The October Surprise

CTA_Busa_LE said:
I have done some digging on this one. I've only put about 30 minutes into it so far but found some things of interest.

In the video, Berg makes mention that factcheck.org is linked to annenberg foundation of chicago as well as Obama.

The following link is from FactCheck.org and on that page it states the following:
(FactCheck.org, which is nonpartisan, also receives funding from the Annenberg Foundation. But we are in no way connected to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which finished its work long before we came into being in late 2003.)
Link: FactCheck.org: "He Lied" About Bill Ayers?

Then if you go to this link: Annenberg Foundation | News | Chicago Annenberg Challenge Records then go about half way down the page you will find this:

■ Founding members of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board were: Susan Crown, vice president, Henry Crown Company; Patricia Graham, president, The Spencer Foundation, and former dean, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Stanley Ikenberry, president-emeritus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Handy Lindsey, executive director, Field Foundation; Barack Obama; Arnold Weber, former president, Northwestern University, and president, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago; and Wanda White, executive director, Community Workshop on Economic Development.

In my mind this is enough of a connection between annanberg foundation, factcheck.org and Obama to raise questions about the accuracy of any information they have provided about Obama

Then there is the question about snopes.com and their information at this link:
snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate

Note that on this page it makes mention to a claim from June 2008. Berg did not file the federal suite, Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083, until August 21, 2008 It makes mention of Berg at the bottom of the page but does not address whether or not Obama provided documents to the courts in this case. Somewhat misleading if you ask me and that leaves this still up in the air.

There was also an update on Bergs website dated today, October 21, 2008, Link to Bergs website is: Obama Crimes

Make up your own mind, I'm just digging to see what in this video can be confirmed or not confirmed.
Click to expand...

Huh? Obama supported the Annenberg Challenge Board which as you also show factcheck.org states: "we are no way connected to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which finished its work long before we came into being in late 2003.)"

How then do you draw the conclusion there is enough of a connection between annanberg foundation, factcheck.org and Obama to raise questions about the accuracy of any information they have provided about Obama?

How about the simple fact that in the video the birth certificate are not displayed side by side to show the claimed differences? You are a investigator why would you not account for the simplest evidence first.

You have to look at the evidence presented in the video, it is weak and circumstancial at best. False and misleading at the worst.

I stand by my premise that the guy is a kook.
 
sjcurrence said:
Huh? Obama supported the Annenberg Challenge Board which as you also show factcheck.org states: "we are no way connected to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which finished its work long before we came into being in late 2003.)"

How then do you draw the conclusion there is enough of a connection between annanberg foundation, factcheck.org and Obama to raise questions about the accuracy of any information they have provided about Obama?

How about the simple fact that in the video the birth certificate are not displayed side by side to show the claimed differences? You are a investigator why would you not account for the simplest evidence first.

You have to look at the evidence presented in the video, it is weak and circumstancial at best. False and misleading at the worst

I stand by my premise that the guy is a kook.
Click to expand...

Yes I am an investigator and I have worked many cases. I can say this much, when someone is ordered by a federal court to do something and they don't it is usually two things. One it is contempt and two it is usually because they have something to hide.

As for the annenberg foundation and the annenberg challenge. Are you claiming the two are not connected in any way? Please ,this is all the same group, most likely just worded different to qualify for some type of grant money. Both are discussed on the same web page. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Obama has ties to both.

As for Bergs Federal Lawsuit. Once again, if it's a hoax, and obama has the proof to disprove Mr. Berg, why let it drag on? Why risk losing votes because of people discussing it just like we are here? Why not just provide the court with documents and get it dismissed? I'll tell you why but you won't like the answer, because he can't without revealing something incriminating. Same reason he will not release any of his school records. I'm betting he claimed to be from somewhere other than America in order to secure funding for school. We all know how much more money a foreign student gets over an American student when it comes to aid. How exactly did Obama pay his way through Harvard??

One final question for you. Would it even matter to you if it was proven that Obama was not eligible to be president per the United States Consitution?
 
CTA_Busa_LE said:
Yes I am an investigator and I have worked many cases. I can say this much, when someone is ordered by a federal court to do something and they don't it is usually two things. One it is contempt and two it is usually because they have something to hide.

As for the annenberg foundation and the annenberg challenge. Are you claiming the two are not connected in any way? Please ,this is all the same group, most likely just worded different to qualify for some type of grant money. Both are discussed on the same web page. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Obama has ties to both.

As for Bergs Federal Lawsuit. Once again, if it's a hoax, and obama has the proof to disprove Mr. Berg, why let it drag on? Why risk losing votes because of people discussing it just like we are here? Why not just provide the court with documents and get it dismissed? I'll tell you why but you won't like the answer, because he can't without revealing something incriminating. Same reason he will not release any of his school records. I'm betting he claimed to be from somewhere other than America in order to secure funding for school. We all know how much more money a foreign student gets over an American student when it comes to aid. How exactly did Obama pay his way through Harvard??

One final question for you. Would it even matter to you if it was proven that Obama was not eligible to be president per the United States Consitution?
Click to expand...

The foundation is HUGE and there is no evidence that Obama continued his relationship after the ending of the challenge. The Challenge was one of the many programs the foundation supported.

You are compairing a criminal case to a civil case the standards are different. Generally lawyers will use the entire alloted time before submitting their side. That is why it takes a long time to settle civil issues.

