This is very important, please take the time to read it.


This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from for Obama." I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama's life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.


During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.



My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Neither I nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.



Do you know how much the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.



By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association.



About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's firm.



Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).



With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.



Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?



On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas," which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things."



Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?



And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith." When questioned, "he made a mistake." Some mistake!



All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this?

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the enemy from within!"

........and this does not mention ACORN in which he was involved, and its relationship to our financial crisis.

I am not an Obama fan, and have no idea if any of this true, but the Wikipedia, encyclopedia, can hardly be considered a reliable source.

X-22 wrote:I am not an Obama fan, and have no idea if any of this true, but the Wikipedia, encyclopedia, can hardly be considered a reliable source.

well none of this matters to me obama will win. i think it was in email, just wondering why
wikipedia encyclopedia, would not be a very good source. i would think it being googles source on all events in history it would be very factual .im just saying i would thing google would not use a source for their history that is not about as good as u could get as popular as google is. they would not jeperdize there reputation, but nothing i know is perfect true on every sentence, , i dont think all this came from there, like the slip he made about his muslim religion, on george s, show, as soon as he said it george, being in clintions administration quickly said u mean ur christian religion, so the article was not full disclosure on that item,and there was several othrer sources, but i would trust wikipedia over the ohters,

Read this and you see why wikipedia is not a good source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

[Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.

]

In other words anybody with internet access can write or edit a Wikipedia article.

I've always wondered how they manage to keep all the spammers off so well, I don't think I've ever seen any come to think of it, but I guess they have plenty of people monitoring it, but you would think some would slip thru every now and then, but I guess it happens but I don't go there often enough to catch any.

Anyway, good point X-22, and it's true anyone can edit Wikipedia, I'm just baffled they don't get more spam and people trashing the pages.

Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.

Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which, in principle, anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed (see Researching with Wikipedia for more details). However, unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is continually updated, with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within seconds, minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias.

ok ppl can add info but as it says,,,,, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.,,,,,,,,,, "so their editors are checking for needed corrections and as it said catches them withing seconds, minutes or hours and not months as in printed encyclopedias, one must just beware of new info just added as it is stated and not been removed by the editors that constanly monitor wikipedia." i just dont see a problem as edited material has editors that monitor it and has software to easily remove false items. but will admit new news items even though wikipedia seems to be on them fast one must take that info with a grain or salt, and check it later to see if it has been removed or changed in any way by the wikipedia editors..but i understand the issue, and will beware of it in the future,,nothing is fool proof, as news papers are biased. but most newspapers are known for the way they lean left or right..