I can’t verify it, but there’s a story going around that King Obama uses a Social Security number that was issued in a state he’s never lived in, and that may have been issued previously to a dead person.
I’m not saying it’s true, but because Obama has not released any documentation or explanation why he appears to be using a Social Security number reserved for residents of Connecticut and that Homeland Security’s eVerify system reportedly flags as a probable fraud, it is therefore “impossible to know” if Obama is a felon.
“Impossible to know” is the standard the Obama campaign claims for the slander that Mitt Romney is a felon or a liar. It works like this: Because Romney hasn’t yet released or gotten on the evening news information that directly and obviously, even to the dim lights of the Democrats, disproves the lie that’s been made up about his control of Bain Capital, therefore it’s “impossible to know” if Romney’s a felon.
It’s a variation on the old “have you stopped beating your wife?” slur that journalists used to joke about.
There are a lot of issues orbiting about Obama and his administration that could and probably should be in line for the “impossible to know” treatment.
The obvious one is the birth certificate. It’s long been rumored that Obama was not born in the United States, which would make him not a “natural born citizen” as is required for the president under the Constitution. Obama stonewalled, his administration stonewalled, Democratic officials as far away as Hawaii stonewalled before the White House finally issued a “birth certificate” showing Obama was born in Hawaii — a document for which there is a mountain of evidence of forgery.
So because Obama hasn’t produced any information about why such a document would have been Photoshopped, as it obviously was, and he hasn’t explained why he resisted releasing said document for so long, therefore, it’s “impossible to know” if he is a felon or a liar who may have engaged in fraud.
Obama gets a lot of campaign funding from foreign sources. He hasn’t revealed who his donors are or where they get their money, but there’s a rumor that illegal amounts of his funding come from the Saudi royal family and are laundered by its functionaries. Could Obama have engaged in campaign funding crimes?
Well, because he won’t reveal all information about his overseas donors … it’s “impossible to know.”
One of Obama’s biggest supporters is George Soros, a multibillionaire who admits that he likes to crash economies and manipulate markets with his tremendous wealth in efforts to bring about radical leftist social changes that he wants. Soros’ first job as a youth was working for the Nazis’ Judenrat in World War II, helping to confiscate property from Jewish families who were marked for the death camps. When asked on “60 Minutes” if he regretted his participation, Soros flat out said no:
There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.
Now I would never say this is definitely true, because I can’t prove it. But I feel compelled to pose a question. Considering the support Obama’s gotten from Soros directly, and through Soros subsidiaries like Media Matters and MoveOn, could the president actually be conspiring with an unrepentant, sociopathic Nazi to bring our economy to its knees and remodel it to more closely resemble a fascist state, a Fourth Reich? Don’t cry, libs. It’s only a question. But since Obama hasn’t addressed it, I guess it’s “impossible to know.” …
You see how it works?
There are plenty of other questions about Obama that fit the template nicely. In fact, there are so many, that I think the phrase “impossible to know” should just be expressed by the shorthand, ITK.
For instance, that executive privilege assertion in the Fast and Furious investigation. Could the president be covering up a homicide for his attorney general? … ITK.
There’s a rumor that Obama asked the Saudis to lower gas prices before the election, and they are now falling rather than hitting the $5 mark that had been threatened earlier in the year. Could the president be colluding in market manipulation? … ITK.
There are reports that substantial amounts of stimulus money meant for job creation actually ended up the wallets of Obama supporters, particularly union officials who helped provide boots on the ground during the first campaign. Could Obama have used taxpayer money for political payback? … ITK.
And on it goes. Just about everything this administration has done can be construed by someone as shady, suspicious or clearly dishonest. And there are dark corners of Obama’s past that might not bear much scrutiny — possible skeletons in certain church closets, should we say?
The point of all this is double: 1) America deserves better than vulgar innuendo in the presidential race; and 2) Obama and all the Democrats pushing the Romney lies need to recall the adage about glass houses.
If Obama doesn’t like it, he can go whine to Putin, as Rahm Emanuel said of Romney.