OBAMA LIED AND PEOPLE DIED - THE HOFSTRA DEBATE
Linkedin

OBAMA LIED AND PEOPLE DIED - THE HOFSTRA DEBATE

Washington : DC : USA | Oct 17, 2012 at 11:13 AM PDT
By
XX XX
Views: Pending
 

I will cover just two issues about Obama's "misstatements" and spinning of the truth during the Hofstra University debate:

1. ENERGY

2. BENGHAZIGATE

Barack Obama's career in venture capitalism has been abysmal because venture capital is a profession for which a thorough knowledge of management, administration and economics is a prerequisite.

I won't burn the ears of readers off with the number of alternative energy companies that, after Obama invested tens of billions of the taxpayer's wealth into, went belly up, the nation's wealth frivolously wasted and thrown figuratively down the chute.

We have General Motors that humorists on the dark side call Government Motors, the correct description.

When Joe Biden bragged: "GM is Alive and Osama bin Laden is Dead," the veep failed to disclose that according to the record, he alone resisted the taking out of the Islamofascist.

Or the sorry fact that 79% of vehicles GM sold was to the government. Obama's government.

Indeed, George Bush saved GM - correct - it was Bush, thank you, in 2008 before Obama was sworn in, and GM exists solely to produce poor quality vehicles for the only customer who would buy them in bulk: The US government on the back of the happless taxpayer.

THE PRICE OF DRIVING YOUR BICYCLES

Oil exploration on PUBLIC land is down 42% from Bush's years. Obama wanted to speak about permits, Romney about production on land controlled by the federal government. Obama withdrew leases from these companies because he didn't want to wait for the exploration and drilling process to complete and another agenda beginning with the name SOLYNDRA was in the works.

Exploration of leased land can take many years and Obama knew that, so on the pretext that it wasn't moving forward fast enough in 48 hours he withdrew the permits.

What creates lower gas prices at the pump is more production, not the reduction of production, which is what Obama achieved - and hence, our gas prices at the pump more than doubled under Obama.

Competition reduces prices - go into Best Buy and see what flat panel TVs cost today compared with what they cost years ago. There are commodities (any product, even real estate is a commodity) that resist supply and demand, but ultimately they are rare. And oil is not one of them. OPEC can set the price for oil that it exports. It cannot set the prices for oil taken from American or Canadian land. And it cannot set the price of natural gas, which plummetted from over $7/unit to under $2 just recently. And stayed there.


OBAMA DISCLOSED TERRORISM - OR DID HE?

What Obama said September 12th in the Rose Garden had no connection to Benghazi. The fact is, he talked about Benghazi, but not made the connection to terror as the instrument of the murders.

Notice the seguay from 9-11-2001 to general statements about terrorism and government officials in the foreign service to "No acts of terror will shake the resolve of this great nation, alter its character or eclipse the light of the values it stands for..." - THAT, is the statement Obama's assertion and Romney's denial hangs on.

Clearly, the president made no SPECIFIC connection to terrorism or terrorists regarding Benghazi. The speech was - for what it's worth - a lawyerly obfuscation possibly "hinting" at some vague connection from the event commemorating the murders. This may appear to be so to partisans mostly, and all in the eyes of the beholder after the facts of the coverup of the coverup that subsequently took place. These were stamped, sealed and delivered in place in the daily comments at newsconferences by Presidential spokesman Jay Carney who kept insisting that the obscure video was the cause of the murders; Hillary Clinton who publicly stated several times that an obscure video was the cause for the murders; and Susan Rice, ambassador to the UN who went on five different news shows following the attacks confirming the narrative that an obscure video resulted in the murder of four American foreign service officials.

And then the coupe de grace, from the Horse's Mouth himself, as President Obama in his speech at the United Nations reiterated six times the false narrative about an obscure video...a video that he clearly knew (as he had admitted last night in the debate) had nothing to do with the killings.

The president's admission that he knew that terrorism was the cause BECAUSE he gave a speech in the Rose Garden about it, is the key to understanding that his statements to the nation and the world for two weeks thereafter constituted a coverup - and the denial of the coverup was a coverup of the coverup!

On September 20 on the way to Miami on Air Force One, Jay Carney was asked by the media, "Did the president call this (Benghazi attack) a terrorist act?"

Eight days after the fact of the attack, Carney said "No."

In other words, the spin was in. The fix was in.

On the same day Obama gave a White House speech still referring to the spontaneous protests over the video.

There is NO WAY the president MEANT to refer to Benghazi as a terrorist incident in the Rose Garden where he MEANT to provide the impression that it was NOT a terrorist act. Or he did mean to refer to Benghazi as a terrorist incident, in which case he was lying to The American Peopleafterward?.

One can't have it both ways. One can however make the observation that this president was lying both times.

During the debate the president said that he referred to terror as the cause of the killings in his speech in the Rose Garden. During the debate he accused Romney of misleading the people about this matter. After the Rose Garden speech, the president and his collaborators kept denying that terrorism was the cause. There's the coverup.

The president's narrative has a purpose.

First, it suggests that terrorism is on its way out, it is passe, a law enforcement problem no longer on the table of foreign policy issues for a great nation that has other business to deal with. The narrative is meant to obscure the persistent and existential threat of terrorism, Islamofascism and the Islamic prerogative to infiltrate and invade the West for religious purposes and to destroy the west's way of life and belief systems because it is a threat to Islam.

It ignores the fact of terrorism as exemplified by Benghazi.

It is meant to reduce, dismember, and for all intents and purposes eliminate the military-industrial-intelligence infrastructure, reduce America's defense and national security apparatus, and diminish the projection of American power globally.

Why?

First, in accordance with socialist ideology, to "equalize" the power and wealth of nations and peoples.

Second, in accordance with Obama's anti-colonial sentiments, a product of his youth and political leanings, Obama's rejection of the notion of American Exceptionalism, Obama intends to draw down what may appear to others sharing his world view, to draw down American presence abroad.

Third, an most importantly in accordance with One, this time applied domestically, Obama intends to redirect ALL government resources away from the military, intelligence, defense and the national security combine to "redress" the injustice which is summed up in the lives and experiences of the American Exceptionals best modeled by Mitt Romney himself - a man who has pulled himself up by his own bootsraps to create large, successful and wealthy businesses, enriching the owners, investors and participants immensely. While Romney represents not wealth per se, he represents the model of success, innovation, competence and goodness...and most importantly as a model, a path to prosperity for most of the people.

Obama's followers demonize this American Exceptionalism because they need to have a fallback philosophy leaning on narratives of victimization, envy and resentlment, notions of injustice - even if these sentiments are based on falsity, dependency and social unfairness that is - so their narratives suggest - exploitative of the lower classes. It's class warfare. It all fits into the anti-colonial, anti-capitalist framework that is at the bottom line, unrealistic, denying to incorporate elements of man's nature, man's competititiveness, pay for work received, notions of value, reward, and expectations.

Obama's minion's are merely narratives, fairy tales and stories. Romney hates women, Romney hates students, Romney just wants to give to the supre wealthy and cheat the poor. Silly stuff for children.

1 of 1
September 12, 2012 - Reference to terrorism was to 9-11....2001, not 2012
agb100 is based in New York City, New York, United States of America, and is a Reporter on Allvoices.
Report Credibility
 
  • Clear
  • Share:
  • Share
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
 
 
 
Advertisement
 

More From Allvoices

Related People

Report Your News Got a similar story?
Add it to the network!

Or add related content to this report

Most Commented Reports



Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.

© Allvoices, Inc. 2008-2014. All rights reserved. Powered by PulsePoint.