed the copy, which indicates Obama's birth in Africa on Aug. 4, 1961, at 7:24 p.m.

However, WND has reported on an authentic 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate, which looks distinctly different from the document Smith released in the video.

Authentic 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate obtained by WND

Williams explained political parties in the U.S. are responsible for vetting their own candidates.

The nomination form, however, including the certificate of eligibility under the Constitution, wasn't actually used.

"Instead, a very similar document was delivered to 50 state DNC offices, which those offices certified to each of 50 state Election Commissions, who then date-stamped the document and stuck it in a file cabinet, and proceeded to place these 'certified' candidates on the ballot,'" Williams wrote.

"And yes, I have a copy of this version of the DNC Official Certification of Nomination letter too!" he wrote.

"There is no honest debate on the matter anymore. Obama is NOT a constitutional president, which is to say, we do NOT have a constitutional federal administration at present and every anti-American policy of the last six months is also, BINGO! – Unconstitutional!" he wrote.

"What is still in question however – does any court in America have the backbone to do what must be done? – And what do the American people do, if not one court in the nation has that kind of constitutional backbone today?" he continued.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 450,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Pelosi Censors Republicans

by Rep. John Carter

Monday night Democrats voted to shut down the U.S. House Representatives rather than allow a handful of Republican Congressmen to speak on the floor. What could have been so offensive or frightening about our discourse that Speaker Pelosi felt she had to protect her party by gagging free speech in the House?

In fact, we had planned to speak on the lack of transparency of the House since Democrats took control. We had planned to criticize Speaker Pelosi for repeatedly denying Members, the media, and the public to right to read legislation before it was voted on. We were set to discuss House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s statement last week that if his Members were required to read the Democrats’ healthcare reform package before it was voted on, it would fail.

So the Speaker obviously feels that if the public is truly aware of her party’s agenda, they will reject it. She is now making sure the public is kept in the dark by trampling the centuries-old democratic traditions of the House.

What are those traditions? Every day that the House is in session, following the final vote of the day, representatives are allowed the privilege of free speech on the House floor in what is known as “Special Orders.” They may speak for one minute, five minutes, or one hour segments, and must request their time in advance. Time is allocated equally to both parties on a first-come basis.

Since the advent of live C-SPAN coverage of the House, this has provided a national televised outlet for both Republicans and Democrats to speak to the nation on topics they feel were not adequately addressed during regular order in the House, during which the Democrat majority has the parliamentary ability to limit debate and speeches.

Special Orders therefore frequently serves as a political safety valve if the party in the majority becomes too dictatorial during debate, using their majority status to truly oppress the minority’s ability to debate and offer amendments.

That is now the case in the House, with the Democrat majority under Pelosi repeatedly rejecting House rules to ram a far-left agenda through before the public has time to learn what is actually in the bills.

This is what we were committed to bring to public light.

House rules require a bill be publicly posted for three days before it can be voted on. That basic rule was written by none other than Thomas Jefferson as part of the original rules package of the House, as it is essential to the survival of representative democracy.

The House can waive that rule if it chooses on specific occasions. The Republican-controlled House chose to waive it when considering the Patriot Act in 2001 following the terror attacks of 9-11. They thought there was enough of a national defense emergency to just bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

But Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats have chosen to ignore the rule on every major issue taken up by the House this year, including:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - The Obama Stimulus: This one just had to pass that very day because time was a-wastin’ in getting those new jobs coming. We couldn’t wait for Members to read it. But then the President waited four days to sign it into law while he spent the weekend in Chicago, and months later none of the new jobs have come into existence.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization (SCHIP): Speaker Pelosi couldn’t wait on this one either, although the deadline for reauthorization was still two months away.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Lilly was peddled as covering decades-old wage discrimination cases, but after waiting 20 years, Congress couldn’t wait one more day to let Members actually read the thing. The bill is still stuck in the Senate Committee

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009: No excuses at all on this one. They just didn’t want the details known.

The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009: This one has been languishing since last October, but we suddenly had to pass it that day.

The AIG Bonus Tax Act: This had to get through right then, don’t mind the details, we just had to go after those bonuses. Only when we read what passed after the fact, the bill contained waivers for all of the same executives the bill was supposed to reign in, many with curiously close ties to Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009: No rush whatever on this one time-wise, the Democrats just didn’t want people talking about the hundreds of billions given to foreign banks that should have gone to our troops.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act/National Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax:
No excuse was offered on this one, the Speaker just didn’t want anybody reading Henry Waxman’s 300 page amendment he sneaked in overnight before we were forced to vote. Three weeks later, the Senate shows no intention of taking up the bill before the opening day of dove season, if then.

There’s a reason all these bills are listed. The list constitutes every major policy bill undertaken by Congress this year. House Democrats are not just waiving the three-day rule -- they have destroyed it, and are intentionally pushing their agenda to the floor with blindfolds on the media and the public.

This constitutes an astonishing and chilling acceleration of the assault on representative democracy that began in earnest this January.

Representative democracy works when a U.S. Representative listens to the input of their constituents, and votes the way the majority of their district would vote. Only a Representative can’t listen if no one has ever seen the bill, or had time to provide input. They have to vote blind, which for too many, is voting the way their leadership tells them.

This is what Republican House Members were going to the floor to say Monday night. We were set to decry the loss of openness in the House.

Instead, we were met with a slammed door by Democrats, who are now committed to burying truth along with democracy.

The Democrats are the majority -- for now. They chose to silence debate on the floor by gagging House Republican Members from using their historical right to speak after the close of the day. But they cannot stop us from speaking outside the halls of Congress and letting the American public know the truth about their ongoing attack against the very foundations of a free Republic.

---

Mr. Carter, a Republican, represents the 31st District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives.

---