Unlike most WorldNetDaily columnists, Marisa Martin at least begins her March 27 column with the warning that something crazy will follow: "Though based on actual events, portions of this column are dramatized to fit speculation."
Of course, what follows is much more heavy on speculation than it is on facts:
On May 1, 1958, a group of 32 Marxist sympathizers met in a Chicago hotel, planning the future disintegration of the American States. Organized by Soviet operatives, they were artists, writers, Hollywood producers, social theorists, professors, politicians and miscellaneous, hardcore Marxists.
Somehow they managed to evade the keen eye of CIA counterintelligence head James Angleton, who had been tracking members of the operation relentlessly, revealing moles and snagging spy networks like a spider in his web. He warned of Soviet disinformation and deception campaigns, which he believed reached into the U.S. government even then – but this one, far under the radar, went undetected.
Hours and many arguments later their plans ran aground as they concluded the U.S. military was too strong for any direct assault and the nation’s mindset was decidedly anti-communist. This would all have to change.
Hashing out a long-range plan decade by decade, they hoped to change public perception, weaken American resolve and install their man in the White House within 30 years. It took 50.
But the big prize kept ripening on the stem just out of reach for decades, an open, unapologetic communist in the White House. This required intense planning and a virtual convergence of factors in their favor: willing accomplices in media and Congress, voters equally ignorant of history and the Constitution and a flexible, change agent of their own creation.
9/11 opened the gates of destabilization and national soul-searching while several guerilla-Marxist art collectives saw their chance and rushed in. Quebec-based Deoconiste led the charge aided by the disarmingly named MASS-x, Angry Fishwives, Voxb#x and TuT-tUt.
Needing a blank canvas on which to cast their collective vision, they searched for a human Tabula Rosa, and many fingers pointed to Barrack Obama.
He was young and photogenic, a necessity for the massively visual Hollywood, blockbuster-style public relations campaign they planned. Neither black nor white, Obama could play the race card both ways and read a speech well.
The best part of Obama was his formlessness, the votes he never bothered to cast as an Illinois senator, the missing Selective Service and other records and the multiple personalities and pseudonyms he amassed by a young age.
Promoted through college by wealthy Saudi benefactors and the relentless, Chicago political machine, his tutors and benefactors Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn recognized Obama’s potential to spread Marxist power even then. You could do anything with a man like that.
The 2008 presidential campaign was a giant, ongoing, social experiment on America’s citizens. Could their perception and emotions be controlled using new media, mindless slogans and repetition? Would mass public disapproval and primitive psychological punishment, shame relatively conservative citizens into electing an unknown man primarily because of his color?
Hyped through Internet experts in social trust and deception, Obama’s empty phrases and patchy background were crafted into a solidly real man. The mass of citizens were tired of war and trouble and searching for a savior. Open ended “hope” and undefined “change” were filled in by individual minds who set aside rational thought and went with along with the highly entertaining program of the first design president.
Martin then spends the rest of her column defending her Obama derangement:
The assertions I make here are largely factual, but not all the details are. Consider it fictionalized history. Guerilla art collectives, some persons, dates and meetings are speculated details, while major action and background of the recent elections are historic fact.
Why create fictionalized scripts concerning Obama’s past when there is already so much damning evidence of his split loyalties? Won’t this just be assigned to the scrap pile of conspiracy theories already clogging the blogosphere? Yes, and that’s the point.
The very blankness of the man, his interchangeable histories, religions, names and identities, work against anyone who accuses him. It’s all a “conspiracy theory,” and who could prove otherwise? A thinking person of integrity and curiosity will attempt to fill in the gaping blanks and connect the dots, coming up with any number of speculations, which can all easily be denied.
Mindless masses aren’t the Obama administrations’ concern. The people who projected all their hopes for a better future on one human being have proved they are weak and easily manipulated by media hype and propaganda.
Ah, yes, the old WND lament that anyone who voted for Obama is either brainwashed or an idiot (or both). Or, as it's known in the real world, sour grapes.