Over the waning days of this election cycle, we will find numerous reasons to bring up the Libyan crisis.

What really matters is what the campaigns are saying about it and why. Certainly, not the pressure of family members to keep Romney from talking about Ambassador Stevens and others who were killed.

As the accompanying picture shows, al-Qaida has used Ambassador Stevens as a political prop. Discussing his death in the United States is not political. It is at the very heart of the foreign policy of the United States. And that, for many reasons, is a major factor in this and any other election. Particularly this one.

The dominant theme of the Obama Administration is that as long as you leave them alone, with Barack Obama at its core, you will be fine.

Why question what Barack Obama does? Do not involve yourself in our government, as the father and step-father of Ambassador Stevens said yesterday. Obama knows what to do.

Never mind liberty. You will be protected and well.

Do not involve yourself in the biggest foreign policy disaster of Obama's time in office. Instead, make certain that you focus on that anti-Muslim movie made an international sensation by Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Mitt Romney has been skewered by the Obama Administration precisely for that reason: "Say nothing about our government and let them do what they find appropriate."

Obama followed the presidency of a man who was vilified for being less accessible than any, only to become a president who never holds a press conference, rarely meets with his staff, and never meets with his opponents.

Obama has become the man who is never accountable. The buck never stops at his desk. Never. He will sit down at the White House to have a beer with a Harvard professor and a policeman. But he will not sit down with the American public and denounce the acts of fanatical Muslims as the acts of fanatics or even of terrorist groups on the rise in the Middle East from which we need to be protected in far different ways than we have been.

Why was more security denied in one of the most dangerous places in the world? Was it because the narrative of terrorism on the decline and the Arab "Spring" forced that denial, whether consciously or unconsciously.

And when the deaths occurred, what stimulated the perhaps even more egregiously false claim from Obama's campaign and others that the Republicans were to blame because of the reduction in money going to the Department of State? Not politics, surely.

When the Libya story first broke, there was a dominant political theme that emerged from Obama. These were spontaneous demonstrations due to an anti-Muslim film.

Republicans questioned the response and why the failure to protect our ambassador had happened.

But Obama who was at the center of a campaign to prove what it was not and to cover up what it was, said these inquiries were all political. Imagine, caught in a lie, we have Democrats and their media claiming that it is not something to be discussed, and promoting this by interviewing relatives of those slain by radical Muslims out to dominate the world with their views and to destroy the United States.

The deaths in Libya and related responses demonstrated what we have come to know as the very heart of Obama's desire to maneuver and manipulate the media and the American public. Politics. Trying to make everyone believe that he had no responsibility for what was happening. This was, after all, the Department of State.

It was an opportunity to shift blame to a movie that had very little play at the time and had nothing to do with Ambassador Stevens' death. According to Obama, the movie was so bad it resulted in a spontaneous reaction that had killed our Ambassador in Libya.

Not terrorists. But a spontaneous, unplanned mob action.

You can claim that this had nothing to do with Obama's attempt to sell the American public that he had al-Qaeda in retreat. al-Qaeda's terrorists were "on their heels" according to President Obama.

But that narrative was in fact more important this election year than the truth.

Unlike asking Obama what is going on, the truth can be found in one reporter's speech about a week ago in Chicago, who called Obama's claim that al-Qaida was in retreat a bald faced lie.

Eleven years later, “they” still hate us, now more than ever, Logan told the crowd. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished, she added. They’re coming back.  “I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent. The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.

Obama's lie about al-Qaida required the narrative he and his staff provided when confronted with the death of our ambassador in Libya. And continues to this day.

Do you believe Obama and his claim about al-Qaida or not?

Before this was an act of terrorism, and before parents of our slain ambassador and a Navy seal were drawn into this political contest, we all were told that this had everything to do with a movie. One for which our country apologized. Multiple times. Day after day. Five times in one day. Well after we knew full well that these deaths had nothing to do with the movie.

Why the United States needs to apologize for a movie done by a private citizen in the United States is unclear, and likely historically unprecedented.

Perhaps this comes from an overwhelming sense of "political correctness" which encompasses every kind of conceivable restraint and limitation. From not using words, to using words only if you are a certain person of color. From not referring to facts for fear that they might offend someone. To making up facts in order to ensure that everything is done to change a narrative from the truth to a lie.

