The Obama - Clinton Video Lie On Benghazi

Hat Tip Judicial Watch and Breitbart

President Obama and Hillary Clinton likely made the decision to falsely tie an inflammatory anti-Islam Internet video to the fatal Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya, the chief of the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch (JW) told Breitbart News.

The president and then-Secretary of State Clinton sought the assistance from domestic and foreign jihadists in spreading the online video lie, added JW President Tom Fitton.

Breitbart News spoke to Fitton about newly released Benghazi attack-related documents pried out of the U.S. State Department under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by JW last September.

One of the document shows that the Pentagon received a request for military assets in response to the attack, but the Obama administration seemingly refused.

An email from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to top White House and other administration officials states, “OSD has received queries asking if military assets are being sent to either location [Libya and Egypt].  Have responded ‘not to our knowledge.’”

The Obama administration’s initial response explaining the cause of the attack was “immediately determined by top Obama White House officials” contrary to the president’s claim that it was based on intelligence available at the time.

Obama officials and the president himself linked an anti-Islam Internet video to the attack, saying it incited the terrorists who carried out the assault.

The president said the video link was gleaned from the “best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided.”

However, Fitton told Breitbart News, “We haven’t found any records or any intelligence that the video had anything to do with the Benghazi attacks.”

“What you have is nothing other than Mrs. Clinton’s statement referencing a video, the White House approving it before it was released and then blessing it, saying, ‘this is our response,'” he added.

Fitton noted that President Obama spoke to Clinton during the night of the attack.

“I think you can fairly conclude that it was during that phone call that they decided to push the video lie,” he told Breitbart News.

“They started soliciting Islamists to promote the video lie — some of the Islamists responded by saying, ‘the video is terrible, the attacks are justified, we should outlaw all criticism of Islam.’ Thank you Obama! This is what we get as a result of your engagement,” he added.

The Obama administration refuses to divulge the contents of the phone conversation.

“There’s a document that tells us what was said between Obama and Clinton during the night of the attack,” said the JW chief. “There’s nothing prohibiting its release, it’s purely discretionary.”

The Clinton-led State Department deferred to the White House on the official response to the attack, according to an e-mail sent by a department spokesperson to the aide of a top State Department official and Clinton’s personal aide the day of the tragedy.

A separate e-mail sent out later that day confirms that the White House decided to go with Clinton’s statement tying the Benghazi terrorist attack to the Internet video as the accepted overall government response for the night.

The “[U.S. government] comment” ended up being “Clinton’s notorious public statement, made hours after the initial terrorist attack, falsely suggesting that the Benghazi assault was a ‘response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” notes JW in a press release.

Obama administration officials stuck to that narrative until it was debunked. JW obtained documents in April 2014 revealing the president’s public relations team intentionally portrayed the Benghazi attack being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”

Last month, JW released documents showing that the Obama administration was made aware that al-Qaeda was behind the attack immediately after it occurred.

“The new documents show that the Obama administration engaged domestic and foreign Islamist groups and foreign nationals to push the Internet video narrative,” reports JW. “The day after the attack, Rashad Hussain, the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), sent an email to Ambassador Ufuk Gokcen, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations, and Cenk Uraz, an official with the OIC, pushing the video as the cause of the Benghazi attack.”

Hussain played a role in pushing the rhetoric that the video incited the terrorists attack and in fuelling efforts to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Another document detailed “how the Obama administration reached out to domestic groups, foreign groups and governments in a full-court press to tie the video to the Benghazi attack,” reports JW.

U.S. Amb. J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in the attack.

Pelosi Crazy?

Is Pelosi craz?  Aren't all liberals?

Chucky Schmucky Emerging As Part Of Benghazi Scandal

Hat tip the Examiner

In a surprise disclosure today that is sure to impact the scope and direction of the upcoming select committee's investigation into theBenghazi massacre, investigators say that U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. has emerged as a key player in the scandal. So far after a year and a half since the massacre took place, Schumer's name has never been connected to any of the events on the night a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were slaughtered by Islamist terrorists at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

But investigators now have poured over the White House visitors' log and discovered that Sen. Schumer signed into the White House on the night of the Benghazi attacks. Schumer logged into the White House at 5:30 p.m. on the evening of Sept. 11, 2012 and logged out at 11:59 p.m.

