By Douglas J. Hagmann
“Pay attention! You are seeing the opening acts to a global war, to World War III. Refer to the information I gave you right after the attacks in Benghazi, specifically to the information contained in ‘Lemmings…at the precipice of WW III’ and you will see that everything I divulged to you was precisely correct.
World War III will begin in Syria, and no one on the planet (and Americans in particular) will be left untouched by what is about to take place. This has been planned for some time, and we are now seeing it happen right in front of us.” Those are the words of a trusted source with deep ties to the intelligence community, before providing more insight into what we might expect as this ‘crisis’ escalates and “Syria explodes.”
As I wrote in that article published on October 8, 2012, “All that is needed now is for a dutiful media to present one image, a video, or some other proof that Assad or someone else is using, or has their hands on, unconventional weapons. This will provide the necessary pretext for the U.S. and NATO, to intervene and ramp up the war against Assad. The UN will assist, and the red line will then have been crossed.” That will be the trigger event for U.S. involvement, and the escalation into a global conflict.
We are now at that critical moment, as the images of the use of chemical weapons are all over the news, and all fingers are pointing to Assad as the culprit. Just as predicted, The Guardian among other media outlets reported that “David Cameron and Barack Obama moved the West closer to military intervention in Syria on Saturday as they agreed that last week’s alleged chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime had taken the crisis into a new phase that merited a ‘serious response.’” But it’s a lie, a magic show, to keep people’s attention away from something much bigger on the horizon.
“The entire scenario we are seeing is one big magic act that began long ago, and Syria is just the ‘flash-bang’ diversion of the act, albeit a vital one. To understand how we got here is critically important, as it identifies the larger agenda or the big picture too few are seeing and too many are attempting to hide.
Consider the blatant continuity of agenda that has spanned several American presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat, Progressive and Conservative. This transcends political parties and the ‘political theater’ that has been designed to keep Americans occupied. Both political parties, however, are unified under a much larger globalist agenda, which explains why the policies of the Bush ‘dynasty’ have been exponentially increased under the Obama ‘regime.’
“Think about it. The anti-Assad ‘rebels’ are losing, they’re in retreat, because the exposure to the arms and weapons running from Benghazi caused the architects of this conflict to lay low for awhile. That gave us some time, but it did not change their objective of overthrowing Assad and taking Syria for the Muslim Brotherhood. The anti-Assad rebels cannot survive without Western assistance. Considering that, what sense would it make for Assad to use chemical weapons, especially as international observers were getting in position to investigate the situation, against rebels in retreat? It makes no sense, unless you understand the larger objective and the ‘big picture.’”
“Okay, so explain the big picture,” I asked my source. “And please do it in a way that I can explain it to my neighbor, or my family, so they too can understand what we’re seeing.” What follows is an uninterrupted monologue from my intelligence insider.
“Here’s the global picture. When you see it, it will make sense. This is about reshaping the entire power structure of not just the Middle East, but of the world.”
“Remember that the 2001 attacks against the U.S. was the catalyst for our military operations in Afghanistan, and then ostensibly Iraq under George W. Bush, a so-called ‘conservative republican.’ We could have gone into Afghanistan, cleaned up what we needed to, and come home. Instead, while still in Afghanistan, we went into Iraq after convincing the world they had weapons of mass destruction. Remember that George H. W. Bush, also a ‘conservative republican,’ engaged Iraq in ‘Gulf War I’ in 1990. Essentially, we’ve been in Iraq for the last quarter of a century! Why? Think about that.”
“And, we’ve been in Afghanistan for the last dozen years or so. Why? Oil and opium. It’s an ‘international bankers war.’ [Note that a recent report from ‘The Guerrilla Economist lays this out here, excerpted as follows]: “…[L]arge US military bases are on the very path of the purposed [Caspian Sea oil] pipeline. This as well as that some of the proceeds from the lucrative opium trade will find its way back to US banks which will launder the money in order to help fund Unocal in the purposed pipe building project. Win Win.”
