Obama Administration Covering Up Death of US Ambassador Stevens By Lethal Injection?

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

 I am not big on conspiracy theories.

How ever the Obama administration gives me lots

of reasons to believe this story.

Will we ever know the truth about Ambassador Stevens?


Days after the tragic attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, the bodies of the four slain Americans were flown back to the US.  Family members were told by President Obama, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that they would let them know how their loved ones died.

A month later, Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith told a reporter that she felt betrayed and lied to by Obama, Clinton and Panetta.  They promised to keep her informed, but she had not heard one word from any of them as what really happened to her son.

The last I knew, the families of the four victims still have not been told how they died or any of the specifics.  There have been reports that Stevens supposedly died of smoke inhalation and asphyxiation, but there still has been nothing official to confirm that report.  The deaths of the four American’s are still shrouded in mystery.  It makes you wonder what the Obama administration is trying to hide.

To add fuel to the conspiracy fires surrounding what happened at Benghazi and how the four Americans died is a report from an al Qaeda weapons expert that claims that US Ambassador Christopher Stevens died from a lethal injection.  Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin is a known al Qaeda terrorist who made the claim on the Ansar al-Mujahideen Network that the original plan was to abduct Stevens and use him as an exchange for high-level al Qaeda prisoners.  When the raid went bad, Stevens was given the lethal injection.

If the lethal injection claim was not true, one would expect the government to quickly deny them.  However, both the State Department and the FBI are not denying the claim.  They are both aware of the statement, yet refuse to comment.  Their refusal to comment only adds to the speculation as to what happened and it also seems to add some legitimacy to the terrorist’s assertion that Ambassador Stevens died from a lethal injection administered by the terrorists when their attempt to abduct him failed.

But what are the feds afraid of by telling the truth about what happened?  Are they afraid that it will be revealed that they allowed the attack to happen when they could have prevented it or supplied better security?  Will we learn that help could have been sent once word got out about the attack, but that someone, perhaps Obama, gave the order to stand down and let our ambassador be captured or murdered?  Are the American people learning more truth about Benghazi from the terrorists that took part in the attack than from our own government?  Who can and can’t we believe?

I’m not sure if we’ll ever find out what really happened that day in Benghazi.  It’s obvious that our government has a lot to hide from the people about Benghazi. They screwed up, it cost valuable lives and now they are doing their best to cover their tracks and their butts.

Read more:


Libyan President Contradicts Obama: Film Not Responsible for Attack

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbart’s Big Peace.

Anyone that is not a Obamabot knew it was a planned attack.

You just do not show up at a protest with RPG’s and AK 47‘s.

This was to show the Muslim’s know how weak Obama really is.

As recently as yesterday, President Obama stood before the world at the United Nations and blamed “The Innocence of Muslims” for the unrest in the Middle East and, more specifically, the death of four Americans in Libya, including Christopher Stevens, our Libyan Ambassador. Obama refuses to acknowledge the assassination of Stevens was a terrorist attack, even though other members of his Administration, including his own Secretary of State, have already conceded it was exactly that.

In fact, every bit of intel also contradicts the President.

And now, Libyan President Mohamed Magarief is on the record declaratively stating the video had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks:

Libyan President Mohamed Magarief said the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, which also resulted in the deaths of three other Americans, was more likely pegged to the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

“Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September,” Magarief told NBC’s Ann Curry in the exclusive interview. “They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message.”

Magarief noted that there were no protesters at the consulate prior to the attack, and that the incident was more of a clearly coordinated assault than a demonstration run amok. He noted the attackers used rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate and then fired mortars at a safe house where Stevens had fled.

It’s just a fact that Obama refuses to acknowledge al-Qaeda launched a successful attack on the anniversary of 9/11 that resulted in the rape and murder of an Ambassador and three other Americans.

It’s also a fact that our media is not only allowing Obama to get away with this charade, but refusing to hold him or the Administration responsible for the security lapses that left our consulate vulnerable and the subsequent cover up.

FEDs Hunt Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Rather than People Who Killed US Ambassador



This is from Godfather Politics.

Why isn’t finding these murdering scumbag’s top priority?

Limiting free speech is a Obama administration priority.

This movie is what is causing these goat humpers to riot.

But Obama bragging about killing Osama would not offend anyone.


The filmmaker of the anti-Islam film lives in the United States. If this is true, then why is our government tracking down any filmmaker for any reason? Let’s rehearse the First Amendment for our government officials:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In addition to protecting “the free exercise of religion,” even if it’s one religion criticizing another religion, the First Amendment also prohibits our national government from interfering with speech and the press.

Every day in America people attack worldviews they don’t agree with. Some do it with factual statements and reasoned argumentation, and others try to make their case with satire and ridicule. The First Amendment was put into place to protect people from tyrants who would use their power to prohibit speech that was critical of the way the governed.

King James I of England detested the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560, because he believed it questioned the divine right of kings. He did a novel thing. He commissioned a group of scholars to produce a new translation. We know it today as the Authorized Version or more popularly known as the King James Version of the Bible.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a critic is to ignore him. If this anti-Muslim film is so bad, the Muslims should have ignored it or produced an answer to it. Like fascists and tyrants of the past, they use terror to force compliance.

Just because you’re able to shut someone up doesn’t mean that you’ve convinced that person that your position is correct.

There is nothing criminal in producing a film critical of Islam. The real criminals are the ones who killed four United States citizens on United States soil. Our embassies are an extension of the United States. If people attack an embassy, they attack the United States.

Not only has our government attacked the filmmaker but the media, who are protected by the First Amendment have also gotten into the act. For example,

“ABC journalist Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday compared the rioting and murder that followed Middle Eastern anger over an anti-Islamic movie to yelling ‘fire in a crowded theater.’ Regarding filmmaker Sam Bacile and the killing of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, Amanpour derided, So, now, one has to, really, try to figure out the extremists in this country and the extremists out there who are using this and whipping up hatred.’”

Crying “fire” in a crowded theater is not about inciting people to violence and rioting. No one’s going to shoot up the place if someone shouts “fire.” It’s the trampling that might take place as people race for the exits. The analogy is false.

Neal Boortz writes, “Perhaps Christiane Amanpour should spend more time worrying about a religion that condones this type of violence, then one American exercising his right to free speech.”

It’s possible that there’s more to this story than meets the eye.

I’ve posted the article “Was the Anti-Muslim Film Actually Produced by Muslims and Blamed on Christians?” on the Political Outcast site.


%d bloggers like this: