By Douglas J. Hagmann
In the event you missed it, the Democratic-Socialist Left has been absolutely giddy about the statement released on July 31, 2014, by the Republican majority House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) pertaining to their investigation into Benghazi. The type of giddy that Chris Matthews described in 2008 when he said “I felt this thrill going up my leg” as he listened to then-Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama speak.
The giddiness, of course, relates to the reported finding that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack in Benghazi. A closer examination of the facts, however, suggests a potentially embarrassing case “premature elation,” at least in the case of Benghazi.
Although you would think the Socialist Left would be troubled by premature elation as it fails to satisfy the factual needs of an inquiring public, few appear to be. Leading the list of those afflicted by premature elation appear to include not just the entire staff of Media Matters, but specifically writers John Kerr and Jeremy Holden, as they continue to use the word hoax[ia] in reference to the death of four Americans. The use of the word “hoax,” particularly in consideration of the horrific deaths of four Americans, is an affront to journalism and fact-based reporting. Perhaps it is used to compensate for the embarrassment of premature elation. Perhaps… but perhaps an unsatisfied public might find some actual relief in the following factual disclosures, and why their celebratory giddiness is not only unbecoming, but completely misplaced.
First, we must take a look at exactly what was said, who said it, and the context in which it was said. On July 31, 2014, HPSCI Minority member Mike Thompson stated that the HPSCI findings “confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order [to U.S. forces] was given[ii].” Upon declassification and release, the conclusion of the report is expected to be non-controversial and conform to the findings of the previous individual agency reports. But what is the HPSCI and do they have all of the information that should be made available to them?
The HPSCI is the primary committee in the U.S. House of Representatives charged with the oversight of the United States Intelligence Community, including the intelligence and intelligence related activities of 17 elements of the Executive branch of the U.S. Government, and also the Military Intelligence Program[iii]. The committee currently consists of 21 members; composition and leadership is determined by which political party holds the majority in Congress. In this 113th Congress of the United States, there are 12 Republicans and 9 Democrats, and is currently chaired by Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan. A full roster of members is listed in the endnotes of this article[iv].
It is critically important, however, to understand that the Executive branch—the White House—has the discretion and power to control information “classification,” and withhold access to information and operational details from Congressional members and committees. Accordingly, the White House is able to directly control what Congress and in the case of Benghazi, what the HPSCI has and has not been permitted to view, regardless of the security clearances of its members. This often creates a very narrow and restricted view of various intelligence activities, as in the case of Benghazi. In short, the HPSCI has been restricted in what information they were permitted to view and review, therefore rendering their findings to only the information they have been able to access. Yet, none of this has been explained in the corporate media, or by the aforementioned jocular journalists.
It is for this reason that it has become necessary to convene a House Select Committee on Benghazi. Led by Trey Gowdy, the Select Committee on Benghazi will have subpoena power, the ability to question principals under oath, examine and cross-examine key individuals about the events leading up to and subsequent to the attacks.
According to their own four-page investigative timeline covering dates from 12 September 2012 through 2 April 2014,[v] the HPSCI reports that they began their investigation the day after the deadly attacks. The investigation originated by an e-mail sent by the Director of National Intelligence to the HPSCI staff, starting a timeline of investigation. This timeline of investigation lists 108 “investigative events,” mostly consisting of the multiple submissions of “Questions for the record” (QFRs) to the various intelligence agencies under their purview, and the answers they reportedly received from September 12, 2012 through and including April 2, 2014. Stated differently, the majority of this investigation consists of a bunch of back-and-forth note passing.
Certain items in this investigative timeline warrant comment. Highlights contained within this investigative timeline include the delivery, by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), a 4,000 page “Benghazi Intelligence Review” binder to the HPSCI on 18 October 2012; a review of the book Benghazi, The Definitive Report on 5 March, 2013, and the publication of a HPSCI-led Interim Report on House Investigations into Benghazi attacks dated 23 April 2013.”[vi]
As stated, there are numerous entries citing inter-agency correspondence and briefings, reviews of other reports and materials, but there is notably limited direct investigative involvement of key individuals under oath or in a hearing setting. True to its commission, it appears to be involved in mostly oversight as opposed to original investigative activities. Additionally, there does appear to exist partisan dissent within the committee.