“Oh, and by the way, if you mention Iran’s nuclear ambitions, why did we wait so long to really address this and keep Israel from doing so before any action would require a very protracted military campaign? Keep that in the back of your mind.”
“Now here’s another important part of the magic act. After eight years of George Bush, Americans were weary of war. So, a little known man named Barack Hussein Obama was selected to run against John McCain in 2008. Why Obama and not Hillary? Because the real power players needed a man with Muslim Brotherhood connections to accomplish what was needed in the Middle East. Think back to his Cairo speech. Consider that all of his campaign promises to end the wars were not only broken, but the wars and unrest were expanded by his policies, or the policies of those who put him into power.”
“So we’ve stayed in Afghanistan and in Iraq.” Then comes the Arab Spring, which was planned years in advance. It was not some serendipitously spontaneous movement by oppressed people longing for democracy, but a Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood plan to regain control of what was once the Ottoman Empire, this time on steroids. People must think bigger, outside of the confines of the Middle East.”
“As much as I don’t like the thought of saying this, Putin was correct in asking what sense it makes to destabilize the entire Middle East, especially Syria, a client state of Russia. In the context of regional affairs, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Now, we are going to send cruise missiles into Syria… to hit what? Chemical weapons stockpiles stored in densely populated areas? How is this going to help the Syrians? The refugees fleeing from Syria?”
“I’ve told you, and you have written that we are implementing the Saudi agenda across the Middle East. But who is behind the Saudis? It is the international banking cartel, those ‘too big to jail,’ who are behind the Saudis. It’s their war and they’re funding all sides of the conflict. No matter what, they win. But what do they win?”
“Admittedly it’s difficult if not nearly impossible to tell all the players without a scorecard, and even then, the players will change their uniforms to keep everyone confused. But here’s the important part. Syria is a proxy state for Russia, as is Iran. China has interests in Iran as well. If you look at all of the major powers, they all have interests in the Middle East. So who will we, the U.S. ultimately be fighting when Syria explodes? Russia. And what will be the blowback? That’s important to understand, for it is also the objective.”
“None of what you are seeing is about fighting terrorism, or about helping the people of Syria. It’s about oil, energy and the global economic system. Conflict exists for the globalists to achieve their objective, and their objective is the implementation of a new economic system that will be a basket of currencies, or SDR (Special Drawing Rights). If you don’t know about SDRs, just equate it to the euro, but on a global scale.”
They will usher this in by striking at the United States much like the U.S. took down the old Soviet Union. They will target our economy through oil, cheap oil, from Saudi Arabia. Remember, Russia is the world’s largest exporter of oil, neck and neck with the Saudis. But, the Saudis’ oil wells have been damaged and their ‘lift costs’ are increasing.”
“So, what we are about to see and experience in a most painful way is the destruction of the U.S. economy, the intentional killing of the U.S. dollar, by having it replaced as the world’s reserve currency, and replaced with a basket of currencies (SDR) that is much easier to control.”
“This is all about the conversion of world’s economic trading mechanism from a U.S. dollar-based system to a SDR. The Middle East and Syria is merely the catalyst for is implementation. The ‘flash-bang’ of the magic act. And once this catalytic action is started, we cannot go back. War in the Middle East and particularly Syria is the catalyst that will disrupt transactions and commerce all over the world. And few will see it coming, or know what hit them.”
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Additional research and investigation into the controversial National Defense Authorization Act found something very interesting that is not apparently being reported by the U.S. media. Readers will recall the controversy that surrounded the liberty-threatening NDAA legislation passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate and signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama last New Year’s Eve.
That law essentially gave the government the right to arrest and detain, without due process, American citizens on significantly vague and broad charges ostensibly related to terrorism. The legislation opened a “Pandora’s box” of unpleasant possibilities that undermine our Constitutional rights and threaten our liberties, unlike any other time in our national history.
