“I, Jason Hommel, promise that I will give $100,000 to the first person who can prove to my satisfaction that Barrack Obama, acting as president of the United States, is a “natural born” citizen of the USA, which is a qualification to hold the office as indicated in the U.S. Constitution. ”

http://silverstockreport.com/2009/obama-reward.html

Spread the word…

“Per­haps Obama was con­vinced by his han­dlers that nobody would care about this nat­ural born cit­izen thing. Or, per­haps they con­vinced him that he could get away with it even if they did care.

What Obama may not know is that these same han­dlers might soon offer him up as a cheap sac­ri­fice in order to force a Con­sti­tu­tional crisis.”

The key concept here is ‘handlers’. In general discourse and public perception, most people — quite naturally — attune to the notion that the ‘US President’ is the Man in Charge. It is almost cognitively dissonant to think otherwise. And yet the implication behind the notion of ‘handlers’ is that in fact ‘Presidents’ are part of a larger ‘ruling elite managed’ system, process or paradigm. Furthermore, as is mentioned in another recent article about the Fed and BIS, the momentum right now is towards establishing a more officially sanctioned ‘global world order’ in which people like ‘US Presidents’ will be sort of like State Governors rank-wise, given that nation states in themselves will have increasingly less autonomy, much as US States today.

My personal concern with all this is simple: as populations increase in size, centralization of power is a natural and inevitable process. Fine. However, if history is any guide, the sort of people/groups/networks that thrive on running the show tend to create enormous conflicts, nearly always extremely bloody in nature. Why this is so is perhaps a deep or perhaps a very simple topic. Deep in that it might require delving into volumes of largely hidden history hard to discern through all the persiflage of layered centuries of propaganda from the approved narrators in the political, academic and religious institutional ‘elites’, simple in that perhaps all one needs to understand is that some types of people have certain basic motivational proclivities, i.e. those who aspire to be ‘Top Dogs’ tend to get into strategies and situations that promote conflict in which the goal is to end up on top by putting the adversaries on the bottom, the lowest form of bottom being a violent death.

So although on some level I regard the idea of a ‘new world order’ as a natural outgrowth of established population growth, technology shrinking distance and so forth, on the other I suspect that beyond a potential constitutional crisis — not to mention financial as well happening concurrently no doubt — that we are going to soon revisit the carnage that populations only 2–3 generations ago endured. Like ordinary Russians during the bankster-funded ‘Bolshevik’ revolution, like millions of Germans in Eastern Europe raped and eviscerated in their millions, like 20%+ of the Iraqi population recently being killed or displaced, and of course there are many more previous and recent examples of massive loss of life and/or major displacements of populations and established societal norms.

Because these guys/networks that strive for ‘control’ mainly do so by engendering violence and chaos. It seems almost like a scientific law that should be better analysed and defined somehow.

PS. You put out really good stuff!