Boko Haram: A Decoy for the Obama Administration?

Screenshot 2014-05-12 at 9.42.49 AMI find it interesting that everyone (including the First Lady) is now all up in arms about Boko Haram and their jihadist actions. After all, we reported on the kidnappings of the girls quite some time ago – this isn’t breaking news. This Islamic terrorist group has a long rap sheet of atrocities, such as burning alive some 50 boys and attacking Christians over these past three to four years on Christmas and Easter.

Isn’t it interesting that all of a sudden when celebrities get engaged, it becomes a national emergency? Who else needs to issue a hash tag alert? But why now? As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton refused to declare Boko Haram a terrorist organization.

So why all the attention now?

Remember the movie with Robert Deniro and Dustin Hoffman called “Wag the Dog?” Funny thing, that film was released just before the Clinton-Lewinsky kabuki dance and the infamous pharmaceutical factory bombing in Sudan by President Clinton (and by the way, Monica is back in the limelight thanks to an article in Vanity Fair – but I digress – or maybe not).

Trending: Racism: Singer Tells White Audience to ‘Move to the Back’, Gets Unexpected Reaction

Are we witnessing an Obama “Wag the Dog” moment with Boko Haram in Nigeria? I say yes.

Consider all the scandals facing the Obama administration, especially Benghazi and the Select Committee, which Rep. Nancy Pelosi referred to as a “political stunt.” Really? Four Americans die, we’re told it was because of an anti-Islam video, no one has been “brought to justice” and THAT is a phony scandal and a political stunt? Boy, if this had been a Republican president, he or she certainly would never have been reelected because the media would have been all over it. Instead the media is doing everything possible to protect Obama.

So, perhaps Obama, Rice, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Rhodes, and the cast of characters can tell us why was Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi on 9-11? Not to mention, why was he there without proper security, and who denied his request for security — and Libyan Islamist militia is not the answer.

We need to start at the beginning: why did we support Islamist forces in Libya in the first place? If it was a humanitarian crisis, then why not Syria? Or perhaps the intention all along was to support the Islamist forces in Syria as well?

This article continues at


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.