Supporters of the NDAA, along with the media, were quick to point to a “signing statement” penned by Obama expressing his concern over the liberty restricting rights of the law, as if that somehow made the language of the new law suddenly conform to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obviously, it did no such thing, but people were apparently comforted by this eight-page cross-my-heart promise that Obama and his redesigned national security apparatus would never use it for “bad.” Obama said he was uncomfortable with the particular language of section 1021 (and related portions) that called for arrests and indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens under the broad brush of terrorism.
Despite what you’ve been told, it is obvious that Obama and his cohorts are not uncomfortable with those provisions, and are quietly fighting to make sure the controversial provisions remain.
It appears that the fight against tyranny and oppression creates some interesting alliances on both sides. On January 13, 2012, a group of plaintiffs that include socialist and anarchist Noam Chomsky, political activist Daniel Ellsberg, the U.S. Day of Rage, and others filed a suit in the United States District Court in and for the Southern District of New York, challenging the Constitutionality of the controversial sections of the NDAA. They asked the court for “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief with respect to one section, (indeed one page) of that voluminous legislation: Section 1021” (of the NDAA). The case was heard by Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest.
The defendants of this case were named Barack Obama (individually and as a representative of the United States), Leon Panetta, John McCain, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and Eric Cantor.
Despite any sentiments that might be evoked by the identity, social and political views of the plaintiffs, even the most conservative among us would be hard-pressed to argue with the merits of their lawsuit. The NDAA shreds the Constitution, and these plaintiffs took legal action to stop it. Those are simply the unbiased facts of the matter, all of which are of little interest to the Obama-pandering corporate media. But wait, it gets better.
After an expedited discovery process, an evidentiary hearing was held on March 30, 2012. The federal judge in this matter and all of the plaintiffs showed up in person at that hearing except one, who provided testimony by sworn declaration pursuant to previous authority granted by the court. No one from the government offered any testimony, provided any documentation, or made the slightest noise at the hearing.
I’ll spare any further writings about the legal minutia of the process except to say that the government attempted to argue, in post-hearing memoranda, that section 1021 of the NDAA is an extension of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
On May 16, 2012, federal court Judge Katherine Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion for relief in a 68-page ruling, meaning a win for the plaintiffs and a legal setback for the U.S. government. She writes that “preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with caution” and refreshingly adds that “it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.”
Recall that Obama stated his opposition to Section 1021 of the NDAA in his signing statement or the very portion of the legislation that was at issue in this legal suit. Why, then, has Obama, through his legal department, filed an appeal with this federal court to overturn the ruling?
It would seem that by enjoining Section 1021 of the NDAA, U.S. citizens’ rights to due process would be protected, which again addresses the exact issue to which Obama dedicated eight-(8) pages of a “signing statement.” Based on the government’s actions, it would appear that Obama and his appointees have no reservations about section 1021 of the NDAA, and that the signing statement is, as former President Richard Nixon might have said, “inoperative.”
Equally disconcerting is that the U.S. media appears to be unwilling to report on this “inoperative” statement or the apparent bi-polar actions of this “administration.” The American people deserve better from our leaders as well as our media. Shame on both.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
I believe that history will show that the passage of SB 1070 by Arizona, and the federal government’s lawsuit to stop its implementation will be regarded the first battle of the 21st century American Revolution. Although not a single shot was fired- yet, the battle lines have clearly been drawn. Never before in the modern history of our country have all of the elements been in place for a war between our government and the citizenry of the United States. We stand at a proverbial and historic flashpoint as Obama plans to use the foot soldiers created by “comprehensive immigration reform,” whether achieved by law or mandate, to implement his socialist agenda for America.