Schumer entered the White House at roughly the same time as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There is, however, some discrepancy as to the time line. It was previously reported that Panetta and Demspey met with Obama at 5 p.m. But it is easy to account for the discrepancy. Panetta and Dempsey were meeting in the Oval Office with Obama. Schumer, on the other hand, met with his chief of staff, Michael Lynch, at Democratic Policy and Communications Center, along with former Schumer Deputy Press Secretary Christopher Scribner, and Pete Rouse, Legal Counsel to the President.

Thus, one of the objectives of Schumer's visit to the White House was to gather his top aides for a meeting with Obama's Chief Legal Counsel. But why?

Further, investigators report that long after Schumer's meeting with Rouse he stayed in the White House until roughly midnight, long after all other parties in the West Wing had logged out. Again, why?

Answers are few at this time. But at the bare minimum it is safe to say that it is highly unusual for a U.S. senator to be at the White House until midnight on the very night that a massacre that killed Americans was taking place in a volatile region of the world. Schumer's presence does not pass the smell test.

Democrat Arrogance Is Amazing

A top Republican on the House intelligence committee slammed his Democratic colleague Sunday for suggesting fellow Democrats boycott the newly announced committee tasked with probing the Benghazi attacks. 

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said doing so would be "terribly arrogant" and "wrong." 

The call for a boycott was made earlier by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., during an interview on "Fox News Sunday." He was responding to House Speaker John Boehner's announcement Friday that the House would vote on a select committee to investigate Benghazi. 

The congressman said Democrats should not give the select committee more "credibility" by joining, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a "smoking gun" showing the White House politicized the tragedy. 

"I think it's a colossal waste of time," said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. "I don't think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate." 

King, speaking afterward with Fox News, said this would be a "mistake" for Democrats as it would show they "cannot defend the administration." 

"If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide," King said. 

Schiff, who called the select committee a "tremendous red herring," acknowledged he doesn't know what Democratic leadership will decide. 

Fox News was told on Friday that the panel would be bipartisan. Schiff's comments, though, raise the prospect that his party could try to define the committee as a political vessel by sitting it out. The remarks reflect how the committee, which has not yet been formally approved, already is a political football. It would begin its investigative work in the heat of the midterm election season, poised to level damaging charges against the Obama administration at a sensitive time. 

Leading Republicans were adamant that the committee is vital to get to the bottom of what happened in the days and weeks following the Sept. 11, 2012, attack which killed four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador. 

The tipping point for those, like Boehner, who were hesitant about forming a select committee, was the release of an email that showed a White House adviser reviewing talking points for then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice. The email  stressed the role of protests over an anti-Islam video -- which is the faulty explanation Rice went on to use to describe the Benghazi attack's origin on Sunday news shows after the tragedy. 

The White House maintains that email referenced protests elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa, but Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said that claim "doesn't pass the laugh test." 

She told "Fox News Sunday" the email shows the need for a select committee. Ayotte said there still hasn't been a clear explanation of why Rice connected the attack to a video. 

"The video story clearly came from the White House," she said, calling it a "political explanation leading up to an election." 

"This did not fit their narrative," Ayotte said. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the document was a "messaging email" -- one that Congress never would have seen if not for a court order to release it. He said the claim that a video was to blame was a "lie." 

"It wasn't a fog of war problem they had. They created a political smokescreen," Graham told CBS' "Face the Nation." 

Former White House adviser David Plouffe, speaking on ABC's "This Week," called the committee "bogus," and suggested more attention should be paid to shoring up security at U.S. embassies.

Looking Deeper Into Benghazi Emails

In the immediate aftermath of the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House quickly jumped from questions about the cause of the attack to blaming the incendiary YouTube video promoted by Florida pastor Terry Jones.