Why should he stop to address this kook? Any clear thinking individual can see this as bunk. It is very doubtful that this is an issue even the FOX news morons (O'Riely, Hannity...) are not talking about.

What about the key thing the kook displays? The birth certificates? If there was really a problem he could put them side by side and that evidence would stand on its own merit. Yet we don't see that do we? Because that would cause the idiots house of cards to crumble.

He was born to an American citiczen in the US. He is American, natural born, and soon to be the next president.
 
This is all very interesting. "Where there's smoke"....

Wonder why the major networks devote no time to the issue?

P.S. On top of it, if the DNC knows the truth (and I'll bet they do), they should either help Obama answer the charge and expose the plantiff as an idiot, OR THEY ARE COVERING IT UP - which would make them traitors...now, THAT would be interesting....
 
Last edited:
We all know that if McCain or Palin were in the same situation and had not provided proof and the case was still pending, the dems and media both would be all over it. Especially if the republicans were also covering. That would be all that was shown on the major networks.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a good chance that it is a duck!
 
I'm sure with you hot on the case it will only be a matter of time before the terrible truth is revealed. GO GET EM!

CTA.jpg
 
Jeez, I can't help myself:

Posted on a work bulletin board:

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:
1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!
 
:whistle:
skydivr said:
Jeez, I can't help myself:

Posted on a work bulletin board:

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:
1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!
Click to expand...

Funny :thumbsup: but not as funny as CTA_BUSA's posts. :whistle:
 
I know if someones falsely acuses me of something, the first thing I wanna do is prove them wrong and make them feel like a dumba$$!
It's pretty cut and dry.
 
brendanp said:
I know if someones falsely acuses me of something, the first thing I wanna do is prove them wrong and make them feel like a dumba$$!
It's pretty cut and dry.
Click to expand...

Unless of course you think so little of the "dumba$$" you simply ignore him.

Seriously if the general public believed in McCain platform then he would be leading and none of this would matter.
 
CTA_Busa_LE said:
We all know that if McCain or Palin were in the same situation and had not provided proof and the case was still pending, the dems and media both would be all over it. Especially if the republicans were also covering. That would be all that was shown on the major networks.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a good chance that it is a duck!
Click to expand...

And sometimes what smells like a fart turns out to be $hit.
 
Obama is on the cover of Mens Health, Mens Vogue, Muscle and Fitness, People, and other magazines. I am pretty sure he is gonna win.

Anger will exist in the years following the Bush admin reguardless of who wins.
 
Does anyone honestly think either party is so stupid they didn't double and triple check the eligibility of their candidate?

Regardless of your feelings about Democrats and Republicans, they aren't that stupid. Evil, possibly, but why would they let anything go this far without making sure their candidate could legally and constitutionally sit in the oval office?

Arguments like these are, IMHO, hysterical paranoia put forth to confuse the "masses". It proves how stupid both political parties think the voting public is.
 
Good question; it's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the federal district court in California which dismissed the lawsuit against McCain, and I suspect the Eastern District in PA will do the same with the Obama case.

I read the decision in the McCain case, and you hit the nail on the head--it's up to ALL of the voters, not just one. And if there's a challenge, the Constitution requires it to be decided after the election. Pretty clear process. Read page four (4) of the Court's five- (5) page opinion. Here's the link:

Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al Document 39 - :: Justia Docs

And my bet is that the Eastern District of PA will do the same with the Berg case against Obama, since the law is the same.

Mrs. Omslaw said:
Not stating an opinion, but just out of curiousity, if you don't believe that we as voters have standing to question the eligibility of someone to run for the presidency, who does? Who has the legal right to make someone prove their citizenship, their loyalty to our nation, or any of the other legal criteria that is provided for in the constitution as a prerequisite to running for president? If there is someone with a questionable right to be President, who has the legal right to bring it before the court? Just asking . . . I just wanted to get your opinions on this issue.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry; you're wrong. But you don't have to take my word for it; here's what the federal district judge said when he dismissed the McCain lawsuit:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/39/

Since the law is the same, the case against Obama in the Eastern District of PA will likely be dismissed for the same reason. Here's the motion seeking to have it dismissed:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/20/

As for politics and common sense, I'd rely on the court documents before a YouTube video.

CTA_Busa_LE said:
Yes the lawsuit against McCain was dismissed. Why? From my understanding it was because the documents which were asked for were provided by McCain without hesitation, something that Obama has yet to do. So if there is nothing to this case, why doesn't Obama just surrender the documents and put it to rest?? Instead he has a team of lawyers dragging it out. Pretty risky considering the election is close and this clip is circulating like wildfire right now. Why would Obama risk it if he doesn't have anything to hide and he is in fact a natural born citizen?

Get away from the politics of this and apply some common sense and ask a few questions and the answer is pretty apparent :whistle:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CTA_Busa_LE
Illinois Politics, is the nation ready?
Replies
7
Views
1,244
runeight
R
Blanca BusaLess
Obama releases original birth certificate
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
4,625
S4L
S4L
PDBusa
WTH??? Obama Aunt here illegally for 4 years???
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3,429
99'busa
99'busa
thrasherfox
establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes
2
Replies
21
Views
2,300
RedBull
RedBull
thrasherfox
IRAN supports OBAMA! this makes me feel much better
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3,382
ozz
ozz
Back
Top