Item #58 of the HPSCI investigative timeline notes the 23 April 2013 release of the 46-page HPSCI-led Interim Report on House Investigations into [the] Benghazi attacks which contains the following findings that have been glossed over by the recent media coverage:
“An ongoing Congressional investigation across five House Committees concerning the events surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya has made several determinations to date, including:
These preliminary findings illustrate the need for continued examination and oversight by the five House Committees. The Committees will continue to review who exactly was responsible for the failure to respond to the repeated requests for more security and for the effort to cover up the nature of the attacks, so that appropriate officials will be held accountable.”
A careful review of entries #59-#108 has failed to find any exculpatory evidence favorable to the White House, the Department of State, and the CIA. Considering the above interim findings combined with further review, it is reasonable to question the statement made by Rep. Mike Thompson who publicly stated that the report “confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given.[vii]” Considering the distinction between HPSCI on Benghazi and HPSCI “led,” and in particular, the committee was deliberately hobbled by the lack of facts available to them from the beginning based on the White House sanctioned sins of omission, could one expect anything less than the deep-sixing of other findings except for a public release from wrongdoing?
In no way am I excusing the anticipated report of Executive branch “innocence” by the Republican majority HPSCI. Instead, I’m explaining it. In no way am I rejoicing in the anticipated revelations, for they will not tell the whole story as the servants for their savior want you to believe.
There is yet another wrinkle to this convoluted connivance that transcends political parties and government branches that has yet to be fully discussed. It is an inconvenient fact that pulls into the dirty affairs of covert intelligence operations certain members of Congress, known as the Gang of Eight.
When a U.S. President seeks to authorize covert CIA operations, there is a legal way of doing so that would clear him of engaging in any wrongdoing, a word that is interestingly associated with the HPSCI findings on Benghazi. It was first introduced in section 503 of the 1947 National Security Act that made it legal for the president to authorize covert CIA actions by properly informing the intelligence committees of Congress. That Act was amended in 1980, however, and permitted him to limit advance notification of covert actions to eight-(8) Members of Congress, otherwise known as the “Gang of Eight.” The “Gang of Eight” are the chairmen and ranking minority Members of the two congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House, and Senate majority and minority leaders. At the time of Benghazi, those informed would have been: House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).
In addition to the President, the Secretary of State, the CIA and the DNI, each of the above members would have to have been “read-in” on covert CIA operations taking place in Libya, and therefore share in the responsibility of the attack. Many Americans continue to maintain a vise-like grip on the right-left political paradigm, failing to understand that their selected leaders like John Boehner were in on the plan from the beginning. Having provided the proper notification to the Gag of Eight, it is easy to see how the President has fulfilled his legal obligation to authorize an arms operation out of Libya, and easier still to understand how the House Committee could “find” that he is guilty of no legal wrongdoing.
As we’ve historically seen in various covert operations from the Bay of Pigs to Iran-Contra, there exist rogue elements within the CIA and the government that expand their operational authority while operating under the cover of their initial authority. Anyone who disbelieves that the United States was engaged in the largest arms running operation in history based on the findings of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence needs a course in remedial history.
The findings of the HPSCI will be undoubtedly declassified and released just in time for the Benghazi Select Committee led by Trey Gowdy to start. Despite what you have learned about the HPSCI, there will be vocal objections to yet another investigation, another committee, and more money needlessly spent. Public conversations will hinge on the HPSCI findings, as well as other dishonest conversation using deceptive language, never getting to the root of the matter.
If you want to know the truth about what happened at Benghazi, or even more importantly, why it happened, you’ve got to understand the bigger picture. The Renegade-in-Chief, working closely with his Department of State and CIA, agreed to use our military and intelligence assets to advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia and a cabal of Sunni Muslim nation-states across the Middle East. A large part of this plan involved the Arab Spring, meant to destabilize the region and place the Muslim Brotherhood in power. The objective in gaining control of Libya was to establish a supply line of munitions and trained men into Jordan, Turkey and ultimately, into Syria to topple Bashar al Assad. This has placed us in a proxy war against Russia, as Syria has always been Putin’s “line in the sand,” and mercenaries for Saudi Arabia.