Last May, a set of emails was leaked by opponents of President Obama outlining the development of the talking points then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice used in a series of television appearances following the September 11, 2012 attack. The White House then released a more complete set of messages, effectively neutralizing critique of how the talking points were created.

New documents, obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch by a Freedom of Information Act request, include a different set of talking points created by Obama advisor Ben Rhodes and sent to administration officials including spokesman Jay Carney. At the top, it outlines four goals:

1. To convey the USA is doing everything that we can to protect people and facilities abroad;
2. To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;
3. To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;
4. To reinforce the President's and Administration's strength and steadfastness in dealing with difficult challenges.

I've highlighted the most important point: number 2 - Rhodes' assertion that the protests "are rooted in an Internet video."

At the time this email was sent — about 8 p.m. on Friday, September 14 — a separate set of emails was bounding back-and-forth between the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, and the White House. Those emails, the ones that were the subject of the discussion last May, offer a much different and much more reserved description of what prompted the attack. An email sent from the CIA to the White House at about 5 p.m. included this language:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex. … On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.

Over the next night, much of those specifics were stripped out by CIA director Michael Morell. But when Rhodes sent his proposed talking points, the nuance of "currently available information" was lost.

The new documents also include an email sent from a staffer for Rice to a group of employees in her office. It walks through a conversation the State Department's Victoria Nuland held on background with members of the press on the Wednesday after the attacks. In that conversation, Nuland was similarly vague. "Toria said that she couldn't speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack," the email reads. When Nuland was asked if the attack was linked to the video disparaging the Prophet Muhammed, "she said she could not confirm a connect as we simply don't know — and we won't know until there's an investigation."

What Rhodes was apparently advocating was to eliminate that nuance. And when Rice appeared on Fox News that Sunday with Chris Wallace, she was asked to respond to a statement made by Carney.

CARNEY (on video): This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive.WALLACE: You don't really believe that?
RICE: Chris, absolutely I believe that. In fact, it is the case. We had the evolution of the Arab spring over the last many months. But what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.

One point of critique on the Benghazi affair has long been that the White House wanted to play up the role of the YouTube video in order to deflect critique of their policies. It's not clear if Rhodes had information about the attack (or believed he had information about the attack) that isn't reflected in the documents, but it seems clear that he overstepped the caution that was exhibited by other members of the administration — perhaps leading to Rice's strong and much-derided assertion that the attack was in response to the video. It was his job to protect the White House, but it's likely that this argument has caused much more trouble for Obama than it prevented.

 On September 27,2012,  the key actors in the White House's response team passed around a news article from FoxNews.com which indicated that the administration knew by September 12 that the video didn't play a role. All of the discussion about that article was redacted.

View photo

Documents Tie White House to Benghazi

Hat tip to The Japan Times Herald

From:

The Washington Post

AP, AFP, and UPI

As the result of a Freedom of Information Act battle waged by the conservative group Judicial Watch, new documents have emerged tying the messaging of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, to the White House. Judicial Watch reports:

[The documents] include a newly declassified e-mail showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” 

Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and possible kidnap attempt.The documents were released Friday as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)) to gain access to documents about the controversial talking points used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television Sunday news programs on September 16, 2012.  Judicial Watch had been seeking these documents since October 18, 2012. . . . Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe.

 In addition a document showed Susan Rice was informed before her TV appearance: “Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.” Toria refers to Victoria Nuland, then State Department spokeswoman and now assistant secretary for Europe and Eurasia. She had been unfairly maligned in some quarters and falsely accused of participating in the illicit editing of the talking points. These documents exonerate her entirely, pointing the finger directly at the White House and the CIA. (It is noteworthy that in the days between the attack and Rice’s TV outing, Nuland never tied the video to the attack; Carney did, most clearly on Sept. 14.) With regard to the CIA:

The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell. According to one email:

The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy.  On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.

