Obama's hidden past

Randy Fardal
IBD is questioning Mr. Obama's mysterious hidden past. 

It takes the form of the very first article I wrote for AT in 2008: Spotting the Camouflaged Candidate.  In it, I posed the questions, what aren't we seeing from Mr. Obama, and why not?

The Beltway elite mock critics who say the president's hiding his radical past from voters. They say there's nothing there, move along. But if there's nothing to hide, why is so much hidden?

And if the White House isn't worried about the public seeing another side of President Obama, why is it trying to reinforce the image of him as a post-racial, pro-American moderate with a slick new Hollywood-produced 17-minute documentary?

The answer, of course, is that it is very much concerned.

Since then, many others have gone on the offensive, emphasizing issues such as the latest version of the presidential birth certificate, which appears to have been modified using Adobe Illustrator.  But Big Media journalists easily dismiss those people as "conspiracy kooks".  Frankly, some of those on offense are conspiracy kooks, and that taints other Obama opponents.

A better way to bring down the Obama regime is to put him on defense.  For instance, ask the president why he spent millions of dollars on lawyers and litigation to suppress his birth certificate if, as he claims, there was nothing worth suppressing.  He can't say that he didn't spend that much time and money, so putting him on defense forces him to answer the question -- or dig himself into an even deeper hole with yet another Nixonian cover-up.

And if the president refuses to respond, conservative journalists should make sure that every voter in America is asking himself these questions by Election Day. 

IBD is questioning Mr. Obama's mysterious hidden past. 

It takes the form of the very first article I wrote for AT in 2008: Spotting the Camouflaged Candidate.  In it, I posed the questions, what aren't we seeing from Mr. Obama, and why not?

The Beltway elite mock critics who say the president's hiding his radical past from voters. They say there's nothing there, move along. But if there's nothing to hide, why is so much hidden?

And if the White House isn't worried about the public seeing another side of President Obama, why is it trying to reinforce the image of him as a post-racial, pro-American moderate with a slick new Hollywood-produced 17-minute documentary?

The answer, of course, is that it is very much concerned.

Since then, many others have gone on the offensive, emphasizing issues such as the latest version of the presidential birth certificate, which appears to have been modified using Adobe Illustrator.  But Big Media journalists easily dismiss those people as "conspiracy kooks".  Frankly, some of those on offense are conspiracy kooks, and that taints other Obama opponents.

A better way to bring down the Obama regime is to put him on defense.  For instance, ask the president why he spent millions of dollars on lawyers and litigation to suppress his birth certificate if, as he claims, there was nothing worth suppressing.  He can't say that he didn't spend that much time and money, so putting him on defense forces him to answer the question -- or dig himself into an even deeper hole with yet another Nixonian cover-up.

And if the president refuses to respond, conservative journalists should make sure that every voter in America is asking himself these questions by Election Day.