Unfortunately, the dialogue about Benghazi has been deliberately manipulated into a series of meaningless talking points that include, but are not limited to, “security failures,” lack of diplomatic security, “intelligence failures,” and dialogue intended to detract from the bigger picture. Meanwhile, the jubilant journalists who are compensating for their premature elation by relishing in the forthcoming HPSCI report should not be so selfish in their delight. Like them, the bipartisan HPSCI is not privy to the entire play, nor do they hold the full script. The truth will only be revealed by an aggressive and subpoena heavy cast of characters compelled to expose all that they know. Whether the Benghazi Select Committee led by Gowdy can pull it off remains to be seen.
[ia] Media Matters
[ii] sfgate.com
[iii] House Intelligence
[iv] Republicans: Mike Rogers, Chairman, 8th District of Michigan; Mac Thornberry, 13th District of Texas; Jeff Miller, 1st District of Florida; Mike Conaway, 11th District of Texas; Peter King, 3rd District of New York; Frank LoBiondo, 2nd District of New Jersey; Devin Nunes, 21st District of California; Lynn Westmoreland, 3rd District of Georgia; Michele Bachmann, 6th District of Minnesota; Thomas J Rooney, 16th District of Florida; Joe Heck, 3rd District of Nevada; Mike Pompeo, 4th District of Kansas; Democrats: C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Ranking Member, 2nd District of Maryland; Mike Thompson, 1st District of California; Jan Schakowsky, 9th District of Illinois; Jim Langevin, 2nd District of Rhode Island; Adam Schiff, 28th District of California; Luis Gutierrez, 4th District of Illinois; Ed Pastor, 7th District of Arizona; Jim Himes, 4th District of Connecticut; Terri Sewell, 7th District of Alabama
[v] House Intelligence
[vi] House Intelligence
[vii] sfgate.com
By Douglas J. Hagmann
How will our great-grandchildren’s history books recount the events leading up to World War III and the great culling of the earth’s population? While I hope that this question never has to be answered, it is with that level of urgency that I write this report. First, I believe some historical context will be beneficial for an accurate understanding of our current situation.
Some might be old enough to recall the Cuban missile crisis with clarity and context. Others know it only through history books and verbal accounts from older family members and friends. While accounts may vary by perspective, the one constant on which everyone seems to agree is that we were on the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union during those “13 days in October” in 1962. If things had gone differently, historians estimate that up to a quarter of a billion people could have been killed by a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the USSR.
If one truly understands what is taking place on the world stage as I write this, then it is eerily appropriate that we mark the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis this month. We are, in fact, directly in the middle of those 13 days in October 1962 and perhaps directly in the middle of the present-day crisis. The path that the U.S. takes in the most immediate future could likely decide the fate of humanity. It’s that serious, yet unlike the very visible events of 1962, most people today are blissfully unaware of how close we stand at the precipice of global war.
Although a nuclear-armed Iran is indeed a threat to the security of the world, it is less imminent than the currently evolving threat that is forming elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa. Yet, our attention continues to be deliberately diverted to Iran from other areas where we are covertly involved. It is here that the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 finds additional relevance when we recall the covert attempts to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba in the years leading up to the actual crisis.
For better or worse, our own CIA was involved in numerous covert operations to overthrow Castro after he took power in Cuba. The most visible and well-known of these attempts was, of course, the Bay of Pigs operation that went awry in 1961 during the administration of John F. Kennedy. It can be rationally and reasonably argued that we had a lot at stake here due to the close proximity of Cuba to the U.S. mainland.
Following the failure of the CIA-backed mission, former President Eisenhower told President Kennedy that “the failure of the Bay of Pigs will embolden the Soviets to do something that they would otherwise not do.” It was because of the failure of the clandestine actions of the U.S. that the Soviet Union indeed became emboldened and set out to position nuclear missiles just 90 miles off of the coast of Florida.
