Posted on 10/24/2008 7:54:01 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
Overview:
There are lawsuits being filed in multiple states. If Obama has nothing to hide, then his behavior is foolish both politically and cash-wise [legal fees] -- it would have been easy to end speculation by simply showing his birth certificate. Among the first to challenge his qualification to be president were the PUMAs. The most well reported lawsuit is by Berg, a Hillary supporter. One of the recent shockers is that Obama's Kenyan grandmother reportedly witnessed him born in Kenya. Another shocker is that Obama was, at least technically, Islamic while in Indonesia. There is also a flimsy paper trail regarding his visa and adoption in Indonesia. What documents were shown on the internet are discredited. And Factcheck.org is not a reliable source, having ties with Annenberg.
The political aspect: BO’s stonewalling makes the Birth Certificate Question alone reason enough for someone to conclude that voting for him would be irresponsible. As vigilant citizens, we are each required to vote Constitutionally. If we are not convinced that he qualifies Constitutionally, then we cannot vote for him. It’s an ‘honor thing’.
He will have one in a few hours....Soros isnt about to let a COLB stop him from seizing the US government when he is this close.
Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: all Have ties to Annenberg.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78954
Thank you for the link! I’m glad to hear that Savage is doing something helpful. =]
Thank you FV!
I agree - I don’t think it’s fringe.
I just don’t want people to get their hopes up.
Bottom line: something is seriously wrong with that document.
While others are trying to paint this topic as ‘fringe’, I’m simply pointing out that there’s nothing unreasonable in saying that it’s Obama’s job to convince voters that he qualifies. And it’s a matter of honor not to vote for someone who has failed to convince you he’s qualified. What’s fringe about being Constitutional?
I know. I don't think that is the issue. After all Walter Annenberg was a close friend of Ronald Reagan.
With these big sources of money, IMO it's not who you can link in some way to the foundation, it's the track record of the specific people who have the grant in question.
That’s as good a guess as any: Muhammed in the name.
“After all Walter Annenberg was a close friend of Ronald Reagan.”
Would Reagan have been a friend of Ayers? That’s not much of a point. Annenberg, just like many universities, is radicalized.
OH I know. I wasn’t picking on you so much as expressing my frustration of hoping for a silver bullet which I think hasn’t helped us. And, I, of course, could be wrong. But this sure looks dead end to me. But then again, I don’t have to litigate it. I can just sit back and watch. hehe
Effective leadership does not sit and wait until a problem explodes to do something about it. The effective leader will seek out such problems and deal with them at an early stage.
Witness John McCain's handling of his birth in the Canal Zone. He was sued about the matter, went to Congress, explained the situation, and Congress returned with a certification that he met the 'natural born' requirement specified in the Constitution. The lawsuit was then dismissed and the matter resolved definitively.
Now consider Barack Obama's handling of the situation. He ignored this problem at the outset (and the MSM willingly kept the matter quiet), and as it grew he kept ignoring it. He was sued about the matter (and the MSM willingly kept the suit quiet), and did not respond to the plaintiff's claims, except to request a dismissal. The fundamental problem was not dealt with, it was ignored. This is breaking into the public consciousness now (despite the MSM effort to suppress it) and may be a HUGE problem if he is actually elected. If he then produces a valid birth certificate, his game of rope-a-dope will be seen for what it is, a display of exceptionally bad judgement. If he does not produce a valid birth certificate, we have a situation that we have never had before, a man elected president that may not be eligible to be president. He is a lawyer; he is not stupid. He knows the implications and perhaps he hopes he can bluff his way through the matter. But that also shows a desire for power so great that all other considerations are set aside, a highly undesirable trait in a leader.
If that is his management style (roll the dice and see what comes up), it is a weakness of which foreign leaders will rightfully take advantage. That will lead to repeated crises in the international arena as everyone will take advantage of this perceived weakness to advance their own interests at the expense of the US and our allies.
All the big trusts were established by conservatives.
It’s the administrators that have seized effective control that are a little to the left of Karl Marx.
Is it going to take a full half hour of network primetime TV to explain it?
Ayers ended up on the board of the Annenberg challenge despite his radical past. In recent decades, he's become a respected university professor. Conservative Republicans, such as the President of Northwestern University also worked with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge. The "X is connected to Ayers therefore X is evil" ends up tarring a lot of descent people like Walter Annenberg unfairly.
The fact that this tenuous association is such a critical part of Berg's case makes it pretty suspect. If I recall correctly, a case on these grounds has already been thrown out in PA; Berg and his ilk are just spamming the courts with cases. I don't think the people filing these cases even expect to win, they just want to keep this rumor in the news cycle. It's pretty sleazy and I think there are real issues, such as Obama's spending increases that we should be focusing on.
The COLB was also verified by several newspapers. I believe the St. Petersburg Times was one.
Thanks. From a quick scan, this presents evidence, which the Obama campaign could seemingly rebut quite easily - yet they choose not to.
They must think, therefore, that there’s more benefit in keeping the document under wraps, even though the cost is this continued controversy.
Yes, I know the MSM isn’t covering it.
[The “X is connected to Ayers therefore X is evil” ends up tarring a lot of descent people like Walter Annenberg unfairly. The fact that this tenuous association is such a critical part of Berg’s case makes it pretty suspect.]
Nonsense. If Annenberg wasn’t a friend of Ayers, then his reputation is intact. Facts are facts. The fact is that factcheck.org should have recused itself. The fact that BO clings to factcheck.org makes HIM suspect. Why can’t he just show us the vault copy of his birth certificate and be done with this?
While others are trying to paint this topic as ‘fringe’, I’m simply pointing out that there’s nothing unreasonable in saying that it’s Obama’s job to convince voters that he qualifies. And it’s a matter of honor not to vote for someone who has failed to convince you he’s qualified. What’s fringe about being Constitutional?Everyone owns their own vote and can decide whom to vote for on whatever grounds they want. You can oppose Obama because you don't like his haircut.
Obama has met his Constitutional obligation by producing the COLB. This issue is intended to drive perception (and it's not working at all). It's fringe because it has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.