The e-mails were exchanged at a time when the State Department and CIA already knew that the video was not at issue and that this was a staged attack of some type. Former United Nations spokesman Richard Grenell who was briefly part of the Mitt Romney presidential team told Right Turn, “The e-mail from Ben Rhodes to a bunch of political appointees at the White House proves that there was a scramble inside Obama’s inner circle to protect him from the fallout of a U.S. Ambassador being killed on the anniversary of 9/11 and a few short weeks from his reelection.” He pointedly added: “ It’s time for real journalists to confront the President. It’s clear now that he and his team have not been truthful with the American people.”

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s spokesman Catherine Frazier was quick to jump on the news. She told Right Turn, “ Here we are more than 19 months after the attack – seven months after Sen. Cruz called for a joint select committee to investigate – and more revelations continue to surface, confirming how little we really know about what happened in Benghazi on Sept 11, 2012.” She stressed, “This administration must be held accountable to telling the truth so that we can find closure, bring our attackers to justice, and prevent future attacks — and Hillary Clinton’s regrets are not enough. All witnesses with knowledge of the attack including administration officials should be called to testify before a joint select committee so we can once and for all know the truth about what happened.”

Since mainstream media reporters have been loath to press the issue (and Congress may well convene new hearings), let me offer a few questions to start the inquiry:

Will Rhodes be allowed to testify under oath?

Who instructed Rhodes to send the memo and who reviewed it before it went out?

Will the president instruct all the people mentioned in the emails to cooperate with congressional or other investigators?

Since the issue now involves senior White House officials, is a special prosecutor appropriate?

If any individuals conspired to falsify a reason for the attack knowing of evidence to the contrary, will the president fire them?

At the time of the e-mails, did the president understand the video was not at issue?

Is the White House planning on conducting its own internal investigation?

When White House Spokesman Jay Carney received the talking points and in subsequent press conferences stressed the role of the video, did he know that assertion to be untrue?

The Election Is Over, Remember Benghazi

All bloggers I call on you to demand with me justice for Ambassador Stevens and three Americans who were killed with him in a terrorist attack that Obama knew would happen beforehand and after nearly two months later Obama has done nothing. We need to get on our blogs and begin to fight with our words. Let's join together and show the lamestream media a big portion of America hasn't forgotten Benghazi and won't let Obama just sweep it under the rug.

In college I had a professor who taught our English and Literature courses who cautioned us, “Be careful of jumping on bandwagons and following the herd. You just may find that you jumped to nowhere and following along to your own harm.” I am sure a few more took her caution to heart and realized she was talking beyond research and teaching a life lesson as well. Others I am sure let her teaching go in one hole and out another. Such is the plight of lessons, I saw the same as I taught in Japan a few years later.  The only wasted lesson is one which the student pays no heed to.

In 2008 I saw this lesson played out when Obama was hailed first as the new hope for America, then the guy who change things, then the new sensation for young women to have crushes on, then the outsider who keep the evil Clintons from retaking America, to finally the messiah who will make all things new and more importantly give away phones and other freebies. Unlike the sheeple, I decided to shun both the savior and the former sailor and go for Nader, who actually had a real record of doing something good for many and also showed real compassion that was not scripted on a teleprompter like the holy one.

Alas, I find myself now realizing the sheeple have learned nothing after four years. The proof is that we still Obama as president. The man wholly created by and sustained by the media and a team of red in tooth and claw Chicago king makers. Romney didn't stand a chance against this union of thugs and criminals, not to mention journalistic failures.

We today face the end of the United States of America as we know it. President Barack Obama, with no surprise, has been reelected. I shall not delve into why Romney lost as I have covered that before. What I shall do is inform you where our nation is headed.

Take a look at Europe and the European nations. That is our future under this president. Deep in debt and spending our way into a future of people more unemployed than employed, a currency that is worthless, and leaders more fascinated with their own persona than possessing a desire to lead. Our future is also being arranged with the fact campaigning for 2016 begins in earnest today for the Democrats. This past election splintered the Republicans and their finger pointing will be their demise four years from now. We now face the fact the UN and EU are the maps of America's future, not our constitution.

