The October Surprise

[CTA_Busa_LE]

This is quite an interesting video, I'm sure some of you will be quick to flame it. This is the lawyer from PA who has filed the federal law in an attempt to prove that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore not elgible to be president. It's almost 11 minutes long but full of information. As stated in the video, if Obama has nothing to hide, why not just turn over the documents?

 

[Dino]

Before you waist 11 minutes of your life. A little fact checking is in order. I admit I could not see the video at work but I ran a search on Obama's citizenship on factcheck.org and snopes.com to see what they came up with. Your time is probably better spent at these sites.

FactCheck.org: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

 

[Aquaman]

Very interesting.

 

[johnnycrash]

So the anti-Christ isn't a natural born Amerian citizen after all? Guess I'll be changing my vote in light of this very informative thread.

 

[turbobusa2000]

I Obama has nothing to hide, he should present the documents that prove he is a natural born citizen. It's that simple. The video discredits fact check as a reputable source. He should prove it himself like John McCain.

 

[Rayabusa0818]

Get over it and vote for the candidate of YOUR choice.

 

[300Busa]

get over it and vote for the candidate of your choice.

i vote for ray!!!

 

[300Busa]

The video does sound straight forward and raises some honest questions.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

watch the video, he addresses factcheck.org in it as well which raises even more questions considering their close ties to Obama. What else are they covering for?

Before you waist 11 minutes of your life. A little fact checking is in order. I admit I could not see the video at work but I ran a search on Obama's citizenship on factcheck.org and snopes.com to see what they came up with. Your time is probably better spent at these sites.

FactCheck.org: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?

snopes.com: Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the U.S.?

 

[CrashBomb]

If this is the "October surprise" that the GOP is going to run it's no wonder the American people are tired of this zero sum game, we've been going back and forth like this since the days of Gordon Liddy and Ken Clawson and before. Didn't the Democrats bring up the same questions about Barry Goldwater in '64 because he was born in a state that wasn't yet a state?

Keep in mind that there are legal questions surrounding John McCain's "natural born citizenship" as well. Of the two, from a legal standpoint, Obama may actually have the better case, and, although it's highly unlikely that either will come to trial, it will require a court decision on what the words "natural born citizen" mean in the Constitution. This issue has never been tested in the courts, it's the kind of Shakespearean "Letter v. Spirit" debate that keeps 1L students up at night.

I've read the briefs of Berg's request in Pennsylvania and the Fred Hollander suit (against McCain) in New Hampshire and they both appear to hinge on the constitutional definition of "natural born," along with the question of legal standing and proof of direct injury.

The truth is that both candidates have presented the required documents and been approved by (non-binding) resolutions, although those carry no legal weight. It will take serious constitutional examination and a court decision to decide the legal definition of "natural born," in either case.

 

[Dino]

This is the biggest bunch of BUNK I have seen yet.

Ok so factoring out factcheck.org you still have SNOPES which as my above link shows, point out that his citizenship is not in question.

He has ZERO material evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. Yet there are at least 2 copise of Obama's birth certificate available. One clearly shows the seal the other, probably a copy, shows a vague seal, yet all the other information is excatly the same. Notice how in th evideo they dont put the 2 documents side by side to make a full comparison. They show part of one then a close up of the other. BUNK!

What else? Oh the name of the hospital. Really doesn't matter because they are both in Hawaii.

Oh and you know what I would not lower myself to address this fools lawsuit either.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

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.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

Annenberg Challenge received some huge grants:

On December 17, 1993, the Annenberg Foundation launched the Annenberg Challenge for School Reform with a five-year $500 million grant to revive and inspire school reform efforts in this nation. The Challenge brought together civic, business and university leaders, as well as foundations and other groups, in support of 18 school improvement projects, and it built broad public-private coalitions consisting of mayors, superintendents, principals, union leaders, civic leaders and community groups. The CAC was supported with a $49.2 million grant.

from following link: Annenberg Foundation | News | Chicago Annenberg Challenge Records

 

[Rayabusa0818]

What else? Oh the name of the hospital. Really doesn't matter because they are both in Hawaii.

People call the hospital where I work by three different names. One of them has never been the official name of the hospital, but it is the one I hear in the community most often.

 

[05 Busa LE]

Nice post .... I'm assuming the briefs you've read are based upon 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss? Did you get them from PACER? I haven't head of either, but would be interested in reading the briefs.

If this is the "October surprise" that the GOP is going to run it's no wonder the American people are tired of this zero sum game, we've been going back and forth like this since the days of Gordon Liddy and Ken Clawson and before. Didn't the Democrats bring up the same questions about Barry Goldwater in '64 because he was born in a state that wasn't yet a state?

Keep in mind that there are legal questions surrounding John McCain's "natural born citizenship" as well. Of the two, from a legal standpoint, Obama may actually have the better case, and, although it's highly unlikely that either will come to trial, it will require a court decision on what the words "natural born citizen" mean in the Constitution. This issue has never been tested in the courts, it's the kind of Shakespearean "Letter v. Spirit" debate that keeps 1L students up at night.

I've read the briefs of Berg's request in Pennsylvania and the Fred Hollander suit (against McCain) in New Hampshire and they both appear to hinge on the constitutional definition of "natural born," along with the question of legal standing and proof of direct injury.

The truth is that both candidates have presented the required documents and been approved by (non-binding) resolutions, although those carry no legal weight. It will take serious constitutional examination and a court decision to decide the legal definition of "natural born," in either case.

 

[05 Busa LE]

I just read some of the briefs. It appears that the lawsuit against McCain was dismissed (lack of standing to bring the lawsuit, and the failure to state a federal cause of action), and for the same reasons, the lawsuit against Obama will likely be dismissed. Seems as though a similar lawsuit was brought against Bush and Cheney some time ago. It's all pretty interesting reading.

 

[Tina]

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.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

I just read some of the briefs. It appears that the lawsuit against McCain was dismissed (lack of standing to bring the lawsuit, and the failure to state a federal cause of action), and for the same reasons, the lawsuit against Obama will likely be dismissed. Seems as though a similar lawsuit was brought against Bush and Cheney some time ago. It's all pretty interesting reading.

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

 

[CrashBomb]

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...

That's not particularly true, the Hollander suit was dismissed because of a lack of legal standing on the part of the plaintiff. Nothing in the case had anything to do with McCain providing a valid birth certificate, it was an issue of "does John McCain's particular situation fit the term 'natural born' as defined by the letter of the law?"

Basically, the court decided that, since the plaintiff's complaint couldn't prove an individual was owed a duty of care by someone running for a political office, there was no way that any negligence could be legally proved. Truthfully, I doubt the court wanted anything to do with it and got it out the door as quickly as possible. An appellate court would probably do the same thing. A constitutional decision that big would almost definitely go all the way to the Supreme Court and the system can't move fast enough for that to happen before the election.

Interestingly, Fred Hollander (the plaintiff in the suit) is a McCain supporter and claims he only initiated the whole episode in order to get a decision and get it off the table before anyone else thought of it.

 

[Dino]

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

The lawyers are defending their client. Obama is probably not even involved and allowing his lawyers to do what he pays them to do. Like with all things legal it is a chess game especially when concerning civil suits and the truth is usually secondary.