Barack Hussein Obama Unmasked

Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927

Paid electioneering communication paid for by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927

Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927
No candidate approved this ad.

Beneath the mask of "Hope" and "Change" Barack Hussein Obama is a totally different character. His Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde rolls are in conflict with the truth and what is good for America, as well as the US Constitution.

When in public, "Dr. Jekyll Obama" says that it is good and right for America that we do something to change things. We have to have hope and we need to help each other with that change. He seems to want everything good for everyone.

When in private, the "Mr. Hyde Obama" is wanting change, too, not just change in the way your wallet feels, as his "Dr. Jekyll" portion would have you believe, but also in how your wallet gets changed. He thinks it's best for you to have the government take away from your neighbor and give to you. Although that particular idea can work against you as much as for you, that is not the way it is portrayed by "Mr. Hyde Obama". If you make only $42,000 per year, you may be able to get the government to take from your neighbor on the right who makes $125,000, to give more to you. However, if your neighbor on the left works hard and only makes $23,000 per year, then it is your duty and your responsibility according to the "Mr. Hyde Obama", to give some of your money to your neighbor on the left.

Does that sound fair to you now? Or does it sound fair only when you are on the receiving end of the equation? Or maybe you're the one making $23,000 and you'd be receiving from both neighbors (the one making $125,000 as well as the one making $42,000). That sounds great to you. But what about the person who doesn't even make $23,000 per year? Shouldn't he or she then have the expectation to be able to receive from you? What part of your $23,000 do you want your neighbor to be able to take from you? How about the welfare mother who makes nothing because she has three babies under five years old and says she can't work because she has to stay home with her babies? How much of your $23,000 do you have to give her, in "Mr. Hyde Obama's" plan? And do you want to have to give up that much of your meager pay check in order to be able to appease those who are "less fortunate" than you? Or do you want to keep your pay check in your own pocket? Which are you: Dr. Jekyll, or Mr. Hyde?

And that doesn't account for the money "Mr. Hyde Obama" wants to take from you and give to the people of the world! How much are you willing to give to the poor people in, say, China, Uzbekistan, New Guinnea, Bhutan, Kyrgyzstan, Taiwan, or Yemen? "Mr. Hyde Obama" wants you to have to give to the poor of all of those countries and to the poor in every country of the world. Is that what you want? You want to be forced to give to the poor of the nations of the world? How much should you be forced to give? How much should the government, "Mr. Hyde Obama" be allowed to take out of your wallet to help those less fortunate than you who live halfway around the world? And what of the responsibilities of their neighbors? Should their paychecks be taken and given out as well? Does "Mr. Hyde Obama's" plans put rules onto them in order to help the poor of the United States? No? Then where is the fairness in that idea? Where are the rights of the American people? Where is your right to your own hard earned money? "Mr. Hyde Obama" would not give you a say: it would happen. Period.

The "Mr. Hyde Obama" wants to decide anew what rights you have. He doesn't think the US Constitution is a good thing. "I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws", "Mr. Hyde Obama" said. He will be sworn in with this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"Mr. Hyde Obama" will be sworn in to "preserve, protect and defend" the US Constitution, but, according to his own words, he thinks it's "imperfect" and has "some deep flaws". How does anyone "preserve, protect and defend" a document you personally believe to be so much in error?

So what rights will you have under a "Mr. Hyde Obama" presidency? What rights will you, as a citizen of the United States of America, be guaranteed under the kind of US Constitution the "Mr. Hyde Obama" would want you to have? Does Joe the Plumber's experience tell you anything? After Joe the Plumber questioned "Dr. Jekyll Obama" about his tax plans, Joe the Plumber became the target of investigations into his past, his taxes, his driver's license, everything and anything they could find on him was open fodder for trying to discredit him so that the "Mr. Hyde Obama's" plans would go unveiled. These techniques were used against Joe the Plumber in order to shut him up. They were used in order to take away Joe the Plumber's First Amendment Right: Free Speech.

Is that the kind of President you want? One who will go through your personal files (didn't we see that with the Clintons?) and find things on you that would be used against you to shut up dissention? Is that what you want? Or do you just need more convincing?

Okay. Try this.

What will happen to your Second Amendment Rights if "Dr. Jekyll Obama" gets elected? You have, according to the US Constitution, the right to "keep and bear arms". That's arms as in guns. What does "Dr. Jekyll Obama" have to say about your right to "keep and bear arms"; your US Constitution given right?