Although Obama is no Kennedy, Putin is no Khrushchev, and the Russians are not advancing their political agenda in this instance, the template is otherwise eerily similar. In 1962, Cuba was America’s “red line” as the Soviets were exporting their agenda to the West. Today, Syria is Russia’s “red line” that this administration is intent on crossing. In Syria, the Mediterranean port of Tartus is the location of Russia’s only remaining naval base and seaport outside of their country. Accordingly, it is of significant strategic importance to Russia.
The port, as well as the stability of Syria, is of critical security to Russia, not only from a defensive perspective but also for the free flow of oil and gas to and from Russia. Turkey buys up to 80% of its natural gas from Russia, making that country Russia’s second-largest client. Turkey’s role as an oil and energy supplier is predicated on the free flow of oil and gas from Russia and Iran. The status of relations is now being changed by external influences, namely the United States via the Obama-Muslim Brotherhood alliance and Saudi Arabia. Today, the Syrian Ambassador to Tehran stated that Turkey, in collusion with others, is attempting to revive the Ottoman Empire.
It is for this reason that Russia has upwards of 100,000 “advisors” in Syria. Despite their presence and warnings from Russia, we have been actively arming the anti-Assad rebels so that the Assad regime can be overthrown and replaced by a government sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Putin has, directly and indirectly, warned Obama not to meddle in Syria or risk direct conflict with Russia. Despite such warnings, Obama has continued his foreign policy of using al Qaeda-backed rebels, supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, to install leaders affiliated with the Saudi-backed Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Why would Obama place billions of people in jeopardy in a world war by his attempts to reshape the Middle East? What is pushing this agenda?
Despite the claims of many right-wing politicians and conservative media pundits, it is not a failure of foreign policy, but because of the Obama foreign policy that we find ourselves at the precipice of World War III. More importantly, though, the Obama administration and its spokespeople are deliberately misrepresenting the events in Libya to cover up a clandestine operation that encompasses the entirety of the so-called Arab Spring. Libya is the Obama CIA’s weapons hub for the region. It is where the weapons are being collected and shipped for use in Syria to topple the Assad regime.
Unlike the more palatable and readily acceptable goals of the government-backed operations a half-century ago (i.e., fighting the expansion of communism), the goals of this administration reveal something entirely different. It is through this prism of understanding that all of the most recent historically significant events begin to make sense. Could answers to such basic questions concerning the background and meteoric rise of Obama, his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, and his deep bow to the Saudi King be found in Benghazi? Might this covert agenda, if exposed, reveal that we are actually engaged in a proxy war with Russia on behalf of Saudi Arabia?
The above certainly sounds more plausible than the reason offered by Obama and his representatives to date, and also seems to be a more viable reason that this administration has gone to such great lengths to hide the truth from the American public.
As I first detailed in my two previous reports, Lemmings at the Precipice of WWIII and Body of lies, from Barack to Benghazi, Barack Hussein Obama, it is becoming more apparent that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was involved in a CIA operation of the same magnitude as the Bay of Pigs, just not yet as visible. The actual story, however, is even bigger and even more deeply rooted in the “Obama agenda.” Ambassador Stevens is simply the most visible face of this covert CIA operation.
Based on my research and investigation, in addition to much assistance from a confidential source well-connected to the intelligence community, it is becoming clear Stevens was the “go-to” man on the ground for providing assistance to the “rebels” in Syria who are attempting to topple the Assad regime. This is the reason that he was at a CIA operational post in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, and not Tripoli, where the U.S. Embassy is located.
It appears that Stevens was working for the CIA under the direction of the Clinton State Department and the Obama administration to facilitate the transfer of weapons, including portable surface-to-air missiles from Libya to the rebels or freedom fighters in Syria. It is now being revealed that the weapons “confiscated” in Libya were being moved by the ton from Benghazi to outposts in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan for their eventual use by anti-Assad rebels. Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood play a role in the weapons distribution, while the “freight” is paid by Turkey, Qatar and most importantly, Saudi Arabia.
The amount of weapons is staggering. It is estimated that within the last year, between 30-40 million pounds of weapons were transported out of Libya. Considering that the U.S. and the intelligence agencies have had 24/7 surveillance over every inch of Libya, can anyone of reasonable sensibilities really contend that the U.S. was not aware of exactly who was smuggling weapons from Libya, if not directly involved in that activity?
