The Safest Place to Be In a Terror Attack Is Next to President Obama

Monday, November 23, 2015
By Paul Martin

by Dave Hodges
23 Nov, 2015

In the event of a terror attack, the safest place to stand is next to a prominent politician, preferably the President of the United States. Said President is seemingly immune from such attacks. Why is this true? This article explores the undeniable truth that terrorists never strike at prominent politicians, only average people. Why? Because people controlled by fear, are more easily controlled.

Lone, Nut Assassins Are Much More Effective Than Terrorists When It Comes to Political Assassinations

Why is it a proven fact that “lone, nut assassins can get close and kill or wound politicians, but terrorists never do?

– John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln at point blank range.
– Charles Guiteau assassinated President James Garfield at point blank range.
– Leon Czolgosz assassinated President William McKinley at point blank range.
– Lee Harvey Oswald “allegedly” assassinates President John F. Kennedy from several yards away from JFK’s motorcade.
– Sir Han Sir Han “allegedly” assassinates Presidential candidate and frontrunner, Bobby Kennedy at point blank range.
– John Hinckley comes within an eyelash of assassinating President Ronald Reagan at point blank range. Reagan barely survived a gunshot wound to the lung.

Again, I ask, why is it that only lone nut assassins can get close enough to kill or wound a President, but terrorists never do?

The Belgian Government Is Guilty of Fear-Mongering of the Highest Order

When it comes to terrorism, why is that only the common man can be impacted by terrorists? Why aren’t politicians driven underground, so to speak, in the face of a terror threat. Why should people avoid “public areas” for fear of being a victim of terrorism, but politicians still make public appearances?

On November 20, 2015, the Belgian Foreign Minister, Didier Reynders, hyped the terrorist fear unnecessarily by raising its terror alert to its highest level in the history of Brussels. Public transportation venues, such as the Metro stations and other lesser public transportation venues that people rely on were temporarily shut down. Why is it that only the venues frequented by the common man are impacted and nothing connected to the elite are ever threatened by terroristic violence?

Reynders went on to greatly and irresponsibly hype the fear when he uttered, “We have sufficient elements to estimate that the threat of an attack is precise and imminent.” Yet, Reynders provided absolutely no proof that supporting his claim that a terror attack is imminent. In fact, Belgium’s Coordinating Unit for Threat Analysis (OCAM/OCAD) has greatly added to hyping the fear level by warning people “to avoid crowded areas, including public venues and transportation hubs”, yet again, no proof was offered to justify for the hyping of the fear level.

What is going on in Belgium reminds me what happened in Boston after the Boston Marathon Bombing. Who could forget the following images as Boston became a clear sign of things to come in the United during the coming wave of terror attacks!

Are We In Belgium or Boston?

The Rest…HERE

Comments are closed.

Join the revolution in 2018. Revolution Radio is 100% volunteer ran. Any contributions are greatly appreciated. God bless!

Follow us on Twitter