I hesitated to post this one, but it is an interesting read.

Let’s go there: if Obama thinks he’s losing, will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6?  And if he does lose, will he peacefully turn over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013?  Or will he cling to power “by any means necessary,” as a highly placed insider alleges?

Now, I’m truly sorry to raise such disgusting, un-American, crazy-sounding questions, but, alas, they’re not crazy, and I’ve got a disquieting amount of evidence.  The Democrats have already accused Romney of murdering a woman with cancer, financial felonies, and not filing taxes for ten years — the last charge delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

By Democrat standards, I’ve got enough proof to put away Obama, et al. for life without parole.

Whatever chicanery Obama and his investors may be contemplating, it will probably unfold against some gargantuan crisis, manufactured or otherwise.  So cast your mind back to September 11, 2001, the day of the New York mayoral primary.

In the chaos after the attacks, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was term-limited from running, pleaded that his leadership was essential and that he should be granted an extra three months in office after his term ran out on January 1.  Giuliani’s unprecedented power-grab was rightfully scorned by his eventual successor, Michael Bloomberg.  So what did Bloomberg do when he ran into term limits?  He deployed his multi-billion-dollar fortune to manipulate the law and buy himself a quasi-legal third term, claiming that only he had the expertise to handle the 2008 financial crisis.

My point?  Politicians a great deal more conventional than Obama have loathed giving up power, and they have used crises and unethical machinations to try to keep it.

Now, let’s look at just some of the disturbing evidence that indicates that Obama and his investors are plotting something big:

Super-High-Level Trial Balloons

USA Today reported that on September 27, 2011, Governor Beverly Perdue, Democrat of North Carolina, told a Rotary Club audience, “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two yearsand just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover[.] … You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”  When outrage greeted her suggestion, she retreated to the standard defense: she was just joking.  What a kidder!

Meanwhile, that same month, Peter Orszag, Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget, published an article in The New Republic titled “Too Much of A Good Thing: Why We Need Less Democracy.”  In it, he posited that the country was too polarized; hence, “radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.”

Please note that these suggestions to suspend elections and radically reduce democratic control did not come from basement-dwelling bloggers.  They came from the governor of the very state in which the Democrats are holding their national convention and from one of Obama’s most prominent Cabinet members.  Their close timing suggests that these ideas were circulating at the highest levels of the Democrat power elite.

Active Partnership with America’s Foreign Enemies

Many spectacles have enlivened presidential elections over the years, but 2012 marks the first time that high-level military personnel have felt compelled to publicly tell the president to stop leaking national security secrets.

A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives created a 22-minute video, “Dishonorable Disclosures,” to shame Obama into shutting up about priceless intelligence related to bin Laden’s death, British-Saudi penetration of al-Qaeda, and the Israeli-American Stuxnet virus attack on Iran’s nuclear program.

Normally, presidents don’t want to endanger American citizens and military personnel by leaking top-secret information — but aiding and abetting the enemy is apparently all in a day’s work for Obama.

And so, if he wants to stir up trouble before the election, either at home or abroad, he’ll have plenty of enemy partners to help.  First, he’s got the Russians, to whose president he was caught whispering on a hot mic about missile defense, “This is my last election[.] … After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Second, Obama is this close to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are world-class experts on unleashing political violence.  Obama helped the Muslim Brotherhood ascend to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya, and he’s placed its operatives in the highest levels of the American government.  Surely, such clever characters as Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and Mohamed Elibiary, a Homeland Security Advisory committee member, can be trusted to think up some exciting turmoil to apply where needed.

And finally, close to home, Obama can rely on the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, whom he supplied with thousands of guns.  Gratefully, they used their American taxpayer-funded AK-47s to wipe out rival drug gangs and to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  Attorney General Eric Holder is presently in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents on Operation Fast and Furious, and Obama (“President Transparency”) has claimed executive privilege to withhold them.

Sending hordes of expensively armed drug gang members across our border should be a snap, now that Obama has crippled our Border Patrol.  Just think of all the headline-grabbing distractions these energetic young men can unleash!

Active Partnership with Domestic Criminal Groups

About these ads