There is a saying “never let a good crisis go to waste”. In light of that saying, it might be time to revisit some of the things we have heard about what happened on September 11, 2012 in the Middle East. The purpose here is to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the use of the excuse of a C-grade documentary.
First of all, there is an alternative reason for the demonstration in Cairo. That alternative is probably the truth behind the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo. The movement to try to free the blind sheik had been ramping up. On top of that it was known that Obama was prepared to negotiate for the release of the blind sheik. Now, in order to negotiate for the release of this man who deserves to remain in the penitentary for the rest of his life, there must be hostages. Right? Maybe….. This alternative theory could in part be one of the many false flags created to provide a story about what happened that day. It is also behind the held belief by some that the purpose of the seige at the consulate in Benghazi was to take Americans as hostages… I just do not think that this is a viable explanation at this point in time.
Yet we need to continue focus on that C-grade documentary because there is yet another reason as to its importance and the use of it as an excuse for the attack on the consulate in Benghazi.
It is called in the USA “The right to Freedom of Speech” or the First Amendment. Australia has its own version of the same thing, and yes we value our right to say what needs to be said. Anything that chills or attempts to curb our right to free speech is something that needs to be seen as menacing, and against everything that we believe in with regard to our freedoms. If you try to take away any one of those vital freedoms then you are taking away every one of those freedoms. It really is that chilling.
What are some of the most insidious ways in which our right to freedom of speech has been attacked?
1. the development of PC or being politically correct. Political Correctness serves to prevent people expressing their point of view on a number of subjects. I will use an Australian example because it dovetails best with this subject: we are not allowed to call illegal immigrants by that name. Under PC we must refer to them as asylum seekers, even though that is not true. Many of the people attempting to get to Australia come from Iran where there is no war, Iraq – where the war finished years ago, as well as Sri Lanka (no war), Burma (yes there is strife but the refugees have been behind that strife in Burma), as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan (there is no war in Pakistan either). The majority of these boat people, who are illegal immigrants are Muslim.
There are genuine refugees who enter Australia by normal means after they have been assessed in the camps that have been set up for refugees in various nations. Their usual mode of entry is by Air. The most absurd comment that I have ever seen claims that the illegals are on the same level as those who enter Australia by legitimate means, and that they are not illegal at all (well that is b.s. and I am calling out that person for writing b.s.)
The purpose of not allowing us to talk about these illegals as illegal immigrants is to deflect upon the nature of how they have entered Australia, and it is meant to shut us up. We are simply not allowed to refer to them as illegal immigrants.
2. The other most insidious way has been forcing us into not speaking the truth about Mohammed the pedophile. Over the years we have seen the demonstrations and we have seen Rage Boy losing his cool and going on a rampage. The real purpose of stirring up these bozos is an attempt to silence all critics of Islam permanantly. It is all part of the Dhimmi process. We are not allowed to tell the truth about Mohammed and the way that he butchered people who would not buckle under to his rule.
The means by which there are attempts to stop us from having our right to free speech are many and varied. Yet there is one way that involves the world at large. It is:
3. The United Nations which has been leaning more and more towards the Arab States. This focus has meant that our very freedoms have been threatened by the same body that was set up as an alleged protection against future wars.
What happened shortly after the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi? Barack Obama gave an address in the United Nations. In that address he decried a C-grade documentary that very few people had actually seen. Those who have seen the trailer have stated that it was really bad. At the time lies were told about the producer of the movie who claimed to be one person, but turned out to be another one. This did not stop Barack Obama from making certain statements in the UN about protecting those who are followers of Islam. Quite frankly, looking back, that speech was very insidious. It was a direct attack on the right to freedom of speech of all individuals who refuse to buckle down and be governed by Islam. There is very little doubt in my mind that this particular UN speech should be regarding as very chilling.
The false narrative about the C-grade movie became a deflection from the truth about the fact that the US consulate was attacked by Al Qaeda and their Libyan sympathizers. It was also meant to be used as a means of curbing the free speech of not just Americans, but people all over the world who speak out against Islam.