I began to get concerned when Forbes article entitled, “The Manchurian Candidate” was suddenly purged from their website. I copy and pasted the article because I knew it would not last long. Someone at the White House, you can bet, threatened Forbes with their White House press clearance if they kept it up. Valerie Jarrett comes to mind. The main focus of the article is this:

After the first three plus years of the presidency, it is painfully clear that Barack Obama was a “pretty face,” and “glib speaker” and a lightweight liberal politician with a community organizer/radical background. The American people should be outraged at this man’s behavior and even his candidacy. Why are they not? Because of the misinformation delivered by sympathetic liberal/mainstream media who loves his nonsensical form of governing.

Obama’s perceived preparedness for the presidency is a terrible delusion, from which it is difficult to escape. Mistakes build upon each other and result in even more complex problems. Difficult problems that are mishandled become even more difficult to fix. When you have too little experience, lack substance (other than the words of your latest speech), then leading, managing and problem solving simply don’t happen. And that is what has occurred. When you compound the problem by surrounding your self with like-minded theorists, lacking in real-world experience, things become worse yet. The theoretical solutions to problems often don’t work due to the messiness of the real world — and the reasons are almost unfathomable to these rookie executive/politicians.

What should Americans think about this “imposter?” Will he divulge his true background so we can all see who he is and where he came from — really? If not, is this just a man who should never have been sworn into the office of President in the first place, and who has crippled Americans miserably during his term? What if a real crisis like one involving China – either faltering or military engagement, forces Obama to make real decisions involving close to a million lives?

Will we continue to believe his misstatements (the politically correct term for lies)? Can he simply use the media to “erase and forget the past three years of misery and missteps?” Or will we learn from his imperialistic behavior and terrible results and throw him out in disgrace?

This article appeared in Forbes on March 25 and was suddenly gone a few hours later. It still survives on a few pages on the internet like Gateway Pundit .

Obama from the beginning was a manufactured bandwagon. Obama's entire autobiography was a fraud created by Chicago Democrats with tons of experience in stealing elections. Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod all created the myth and fiction that is Barack Obama. The very reason that this administration opposes any laws that will make voter fraud difficult - the Democrats had to oppose them to fulfill their goals for America. With voters having to prove their identities, ACORN and others can't help Democrats seal wins on their own, they need election fraud.

The heir to the Obama dynasty has already been chosen and campaigning begins today. Hillary survived Obama throwing her under the bus on Benghazi, and it is certain little will be revealed or done about Benghazi, the dialogue will shift, perhaps. The dialogue and goal of this administration will be their “reshaping and redirection of America, and spreading wealth around”. Maybe congress will humor Obama and let him have his way on things. Taking example from European nations Obama will transform the US economy into the Keynesian paradise that Paul Krugman and other leftists are pushing for. Regulations on business will pose too great a burden and force them to nationalize.

All the while knowing Socialism is failing Europe and the UK's system is near collapse. That makes no difference to Obama, he will continue to push his American “transformation”. Logic and sense have no place in Obama's plans, the very fact he demands American Socialism is enough, and the proof has been in his willingness to sacrifice lives to accomplish this. Remember the names of Brian Terry, Ambassador Chris Stevens, they were sacrificed by Obama to push his agenda forward, American lives are of no consequence to his thirst for wealth, power, and implementing his Socialist agenda on America. This new term for Obama seals the deal.

Now the petty bickering of Axelrod vs Holder can be put to rest. It really does not matter if Holder resigns now or not. Obama has nothing to fear if his entire cabinet and pool of advisers leave. Valerie Jarrett is guaranteed to stay gate keeper so long as Obama occupies the Oval Office. Jarrett can begin in earnest her promised letting hell loose on the perceived enemies and under achievers of Obama. Jarrett can unleash her worst and there in nobody and nothing to stand in her way. After all, we now know Obama called off killing Bin Laden three times at Jarrett's demand, and Jarrett is actually the one who gave the go ahead to Seal Team 6 in May 2011, so much for the Obama the terrorist slayer monicker. With Obama's apologetics and his penchant to refuse to use the words terrorist and terrorism, the monicker was more sarcastic anyway.

Now Obama can sit back and groom Hillary to be his successor. Bill Clinton was unable to convince Hillary to stage a coup this year, so now Bill can look forward to being first husband in 2016. The only things that will hinder this are: Hillary decides not to run (perhaps), the Benghazi ordeal blasts the Obama administration into chaos after inquiries (unlikely, there is no interest now the election is over), or Obama commits random acts of self destruction like Carter did (impossible, he survived the first term, and Jarrett is much more intelligent than Hamilton Jordan). Obama can now push his agenda for America's reshaping and spread the wealth around like he wishes now.

There still could be a fly in the ointment. Suppose China falls into chaos due to ethnic uprising or the Islamist regimes China has been bankrolling turn against the godless Chinese communists and launch jihad on China. Either are completely possible. The gulf between rural poverty and urban expansion have widened tremendously the last seven years. Today the vast majority in China live in deeper poverty and even less chance to rise out of poverty. This is a ticking time bomb that the elite in Beijing pretend does not exist, yet know perfectly well that the tiniest spark could set off ethnic tensions that would lead the 80% caught in rural poverty to rise up. This was narrowly averted twice already. After the 2008 Western China Earthquake and the 2009 Uighur Uprisings. A third spark just may set off the powder keg.

If this happens (and it is a real possibility) Obama would be caught absolutely in shock. Clinton's State Dept. would be even more unprepared than it was for Benghazi. Obama and his drones have been band wagoning Chinese ascension to number one, and anything that stood in the way would come as a complete surprise they could not handle. The fall of China as we know it now would throw Obama's team into such chaos that Republicans could retake a majority in both houses of congress in 2014 and also have a real chance to take the White House in 2016.

China has been trumpeted as the inheritor to America's greatness for so long by the leftists like Obama that a failure for China to do so would throw economic plans, diplomatic relations, and the balance of power in Asia in complete chaos. There is a real chance that China could actually find itself a splintered third world nation before ever reaching number one. Even if China reaches number one, how long could they stay there with the poverty, disparity, and privation that actually exist in China? I have always stated there is no guarantee China will either keep its prosperity or rise any further. For the simple fact that China's success like Obama's autobiography are media generated and advanced myths. A closer look makes both fail serious inspection. There was a reason that Forbes article was titled “The Manchurian Candidate”, a real crisis bigger than the Arab Spring or Benghazi will topple Obama's success and throw the Democrats into a tailspin.

Now consider this final thought. Obama has been reelected and Congress has gained more Republicans. The Benghazi affair is much, much bigger than Watergate was. Obama will now go through the same sad process that Richard Nixon went through after he won his second term. Now that Obama has a second term there will be no way that the lame-stream media could or can whitewash the cover-up that has been committed by the Obama administration in handling Benghazi.

The Benghazi investigation will pre-occupy Congress for the next two years of Obama’s second term and will bring down his sorry administration in impeachment proceedings in the House and trial in the Senate. Republicans do not need majorities of both houses of Congress, it will be a slam-dunk. The corrupt White House team lead by Valerie Jarrett will fight it tooth-and-nail, and the complicit and corrupt lame-stream media will continue to support the corrupt POTUS and his corrupt administration, however, justice will prevail in the end because as in 1974, the American people will finally demand something be done to right the injustice, lies, and criminality emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

So perhaps Obama may have been better off losing. China would be dealt with by Romney and his brain trust of a Bush IV team. Benghazi could have easily been swept under the rug and kept there. Now that Obama has won a second term it all rests in his lap. Like Nixon, Obama has been glib, smug, and arrogant, those are dangerous traits for a leader. Like Nixon, Obama's second win could be his colossal failure. Be careful of jumping on bandwagons indeed, especially if they are marked China or Obama. Congratulations Mr. President.