As you know, I'm not one for stirring up wild things, nor do I make crazy accusations about candidates that I don't particularly care fore.
I do try to show what my thought process is, and I hope it helps my readers to start thinking for themselves instead of just following along with the stream of what the media says are the right ways to think.
I only bring this up so that you can see, as I head through this viewpoint, that my reasoning might be a little far fetched, but the possibility is there.
I usually don't talk about sudden deaths or anything that may be "of the moment," but it's not because I'm not interested. I'm just more inclined to listen to the whole story rather than just one part.
For me, the one part started some months ago with Mr. Andrew Breitbart (and I hope I spelled it right) and his claim that he had come across a series of bits of evidence that would put an end to Obama's reign.
And within a day of his announcing he was going to release it, he dropped dead outside his home.
In all honesty, at this time, I just felt it was unfortunate at the time. Let me repeat, unfortunate at the time.
The video is released despite Brietbart's death, and it showes, as we might expect, Mr. Obama paying deep respect and praise to a professor that has been, later, deemed as extremely prejudicial and radical.
Again, although it was a bit of a shock, it really wasn't a mind-blowing reveal. Obama has proven himself to be a radical many times over, so it was no big deal.
Yet a second death happens. A coroner who was working the autopsy of Brietbart ended up poisoned. Some said it was the job, but someone who has done this long enough should know better where to put things and to keep things put away. The weight of experience shouts strongly against that conclusion.
So if he was deliberately poisoned, why? If, as suspected, Brietbart died of something other than a natural heart attack, who else but an expert coroner in an autopsy would show it?
The witness for Brietbart's death disappeared, although he later reappeared, telling what he saw. He saw someone who wasn't suffering a heart attack, but someone who just dropped.
Which is where my line of possible thoughts leads me. I'm sure you're aware of the devices used to send a jolt of electricity into the heart. Some don't touch the heart and cause seizures, but others, like defibrillators, go straight in. Would it be that much of a stretch to use the same power that is used to get hearts restarted?
And, if something like that were used, would it be beneficial for someone who knew what they were looking at to stay there?
But going from believing it was just an unfortunate accident to suspecting murder? Yes.
To go straight to murder, you have to understand the reasons murder might happen. It goes from getting rid of a bad boss to getting out of a bad relationship to the one that matters here: Keeping a secret.
When Obama first ran for president in 2008, I, as well as many of you, heard the theories that he couldn't really run because he was not a natural-born citizen. At the time, I thought they were just wild ideas that some who were opposed to Obama thought up. I heard the ideas that he was born in Hawaii, and accepted them. I was ready to completely dismiss them.
But the idea just wouldn't go away. Even after some Hawaii facility produced his birth certificate, people kept going on.
And then the shoe dropped.
Only recently, a document produced in the 1960s came to light. A publicist of Mr. Obama listed him as being Kenyan Born, living in Indonesia and Hawaii.
This was put out by the Brietbart Institute, the same organization run by Mr. Brietbart before his death.
But this wasn't what I found the most interesting.
For me, the small things can produce the greatest amount. It was because of a single line in the book that I came to believe "The Phantom of the Opera" may have, indeed, been based on a real finding and a real story. When I'm in focus, it's the tiniest thing that can convince me if someone I'm listening to is a liar or not.
And it was, indeed, something small that made me believe that the whole thing was a cover-up that our President was not, in fact, eligible to even be a candidate. That one thing was the publicist's statement after his long-term publication came out. The comment was that it was a printing error.
How come he didn't notice this this in the initial publication? How come he didn't hear about the error after someone pointed it out to Obama? How come he didn't see it and fix it in all future publications?
Because that comment was a lie, it was one, used, to cover up the fact that it was blaring out the truth.
Now, these are just some of my own conclusions. I can't, of course, show you the threads that I use to think on, nor can I make you understand.
And it could be that I am entirely wrong. I will admit this every time.
I'm not saying Obama's foreign-born, nor am I trying to start any arguments of this, I am saying, though, that his birth certificate should be more carefully examined and any forgery tossed out.