So it was when, days after Obama lied about al-Qaida being on its heels, another lie was still being perpetrated on the world by Obama.

That the death of our ambassador and the others killed in Libya was not due to this film was clear from the very outset. But it was far from what Obama deems politically correct.

Thus, we had a lie perpetrated by Ambassador Rice, who runs our UN mission.

A lie provided by and to everyone working in the Department of State. A lie that everyone, from Hillary Clinton to every other ambassador and worker, had to repeat day after day.

Why were they lying?

Because those running the country insisted on the lie. The politicians helping Obama run his campaign insisted on the lie. Hillary Clinton. Ambassador Rice. And Obama himself. Day after day.

This lie not only continued a narrative that was intended to deceive the entire world. The lie was coupled with another lie that was cemented and embedded into the narrative.

Namely, that Mitt Romney and Republicans had to remain silent because to do anything else was to undermine our efforts and "politicize" the issue. Enforcing the dual lies of al-Qaida being in retreat and the deaths of our people in Libya being due to a move was their political objective. It was essential to keep what actually happened and why it happened from the American public and the rest of the world. To "investigate" what happened because this was the prudent thing to do.

And so Stephanie Cutter spewed her venom against Mitt Romney on national TV before the vice presidential debate. So it was and is that the Obama supporters throughout the media disguised as "newsmen" and "newswomen" carried on the attack, unrelenting in their false claim that Romney, not Obama, had made the death of our Ambassador and this tragedy "political."

It is the purpose and intent of Obama to ensure that certain topics are off limits. They do so relentlessly, while at the same time turning the truth into whatever they wish.

So it is that the Obama Administration has tried to preclude inquiry into what was said and done prior to and after the attack on our Libyan facilities and the death of our Ambassador.

So it is that they have not produced documentation involved in how Obama handled Fast and Furious, especially why months of delay occurred before they corrected the false response given to Congress concerning their knowledge of what had happened and why.

And so it will be with Obama, as long as he is in office.

Is it essential to throw our billions around to provide money to those who trample on women's rights, free speech, and open government?

Do we want to keep the myth of freedom lit in countries where freedom does not exist, in the name of an Arab "Spring" that just means more of the same?

Do we want our sensibilities for those who kill our troops in forlorn countries to be more important than the death of our own patriots giving their lives in the name of freedom or the false statements of the president of our country?

Whatever happened to free speech?

Obama did all he could to protect the lie. He did not want to stray from his ginned up narrative he promoted from the very start about this movie he so disliked. He did not immediately say he was horrified by the deaths of our citizens due to terrorism and would bring them to justice.

If he had felt these things, he would have immediately corrected the comments made by Ambassador Rice. He would never have allowed Ambassador Rice to go on five shows in an effort to continue the lie that this was all about a spontaneous demonstration against a movie.

Romney does not sympathize with those "demonstrators." He did not and never has blamed the acts of those who killed our ambassador on a movie. He does not want this and other lies perpetrated on our voters.

Did Romney politicize the ambassador's death? No. But the Obama Administration did do so. Repeatedly. How else can you portray their references to the movie?

We now have a mother of a Navy seal demanding that Romney stop using her son's name because she would not have him "exploit" his death. We have a sister who refused to do the same thing, saying instead that this was merely her mother and the way she was. We have the father and step-father of Ambassador Stevens telling us we should not discuss Ambassador Stevens' death, but instead let the government do this.

We have former high-ranking intelligence officers who claim that Joe Biden's effort to blame the intelligence community and to claim ignorance is a wrongful and dishonest effort to shift blame from where the buck stops.

We have deaths that occurred on 9/11 of this year due to acts of terrorism dealt with as political pawns in the fight against a film and for the Muslim Brotherhood.

And we have real issues that should help us determine whether the foreign policy of the apologist crowd who rail against free speech, lie about al-Qaida being back on its heels, and try to silence any opposition should should run this country for the next four years.

If you want real malarkey, do me a favor and look at laughing, derisive Joe Biden. That is Obama in a nutshell.

We need a better course, better morals, and a better direction.

We need Romney.