Obama's eligibility baggage just a coincidence?
September 17, 2009
By Marylou Barry
Recent revelations make it increasingly likely that the Democratic National Committee was aware of Barack Obama's eligibility problems before certifying his nomination for president. But has anyone considered that perhaps the choice of a compromised candidate for that office was not accidental but deliberate?
"In politics there are no accidents," Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said. "If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Sorry to sound conspiratorial, but like most voters I've never been invited into the proverbial "smoke-filled rooms" where nominations actually take place, so I can only speculate as to what occurs behind the scenes. With so much for so many depending on four years of American foreign policy, though, I sure have trouble believing nominations actually originate in the DNC or RNC. If they did, surely another smooth-spoken, left-leaning, Islam-supporting, black Democrat could have been found to sub for the eligibility-impaired community organizer from Chicago. This should have been the obvious path for the DNC – or whatever shadow entity it is that controls nominations of the two major parties. Why wasn't it?
To answer that question, I hearken back to a 2007 article by columnist, terrorism researcher and Vietnam War veteran Patrick Briley. Briley's article, entitled "Using Terrorists to Establish World Government," calls into question the actions of not just Democratic but also Republican higher-ups, including George W. Bush, in pandering to Islamic interests.
Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: "The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama's presidency constitutionally legitimate?"
Apparently, both Anglo globalist politicians and Muslim power brokers want world government and differ only as to which of their two groups should be at the top of the pecking order. In the symbiotic relationship that ensues, each side imagines it is using the other to achieve its goals. But in the final analysis, only one side will be able to prevail.
To put this into perspective, imagine a sophisticated, Western-educated hunter is in the woods hunting quail with an undisciplined, unruly and wildly salivating bird dog. Would he be wiser to go tearing at top speed through the brush and brambles to chase the bird down himself, or to let the dog retrieve the the prey and then simply take it away from the dog? Even with an animal he wouldn't want to turn his back on, unless the hunter is a complete idiot the answer is obvious.
In this illustration, the quail is the world's wealth. The bird dog represents the Muslim terrorists, who actually thrive on the blood and guts and physical risk involved in vanquishing the prey. And the cool, manipulative hunter is the New World Order architect, who has cleverly gotten the terrorists to do his dirty work for him.
As a typical civilized Western intellectual, the hunter just wants the quail. He is not only secretly disgusted by the bloodlust of the chase but is also concerned for his own eventual safety from the dog whose brutality he has just witnessed. Like the prostitute of Revelation 17, the dog will be allowed to remain only so long as its unfortunate services are needed, and then it will be penned up or eliminated like the half-mad, untrustworthy cur it really is.
So why would advocates of communism/world government within our nation want an unstable president in the White House? Because an incumbent with one foot on a banana peel is so much easier to control than one with both feet planted firmly on solid ground. If Obama turned out to be an Islamist at heart rather than the socialist the global kingmakers think he is – and I dare guess that even they are not 100 percent sure – no risky impeachment or bloody physical attack would be needed to remove him from power. All they'd have to do is stop suppressing the eligibility evidence; he'd be gone in a month and have no one to blame but himself. The Republicans would get to think they won one, the communists/globalists would come out shining for refusing to subvert justice, and President Joe Biden, who arguably harbors no such messianic delusions toward Islam, would be a lot easier to manage than his unruly predecessor.
In other words, what if the eligibility issue was not someone's oversight? What if the nominating entity actually wanted an unstable president who could be easily unseated if he ever decided to stray from the socialist agenda? Then they'd have found the best of both worlds in Barack Hussein Obama. With a little pandering to Islam, Middle East oil barons could be trained to think of him as a Muslim, while his eligibility impediment would remain as a clean, neat, legal and moral handle with which he could be yanked from power should he ever veer off globalist course toward the Ummah.
Sound far out? Yes, but isn't that what we would have said five years ago about socialized medicine, government takeover of major industries, plans for a private civilian army larger than our armed forces, admitted communists appointed to high office, and the election of a president with no birth certificate or past who promised us only an unspecified future?