While the process of transforming the America known by our parents and grandparents to a socialist colony has been in progress for a half-century at the hands of Marxists, Socialists and Progressives, the Obama administration has put the Balkanization of America and the polarization of its citizens along racial, political and ideological lines on the fast track. And at least for now, he’s got the backing of Congress to advance his agenda of radical change. That was never so evident than on May 20th when the dictator of a corrupt, third-world country was given a sickening, treasonous standing ovation in the halls of Congress for attacking the proposed legislation of an American sovereign state to uphold the laws of our country.
Regardless of whatever legislative support he might currently enjoy, evidence has shown that he is actively considering a back-door strategy that would circumvent the need for congressional approval. More importantly, it would also circumvent the need for approval from the citizens. Once in place, the amnesty of millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. would create a formidable electoral force to keep the Progressives in power under the pretext of free elections. The talk of altruistic motives of immigration and the joys and benefits of multiculturalism is nothing more than a smokescreen for power and control on the path to transforming the United States into a socialist nation.
To understand how we got to this point in our national history, the groundwork for the transformation of our country was laid in 1965 with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act, which was signed into law by then President Lyndon Johnson. As Mark Levin details in his best-selling book Liberty and Tyranny, that single piece of legislation, as part of the Great Society, laid “the foundation for radically altering the character of American society and the relationship of the governed to their government.” During the debate of the bill on the floor of the Senate, Levin noted that Senator Kennedy insisted that the ethnic mix of the U.S. would not be changed, nor would America be inundated with immigrants from any one country or area.” In his assessment of the debate, Mark Levin wrote “it is hard to believe that they were not intentionally deceiving the public.” Indeed.
That bill caused a significant change in immigration that essentially created the current situation in the U.S. It introduced “chain migration,” which radically altered the “historical basis for making immigration decisions.” As written by Mr. Levin, “The emphasis would no longer be on the preservation of American society and the consent of the governed; now aliens themselves would decide who comes to the United States through family reunification (emphasis mine). The act also eliminated national quotas for immigration, opening the floodgates for immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America.
Consider that as a result of the 1965 immigration reform and deliberate lack of immigration enforcement, nearly 1 in 3 immigrants living in the U.S. today is here illegally. Additionally, legal immigration increased from 2.5 million in the 1950’s to over 10 million in the 1990’s. In 2007, the immigrant population in the U.S. reached a record 37.9 million and today accounts for 1 in 8 of all U.S. residents. In contrast, immigrants accounted for 1 in 21 of all U.S. residents in 1970.
According to a 2004 report by the Pew Hispanic Center and detailed in Liberty and Tyranny, roughly 9 percent of the population of Mexico resides in the United States. Fifty-seven percent of all illegal immigrants are Mexican, and another 24 percent are from other Latin American countries. In less than 40 years, it is estimated that Hispanic school-aged children will comprise the majority of public school students in the U.S.
While many proponents of immigration argue that the immigrants are here to assimilate and contribute to the United States, a 2008 study by the Manhattan Institute determined that the current level of assimilation is at a record low. Perhaps this is most evident by the fact that more than 55 million individuals living in the U.S. speak a language other than English, including over 34 million who speak Spanish. It is evident that assimilation is not a priority. The establishment of ethnic conclaves within the U.S. is an example of the lack of desire to assimilate into the fabric of American society.
In addition to the social and cultural effects of immigration as a whole, illegal immigrants are being aided by our own government in transferring money out of the United States. In 2006, illegal aliens sent an estimated $45 billion from the U.S. to their countries of origin. Last year, thanks to the assistance of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, Mexicans alone living and working in the U.S. transferred between $21.9 and $25 billion to the Mexican economy. Under the program called Directo a Mexico, U.S. commercial banks enable illegal aliens to transfer money through the Federal Reserve’s own automated clearinghouse, which is linked to the Mexican central bank Banco de Mexico. The illegal alien is also given an ATM card that can be used in Mexican banks in the event of their deportation.