Your right to "keep and bear arms" according to the US Constitution is, according to "Dr. Jekyll Obama" something to stand up for. Not so according to "Mr. Hyde Obama". See any differences in those two web pages? See any changes in his attitudes and stands? See any difference in what he preaches? See anything on either page that differs one from the other? If so, which is the true Obama?

On another note, Barack Hussein Obama's published accounts of his childhood says that he was in a Muslim school in Indonesia for two years as a child between the ages of six and eight, I believe. He says that after that, he was put into a Catholic school in Indonesia. Then he was sent back to the United States and raised in Hawaii by his grandparents. He states that he is a Christian. His supporters believe him. Is this the "Dr. Jekyll Obama" or the "Mr. Hyde Obama"?

When giving a speech to the Call to Renewal Conference "Dr. Jekyll Obama" said,

ďWhich passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that itís doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, letís read our bibles. Folks havenít been reading their bibles.Ē
The problem is that those passages do not come from the Bible! Leviticus is the book of laws: how to sanctify something, what the priests should wear and how to perform a sacrifice to the Lord. Suggesting that slavery is okay is not in there, but shellfish is. Also found in Leviticus, is the purpose of the dietary laws in Leviticus 11:41-47. As to the Sermon on the Mount, it is Christ speaking and I think that the words of Christ are much more reliable than the words of "Mr. Hyde Obama".

I find the portion about Deuteronomy especially disturbing. Why would he say that? Why would "Dr. Jekyll Obama" choose that particular scripture? The truth of the matter is revealed by a video that tells where "Mr. Hyde Obama" got his ideas. In the Quran, in Surah 18:74 through 18:81, it states,

"81:74 Then they proceeded: until, when they met a young man, he slew him. Moses said: "Hast thou slain an innocent person who had slain none? Truly a foul (unheard of) thing hast thou done!

"18:75 He answered: "Did I not tell thee that thou canst have no patience with me?

"18:76 (Moses) said: "If ever I ask thee about anything after this, keep me not in thy company: then wouldst thou have received (full) excuse from my side.

"18:77 Then they proceeded: until, when they came to the inhabitants of a town, they asked them for food, but they refused them hospitality. They found there a wall on the point of falling down, but he set it up straight. (Moses) said: "If thou hadst wished, surely thou couldst have exacted some recompense for it!

"18:78 He answered: "This is the parting between me and thee: now will I tell thee the interpretation of (those things) over which thou wast unable to hold patience.

"18:79 As for the boat, it belonged to certain men in dire want: they plied on the water: I but wished to render it unserviceable, for there was after them a certain king who seized on every boat by force.

"18:80 As for the youth, his parents were people of Faith, and we feared that he would grieve them by obstinate rebellion and ingratitude (to Allah and man).

"18:81 So we desired that their Lord would give them in exchange (a son) better in purity (of conduct) and closer in affection."
Was this what "Mr. Hyde Obama" was referring to? My question: if "Dr. Jekyll Obama" is not a Muslim, how can he misconstrue the Bible so fiercely that he uses ideas from the Quran? If Obama doesn't study the Quran, if he has been a Christian for all this time, then how can he remember lessons and ideas from when he was a child less than ten years old? He returned to the US when he was ten. He doesn't admit to studying the Quran after that. He says he is a Christian and has been under the tutelage of the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright for twenty years. "Dr. Jekyll Obama" even named his first book after an idea he received from "Rev." Wright.

So being a Christian for twenty years, not studying the Quran for all that time, and not studying it while you're a teen or young Harvard student, how do you remember all that Quran stuff? How do the teachings of the Quran get mixed up with the teachings of the Bible if you haven't been reading the Quran?

Can a person study both? Absolutely. I have two Qurans and part of the Hadith. I also have three Book of Mormons, two Catechisms of the Catholic Church, a Torah, a Tanach, a Siddur, parts of the Talmud, a Mormon Triplet (the book of Mormon, The Doctrines and Covenenants, and the Pearl of Great Price all in one book), twenty-three Bibles (including a Jehovah's Witness version), and several other resources. But I never confuse them. I never use a quote from one as a quote from the other; especially not in a prepared speech! In order to have used that particular combination, "Mr. Hyde Obama" would have had to have put it down that way, written it that way, done that on purpose. Why?

The only answer I can come up with is to get that laugh line. To mock the Bible and to make it something to laugh at. Do Christians do that? Does anyone who really believes in the Bible and its teachings make the Bible -- and by extension the God of the Bible -- a punch line?

