Posted on 09/12/2008 1:46:04 AM PDT by markomalley
Back in the 1950s, when televisions with picture tubes and huge consoles with small screens were the norm, there was a popular show called "To Tell the Truth." The premise was four panelists would question three contestants, and at the end of the questioning the host would say, "Will the real (fill-in-blank) please stand up." Sometimes the panelists were completely stumped (Rosa Parks pulled that off in 1975) and sometimes they weren't. Much, of course, depended on what each panelist looked for in search of clues. "Are you famous or well known?" was a frequent question. "For what?" was a logical follow-up. Can Barack Obama "tell the truth?" If he has the answer, will he reveal himself to America?
There seemingly are three Barack Hussein Obamas. Barack II lived unknown to America and himself, largely, until the mid-1990s — when he finished (inhaling and) exhaling his life's story in "Dreams From My Father." He then jumped into politics.
(snip)
His wasn't a fairy tale. It was a story about how a Kenyan met an American white woman while in college, married, and had a son whom they named Barack Hussein Obama II. The briefest version of his biography is that Barack II was reared by his mom and her family, graduated from Columbia and Harvard, became an Illinois state lawmaker, and in 2003 announced that he wanted to become a member of the Club of 100. Barack II introduced himself to America in 2004 and in January 2005 became a U.S. senator. Now, three years and eight months later, there is a possibility Barack II will become president of the United States.
That's an incredible story. Only in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
About half of America doesn't want to see the real Barack Hussein Obama II...
Was Arnie Schwarzenegger asking "Can a naturalized become president?" for himself or for Obama. The Kennedy's are deeply entrenched in the Obama campaign. And, they have the means ... and possibly had the will to give someone a false identity...
Obama's background just doesn't add up for me after reading the accounts of his life. He seems to have materialized out of nowhere... and apparently there are missing years from Columbia University and Harvard University to account. And, there's still the fundamental birth certificate question.
Other questions include his associates and their behaviors:
e.g. Why did Farrakan (Islam) and Wright (Christian?) visit Qaddafi twice?
Why does Islam and Wright's supposed church share the same values --> anti-American, anti-White, anti-semitic, etc.?
Why is Obama friends with these men if he's suppose to be a Christian? Why does he share these values?
Why was Obama involved with the slumlord, Rezko? (Millions are unaccounted for from the affordable housing projects Rezko produced. The work was substandard. Low income folks in Chicago who lived in these buildings had no heat.) And, Obama was not only the lawyer who handled Rezko's business from time to time but as State Legislature, he wrote letters of recommendation for Rezko to get this money. (All questions result from my reading Obama Nation )
Obama is a front man, a Manchurian candidate, for a corrupt and criminal political machine (Chicago and Democrat) that can’t quite get away with what it used to. Look at his associations for the last 25 years—he knows who he is involved with but he has kept his hands seemingly clean, mostly by hiding information about himself.
Read about Khalid al Mansour. Also, lots of stuff on Youtube about him.
P.U.M.A’S for McCain Palin
http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/obama-covers-his-tracks/
He won’t allow his transcript from his undergraduate days at Columbia University to be released.
He “lost” his thesis on Soviet nuclear policy (see “Where in the World is Obama’s Missing Thesis“ which might provide insight regarding his seeming lack of knowledge about Soviet policy during the Kennedy years).
He won’t answer questions about his days at Harvard Law School.
He “lost” his Illinois Senate records.
He will only release a simple one-page letter from his doctor on his medical condition.
He won’t release his application to the state bar, which, as National Review’s Jim Geraghty notes raises questions about whether he told the truth about parking tickets and drug use, among other issues.
He won’t disclose list of his clients from his law firm days or the nature of the work he did for them as a lawyer (his clients include the indicted political fixer Tony Rezko).
He walks away from uncomfortable questions about Rezko at a news conference.
His cultists try to shut down inquiry into his stewardship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge by sliming a journalist investigating his days at the helm of that group, which blew through $100 million dollars with no discernible benefit for the schools and students that it was putatively designed to help (what does the constitutional law lecturer say to the chilling of free speech by his acolytes?).
He tries to muddle his long-standing ties with Pastor Wright by producing a version of his attendance record at Trinity Church that is sharply at variance with previous versions he has given (”Obama Re-invents his Trinity Church History“).
The Wall Street Journal joins the battle over Obama’s past in today’s editorial (”Obama’s Lost Years“):
more...(it’s always a good idea to see what the other side is saying.)
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.