The outflow of U.S. dollars to Mexico is second only to Mexico’s oil industry in the amount of revenue produced. It should be no wonder, then, that the Mexican government has no interest in working with U.S. authorities to secure our border or to enforce our immigration laws. In fact, it is the ultimate goal of the global elite to erase our borders and implement a “North American Union” as a step to achieving global governance.
Illegal immigration is a big business, and not just for Mexico. It is estimated that $18-25 billion is spent by state governments on welfare programs to illegal aliens each year, and about $2.2 billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs for illegal aliens. And additional $2.5 billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. The drain on the American economy by individuals living illegally in the United States is a significant threat that will lead to our demise.
There should be no doubt that illegal aliens also pose a security risk to our country. First and foremost, they are living and working in this country illegally—contrary to the laws of the United States. And contrary to the Progressive party line, the proponents of multiculturalism, and civil rights and advocacy organizations that subjugate the rights of Americans to their own agendas, crimes committed by illegal aliens are statistically higher than legal immigrants or U.S. citizens. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a study it conducted of 55,322 incarcerated illegal aliens. The study population averaged eight arrests each. Ninety-seven percent were arrested more than once, and 26% had over 11 arrests each. Each illegal alien averaged 13 separate offenses, and 24% of those offenses were for drug crimes. About 12% were for murder, robbery, assault, and sexually related crimes, and 21% of offenses were immigration offenses. Other offenses included property-related offenses, traffic violations, fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Illegal aliens arrested for less serious crimes and released pending a hearing at a future date often fail to appear. According to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, there were 557,762 fugitive alien cases were listed as “unsolved” at the end of 2008. Furthermore, illegal immigrants with extensive criminal records and multiple deportations are often permitted to remain in the U.S. by activist judges who are sympathetic to their plight.
The rampant problem of illegal immigration can easily be solved not by creating new legislation or enacting a complex system of immigration reform. As we observed in the weeks leading up to the implementation of SB 1070 in Arizona as law, the mere threat of realistic enforcement was sufficient to cause an exodus of illegal aliens from that state. As illustrated by the incoherent ruling of a political hack legislating from the bench, Arizona’s attempt to secure their state was undermined in a crafty and carefully executed political ploy. It is no coincidence that the appeal process will extend beyond the November midterm elections. It is the political hubris of a socialist dictator imposing his agenda against the will of the majority of this country’s citizenry.
The failure to effectively address the issue of illegal immigration is not limited to any one political party; many Republicans as well as a vast majority of Democrats are complicit in failing to secure America’s safety and sovereignty. Consider that the National Council of La Raza, the largest Hispanic advocacy group in the United States, honored Senator John McCain in 1999. During her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton appointed a senior member of La Raza to her staff, and Obama appointed a La Raza leader as the director of the Office of Internal Affairs. Undoubtedly, this virulent pro-amnesty group enjoys a significant influence over public policy in American government. Funding of this group finds numerous foundations and individuals who espouse and promote a global ideology and “one world governance” over national sovereignty as key contributors.
Despite the above statistics, those who demand immigration enforcement and the rule of law are often labeled as racists and xenophobes. American cities and states like Arizona are reeling from the adverse financial and social effects of illegal immigration and unfettered legal immigration. They lack help from the federal government, which is more intent on creating an electoral majority to ensure the continuation of their power to facilitate the socialist makeover and takeover of the United States. Obama and his justice department are siding with criminals against the citizens of America. Arizona is attempting to restore order to a system of chaos created by the federal government. Instead of welcoming the help and choosing to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is imposing a socialist dictatorship and has drawn a line in the Arizona sand. The question is now whether that line becomes “Ground Zero” for this century’s American Revolution—a fight against the Balkanization of our country, and the eradication of our borders, our sovereignty and ultimately, our nation.
As noted by one Arizona Sheriff, “our own government has become our enemy.” The question is how, if and when law-abiding, patriotic American citizens will choose to engage that enemy. For the sake of our country, acceptance and acquiescence is not an option.
