The strategic sense, once second nature to Americans steeped in Christian prudence, had many advantages. Since Christ identified the adversary as the Father of Lies, lying was to be expected, particularly from those whose life’s ambition focuses on “the kingdoms of the world and their glory.” (Matthew 4:8) This expectation of deceit meant that Christian strategists could immediately go to work considering what is, from the strategic point of view, the more immediately important matter: What purpose or goal is served by the adversary’s lies?
Everything about Barack Obama, and the faction spawned by his political success, has been cut from a fabric of deceit. The account of his birth and early life, including the self-confessed work of fiction passed off as an autobiography, was a fabrication. He is a lawyer who “voluntarily” withdrew from the Illinois bar. Often described as a “moderate” when he campaigned in 2008, his education and early forays into politics were steeped in radical, Communist extremism. Even the claim that his political success somehow represents an historic breakthrough for black Americans is belied by the fact that he claims his black heritage from a father who was not American; and his American identity from an anti-American mother whose life choices made him more at home with Islam than with his father’s African nationality, or his mother’s biologically American heritage.
As a political movement, the Obama faction is thus focused on a figure whose political persona is a fabrication. Moreover, Obama has often stated his conviction that the U.S. Constitution is inadequate to deal with what he believes to be the goals and challenges of contemporary life. So when he swore the oath promising to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, he lied. Since the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power of the U.S. government in the person of the President, when the President’s oath is spurious, every element of the Executive Branch is tainted as well. Root and branch, the whole Obama Administration is the offspring of deceit.
I have been thinking about this as I ponder the various reactions to the lies deployed by Obama; his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton; and his UN Ambassador Susan Rice, with respect to the murderous attack against the United States at Benghazi. Why, I wonder, do so many people waste their time and energy indulging shocked, emotional reactions to the fact that Obama and his minions lied even when it tended to shield and excuse the despicable terrorists who assassinated an American Ambassador and several other American officials? Obama lies when he asserts the so-called “right” to abortion, and America’s posterity suffers death as a result. Obama lies when he asserts that his health care proposals don’t involve “death panels”, and Americans will prematurely suffer death as a result. Obama lies about gun control legislation that aims to disarm the law-abiding inhabitants of the United States, and the American people’s life in decent liberty may suffer death as a result.
Lies are the Obama faction’s routinely deployed weapons of mass destruction. So where the fatal Benghazi debacle is concerned, we should waste little time wrestling with the fact that this is so. Instead, we should thoroughly examine the nature of their lies in order to ascertain and think through the ultimate purpose they serve. Are they deployed to hide something; and/or to distract attention from something else?
If another government deliberately launches a murderous attack on those who represent the government of the United States, that attack is, on the face of it, an act of war. If some organized entity other than a state does so, the formalities are different, but the essential nature of the act is the same. By pretending that the deliberately murderous Benghazi attack was the spontaneous outcome of disorganized mob passion, Obama faction officials avoided the need to fix responsibility for the act of war, effectively shielding from harm the hostile entity or entities that launched the attack. They also effectively distracted Americans from the fact that war is being waged against them.
Almost since the first moment Obama occupied the Oval Office, the Obama faction has consistently sought to dispel the notion that a state of war exists between the United States and the governments and other entities responsible for the global infrastructure of terrorism, an infrastructure energized by a violent commitment to establishing Islamic global hegemony. Obama faction officials, and especially Obama himself, have been at pains to promote the idea that terrorist acts against Americans arise instead from a passionate reaction against America’s alleged history of global wrongdoing and unjust military and economic domination.
This was the nature of the willfully fabricated lie about the source and nature of the Benghazi attack. Is it just a coincidence that this corresponds with the party line, as it were, of the radical Communists Obama sought out as a student in his youth; and with whom he collaborated as a political activist until it became strategically imperative to lie about his ideological identity? If the lie is a weapon in their campaign to consolidate political power, what is the strategic import of the fact that it serves to hide and distract from terrorist threats that may be intended to destabilize and overthrow the government established by the Constitution of the United States (particularly in the context of the Benghazi episode’s possible connection with the Obama faction’s ongoing collaboration with anti-U.S. elements involved in Syria’s civil war?)
Given his proven ideological background, Obama’s infamously open ended slogan about change has always included the possibility that regime change is the main purpose of his faction’s political program. They are seeking to disarm the American people. They are seeking to purge the U.S. military of the Christian elements most likely to resist being deployed against the people they are supposed to defend. They are seeking to consolidate national control of state and local police forces, while persistently attempting to indoctrinate them to regard the lawful, normal political activism of American citizens as a threat. They seek to hide and distract attention from their faction’s collaboration with key elements of the global infrastructure of terrorism (including, in connection with Al-Qaeda, the very forces responsible for the 9-11 attacks in the U.S.) Against the wishes of the majority of Americans, they seek to impose policies that effectively open America’s borders to infiltration by terrorist cadre, now lying in wait for the order to attack Americans where they are most vulnerable.
Sen. John McCain cheerfully smiles upon Hilary Clinton despite the lies deployed at the behest of officials subject to her authority. Cong. Darrell Issa inscrutably declares that neither Obama nor Clinton are targets of the search for truth about the Obama Administration’s decision to leave an American Ambassador naked to our enemies. This contributes to a “business as usual” atmosphere in which it is supposed to be unthinkable to consider the possibility that the Ambassador’s fate is a portent of the fate intended for the American people and our way of life.
Meanwhile, is the Obama Administration preparing for massive “civil disorder” throughout the United States– just the kind of disorder that would be produced by a coordinated series of terrorist attacks against soft civilian targets in the U.S.? If those attacks are perpetrated by people who, at first glance, have no connection with the global infrastructure of Islamic terrorism, they could be portrayed as a spontaneous reaction to the hardship entailed by a suddenly deteriorating economy. In that scenario Americans would have no one to blame but each other. As the nation descends into a frenzy of mutual recrimination, anger and fear the forces of order, focused on Obama and his elitist faction cohorts (from both wings of the elitist faction’s sham party system) could rush forward to do, under martial law, what Obama claims the Constitution is inadequate to do: impose a new regime for government consistent with the proven exigencies of the times.
Seen against the backdrop of this synoptic view of the possibilities, lies we were told about the murderous attacks on Americans at Benghazi are all the more disturbing because of the strategic purpose those lies may have been deployed to advance. That strategic purpose encompasses a result that more than qualifies as a high crime and misdemeanor, within the meaning of the provisions that justify impeaching those responsible, and removing them from office. If a real opposition party were in fact controlling the U.S. House of Representatives, this would be their conscientious goal.