My answer is, "No. Absolutely not." When I see "Mr. Hyde Obama" mock my Bible, and by extension my God, I do not, cannot and will not believe that "Mr. Hyde Obama" is a Christian. No true Christian would mock God. After all, that's a very dangerous thing to do: Galations 6:7 says,

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
and I think that pertains to "Mr. Hyde Obama" as well as the rest of the world.

Add to this the fact that "Mr. Hyde Obama" used the idea that there are Christians in Pennsylvania who "cling to their guns or religion". Would a Christian have said that: we "cling to"? Are Christians "bitter" small town Americans who "cling to their guns or religion"? If you are a Christian, would you have said that?

Add to that the fact that he sat under the tutelage of the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and never heard him say that hateful stuff that is everywhere! He never heard him after twenty years' worth of sitting in Wright's church. "Mr. Hyde Obama" never knew that the "Reverend" felt the way he does, preached the things he preaches, or anything else negative about the "Reverend". They had supper together. The "Reverend" officiated at "Mr. Hyde Obama's" wedding to Michelle, baptised both of "Mr. Hyde Obama's" daughters and "Mr. Hyde Obama" himself! How are we supposed to believe that "Mr. Hyde Obama" never heard all of that rott? How are we supposed to believe that for twenty years "Mr. Hyde Obama" sat in that church and didn't support what was being preached? If you went to a church for twenty years, wouldn't it be a church that supports and preaches what you believe in? Would you expect to be thought of as a believer in the teachings of a Baptist church if you went to it for twenty years? Or would you be espousing the idea that you're really, say, a Hindu?

The last time I read the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers, I see God mentioned in a humble, sovereign way. In the Magna Carta, God is mentioned as being the decider of leadership, among other things:

[Preamble] "Edward by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine sends greetings to all to whom the present letters come. We have inspected the great charter of the lord Henry, late King of England, our father, concerning the liberties of England in these words:

"Henry by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and count of Anjou sends greetings to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, sheriffs, reeves, ministers and all his bailiffs and faithful men inspecting the present charter. Know that we, at the prompting of God and for the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors and successors, for the glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our good will have given and granted to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons and all of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our realm of England in perpetuity.

"[1] In the first place we grant to God and confirm by this our present charter for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and its liberties entirely. We furthermore grant and give to all the freemen of our realm for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity the liberties written below to have and to hold to them and their heirs from us and our heirs in perpetuity."

In the Declaration of Independence, we see:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
And in the Federalist Papers (#2), we read,
"It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

How can "Mr. Hyde Obama" -- a Constitutional attorney -- not get the idea, after all those Harvard courses that America was founded as a Christian country? How can he say that those who live in America and believe in the God who created us and who was credited with founding America are "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion"?

It is my assertion that "Mr. Hyde Obama" is exactly that: "Mr. Hyde" Obama (and, no, I am not speaking of just his address!). Barack Hussein Obama no more wants us to see that side of him than he wants us to talk about his unmentionables. When you look at the truth of what this person does, remember, actions speak louder than words. It is my belief that you can tell the quality of a man by the quality of his friends. When you look at that, and the rest of the truths that have to be dug out of the unreported facts of the candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, then you find that the truth is worth knowing and that the truth does not compliment this man enough to warrant him being elected President of the United States of America.

Another thing: When was the last time you heard of a presidential candidate, any conservative candidate saying bad things about his own country on foreign soil while running for President or denouncing his country's constitution? Barack Hussein Obama has done both. How about denouncing our country's allies and standing with the enemies of our allies?

My last question: Is this man, this "Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde Obama" someone you can trust, after all that was hidden and is now being revealed, someone you can trust with the future of our country: the future of the country where your children and grandchildren will probably live?

Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927

Paid electioneering communication paid for by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927

Home; Tribute; Videos; Government Links; Barack Hussein Obama's "Unmentionables"; PSJ Info; Religion; Services; Politics; Amy Tidd Rebuttal Pages; My Links; My Blog; Page Deux; Storage; Definition of True Conservative

Remember: Anyone who does not give you a wake-up call when they see you being stupid, self-destructive, or both, just plain doesn't care about you. It's those of us who do wake you up who care.

This website created by, maintained by and copyright 2008 by Linda McKinney; because Freedom isn't Free, but speech supposedly is!
Do NOT copy without prior written permission from the author.