Richard Pollock, staff writer for the Washington Examiner, spent four months investigating Obama’s past. The result was a 10-part article entitled “The Obama You Don’t Know.” Richard interviewed “dozens of [Obama’s] supporters and detractors in Chicago and elsewhere, and [studied] countless court transcripts, government reports and other official documents.”
In his introduction for Pollock’s article, Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner executive editor, wrote: “With his air of reasonableness and moderation, [Obama] has projected a remarkably likable persona. But beyond the spin and the polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer but rather a classic Chicago machine pol who thrives on rewarding himself and his friends with the spoils of public office, and who uses his position to punish his enemies.”
What is remarkable about Pollock’s 10-part series is that it does not contain anything truly earth-shattering. While his inquiry and research clearly expose Obama as, at best, a man whose entire past is an exaggeration and, at worst, an outright concoction of lies – apart from providing unimpeachable proof that Obama is a dirty, minimally skilled politician, it contains no bombshells.
Which begs an answer to the question: If this four-month-long, single-focused inquiry into Obama’s past was unable to unearth any truly shocking information, (even though there were things that could not be confirmed by second and/or third parties), why has Obama spent millions of dollars to have information about his past sealed? And why has he employed lawyers to keep things that way?
I’ve said it before and I say it again – the only reason a person hides things is because they have something to hide. So, what is it that Obama doesn’t want revealed and just how damaging would it be if it were made known?
The research and investigation for the article were conducted with impeccable fairness and from a remarkably non-biased approach. Did Pollock hope to find something that would be explosive? Of course he did. He is one of the finest journalists I know today, and unearthing explosive information is what investigative journalists do.
I know Erebusic liberals will spin the article as being proof that there’s nothing there. They will claim the article was a right-wing witch-hunt that amounted to nothing. They will claim it was an attempt by a right-wing newspaper to embarrass Obama and, as such, it is a further example of right-wing racism.
But their arguments will ring hollow to anyone with an IQ above that of a soup can. Obama himself has sealed and/or fought to prevent release of significant portions of his past.
Those things sealed include his record with the Illinois State Bar Association, his files from his career as an Illinois state senator, his law client list, and his adoption and baptism records.
Records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on return from Indonesia have not been found or released. His elementary school records, his private school financial aid records, have not been released – and while his Occidental College financial aid records were subpoenaed, his lawyers successfully had the subpoena quashed in court.
His Harvard Law School records have never been released nor have his passport and medical records. The marriage license between his father and mother has never been released nor found. And these are just a few of the many things his lawyers have been paid millions to keep hidden.
Here again, I know his legions will point to liberal websites that claim none of this is true, but their arguments to the contrary are as laughable as the arguments that claim dead people didn’t swing the election for John Kennedy.
“We understand that the idea of elutriating the airwaves of those [leftists] deem unfit is ‘dernier cri’ amongst the pantheon of liberals” but that makes the truth no less the truth. (See my column “Yes, Obama is a magic Negro,” May 8, 2007.)
Obama has been in the Oval Office for three and one-half years, and he is still a mystery. Romney (albeit stupidly) released additional tax records that were not necessary or legally required, because he had nothing to hide. Romney’s past is an open book, warts and all, just as George W. Bush’s was.
Why isn’t Obama’s, unless he has something to hide? Money and political influence can hide a multitude of sins. And regardless of what his ideological minions will argue, Obama is hiding something – we know it, he knows it, and those who won’t speak on the record know it.
Regardless what the polls indicate, it is my opinion that the aforementioned – combined with his smugness, lies, abuse of the public trust, disrespect for business owners and mismanagement of the office he holds – is convincing a quietly growing number of people that he is not good for America.