How come Congress can’t call a spade a spade here and simply state that the REASON Obama, Hillary, Rice, etc., falsely promoted the video as the reason for the attack on Benghazi is to lessen the negative impact of the Benghazi attack on Obama’s 2012 re-election bid?
The Benghazi attack occurred just 8 weeks before the 2012 U.S. presidential election. With Team Obama’s narrative that “GM is alive and Al Qaeda is dead”, isn’t it CLEAR that the reason they lied and failed to label the attack as a “terrorist attack” is because they felt this would harm Obama’s chances of winning the 2012 election?
Has Obama EVER said “terrorist attack”, anyway? I don’t believe he has. He prefers to say “act of terror” because this term does NOT denote any type of individual, Muslim or otherwise whereas “terrorist attack” DOES. Obama will NEVER use a term which negatively portrays Muslims in any way.
Before the 2012 election we re-posted: Can It All ‘Really’ Be Coincidence? But I think this is a good time to re-post, update and re-read this piece… with a few enhancements, while we still have the opportunity to fight back… (although before the final certification of the election might have been better) for the coincidences just keep coming and before his second inauguration, Obama and team are moving full speed ahead in implementing their goals… continued spending, demonizing their opponents using the Cloward and Piven method and Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, gun control, and ruling by executive orders, just for a starter. (Much of which was outlined in the President’s final press conference of his first term) Please take some time to read this, especially if you missed it the first time around, or at least scan the links and related articles below as well. Ask Marion~
Can It All ‘Really’ Be Coincidence?
by Don Fredrick – the moral liberal
As I noted in the introduction to my book, The Obama Timeline: From his Birth in 1961 Through his First 100 Days in Office, a jury at a murder trial will often find the accumulated circumstantial evidence so overwhelming that a guilty verdict is obvious—even though there may be no witness to the crime. “The jurors in the Scott Peterson trial believed the collection of evidence more than they believed Scott Peterson. Among other things, the jury thought that being arrested with $15,000 in cash, recently-dyed hair, a newly-grown goatee, four cell phones, camping equipment, a map to a new girlfriend’s house, a gun, and his brother’s driver’s license certainly did not paint a picture of a grieving husband who had nothing to do with his pregnant wife’s disappearance and murder.”
It was predicted here repeatedly that if Obama won, it would be by voter fraud. No psychic ability was required; given the state of the economy and Obama’s abysmal job performance, there is no other way he could win. His only significant political experience before taking office was with ACORN, an outfit best known for engaging in voter fraud. In order to make sure Obama’s base engaged in it broadly, Eric Holder used his jihad against voter ID requirements to broadcast loudly well in advance that voter fraud would be easy and risk free.
Vote on Tuesday like your life, country and health depended on it…BECAUSE IT DOES!
Does anyone believe that when Barack Obama loses on November 6, he will go quietly?
This election is shaping up to be a landslide loss for the president, and by the ever-present look of desperation on his face, he knows it. The nation should be preparing for how he might react when it happens — there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered god.
Paradoxical Quote of The Day From Ben Stein:
“Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured… but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.”
Now add this, “Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens.”
Think about it when you vote in November !