Who is that?
It certainly is a challenging time for President Barack Obama. He is in a desperate fight to hold his ill-gotten office against a capable opponent, and there is nothing whatsoever in his record to which he can point as redeeming. Some of his criminal activities are coming to light outside the sphere of his direct influence in the form of a recent exposé on the Fast and Furious scandal aired by the Spanish-language television network Univision.
On the heels of this, another border agent was killed on Tuesday (while the administration will probably spin this as “workplace violence,” that’s not likely to stick). Two days ago, more condemning video surfaced, underscoring Obama’s radicalism and race-baiting tendencies.
Finally, Obama’s political opponents are loudly calling for a clear explanation with regard to events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
Even the liberal press has reported that the administration knew within 24 hours of its occurrence that the attack had been carried out by a terrorist cell. More recently, it became known that U.S. diplomats in Libya were repeatedly denied enhanced security precautions by the Obama administration prior to the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate.
All of which reveals the swill we have heard from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and their spokesmouths regarding the attack as utter lies. Yet the administration and certain news sources continue to carp about the Mideast uprisings having been the byproduct of an inane anti-Muslim film that no one has seen.
Widespread anti-US uprisings in the Muslim world (which Obama helped to foment) and Benghazigate are certainly embarrassments from a foreign policy standpoint, but there are other nuances attendant to the affair which might be examined, particularly in light of this President’s inclination toward political sleight-of-hand.
For example, the murder of Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, and two former Navy SEALs were tragedies that never should have occurred. It is also clear that the abysmal security provided by the State Department contributed in no small measure to these deaths. Obviously, this makes for further embarrassment, and could impact Obama’s re-electability.
But why would Stevens and his staff have been consigned to such a dangerous detail with horribly substandard protection, and repeatedly denied augmented security? In my view, this is the pertinent question, because it speaks far more to Obama’s duplicity and ruthlessness.
I contend that Obama’s laxity vis-à-vis intelligence briefings leading up to the 9/11 anniversary was intended to establish plausible deniability with regard to events that he knew were coming down the pipe. In short, I believe he was aware that mass uprisings were planned for the anniversary of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on America, and may have had a hand in orchestrating them.
Outrageous? It gets better…
More than a few news outlets have reported on the likelihood that Ambassador Stevens was homosexual. Most of the coverage questions the prudence of Obama having sent such an individual into a cultural setting that holds a marked antipathy toward homosexuals. Commentators and reporters (myself included) have discussed the possibility that Barack Obama is a closeted homosexual. This is, in fact, supposedly common knowledge in Chicago’s “gay community.”
On Tuesday, columnist and author Jerome Corsi reported on the claims of congregants from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (Obama’s former Church), who assert that embattled former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright provided matchmaking and “counseling” services for career-conscious gay black men at Trinity – including Barack Obama.
There’s also been widespread suspicion around the murders of homosexual men with whom Obama was acquainted and may have had relationships. In a column on Sept. 14, Chicago journalist Kevin Dujan (whom Corsi interviewed for an earlier piece on this subject) cited two Chicago area sources from diplomatic circles who claimed that Ambassador Stevens was homosexual as well.
So there’s a Chicago connection there. We also know that Obama lived more or less the bachelor’s life in Washington D.C. – where Stevens was also working – from 2005 to 2008, commuting between Chicago and D.C. while Michelle and the girls remained home. Would it be outside the realm of possibility to postulate that either there had been a relationship between the closeted gay Senator and the gay diplomat (who later wound up working for the former), or that said diplomat was simply more well-apprised of the Senator’s sexual proclivities than the rest of us?
Why, this line of reasoning would almost suggest that Obama, knowing of the imminent unrest in the Middle East, capitalized on this in order to carry out a hit on the intentionally ill-protected diplomat. Did Stevens know something that someone preferred he carry to his grave without disclosing? Did it involve embarrassing personal matters, or other chicanery performed in his official capacity?
For the sake of this exercise, I suppose it could have been both…
To the average network news viewer, unaware of the odious worldview and extreme treachery of which this party is capable, all of this will appear preposterous – as preposterous as Obama being a dedicated Marxist and Islamist sympathizer who wishes to punish America for its centuries of living off the backs of “the workers” and the little brown people of the world.
I’ll let the reader decide however, since it’s unlikely that these questions will ever see the light of the U.S. House or Senate chambers. Am I barking up the wrong tree – or might I have just accurately surmised under which cup the magician has really hidden the ball?