Much like the Bay of Pigs, the CIA, under the direction of Obama, is deeply determined and extensively involved in overthrowing the Assad regime. Here we come back to the question of why? Is it for humanitarian purposes to free an oppressed people? No.
There are many lies being perpetuated by Obama, the Clinton State Department and even a complying and complicit media. There are also distractions being forced on the American public so that the truth can remain hidden, at least until certain objectives are accomplished. The most ludicrous of lies is blaming an obscure internet video for the attacks in Benghazi. Although that has been sufficiently debunked, all of the lies should be addressed one more time.
The initial “official” response to the Benghazi attack was to place blame on the video The Innocence of Muslims, and by asserting that the attack was the product of a spontaneous protest in Benghazi. The nature of the attack proves otherwise, and the adherence to that story is now exposing the foreknowledge and complicity of those parroting that account. The attack was preplanned, was directed at a CIA operational post which was looted of all documents and materials before being destroyed by the attackers. Simply put, it was a professional “hit.”
The issue of the “security failures” is also a bit of a lie. True, a security problem existed in Tripoli, not Benghazi, where “official” personnel were deliberately kept at a minimum to maintain operational security. To divert the discussion to the issue of the security of our diplomatic personnel is to intentionally divert attention away from the events taking place in Benghazi.
Furthermore, the brave men who died in the attacks were not part of Steven’s security detail. They were working under the direction of the State Department, ostensibly for the purpose of searching and destroying weapons left by the deposed Qaddafi. Based on the information provided to me, they were collecting all of the working weapons and transporting those to Benghazi for transport to Derna, where they were to be shipped to locations in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. The display of weapons being destroyed by these contractors in Libya was pure theater, as those were non-functional.
Additionally, there was never any kidnapping plot as part of an October surprise. So, what’s the larger picture?
Few Americans realize that two suspects in the murder of Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans were arrested in Istanbul, Turkey more than two weeks ago. Where is the U.S. media on this story?
Perhaps the media is absent because their arrest might lead to some very embarrassing facts. According to my intelligence source, the key leaders of the attack were speaking a foreign language identified as Persian. According to this intelligence source, the known escape route from Libya by foreign operatives would be through Turkey, into Syria, and out to Iran, which is the exact route taken and intended. Identified as citizens of Tunisia, they were reportedly carrying false passports and spoke with a false accent, which was the initial reason they were detained. Further investigation, however, linked the two men to the attacks in Benghazi.
Are we not beginning to detect a pattern here?
At this point, take a few steps back and review the complete picture. Many astute people continue to search for answers about Barack Hussein Obama – from his origins to his current agenda. One provides answers for the other. Motive, means, and opportunity are an investigator’s trifecta for matching a crime with a suspect.
Despite his claims of transparency and after four years of holding the highest position in the free world, there continue to be a number of unanswered questions surrounding Obama’s past. His sudden rise from obscurity, his trip to Pakistan, his mother’s work in Indonesia, his step-father’s Muslim roots… there is a seemingly unending list of “coincidences” and curiosities surrounding Obama. Too many to include here, yet too important not to note.
The relationship between Obama and Saudi Arabia is not exclusive to this administration, however, and could very well be considered a continuity of the agenda of certain previous administrations. The Bush administration is one example. Consider that the September 11, 2001, attacks happened on his watch. Out of nineteen reported hijackers, fifteen were Saudi nationals, and the money used for the attacks was traced to Saudi Arabia. Despite these facts, many prominent members from Saudi Arabia living or present in the U.S. were given the “royal treatment” in the week of the attacks and were allowed to fly, without question, out of the U.S. This fact alone still angers many intelligence officials.
Is it possible that Obama represents a new but well-planned chapter in U.S. and Saudi relations? Could it be that Obama was groomed and financed by the Saudis for just this moment? Is this all part of a larger, globalist plan that transcends political parties in the West and creates interesting alliances across the globe?
So many unanswered questions, yet few seem to be asking anything. Meanwhile, the entire Middle East has been set afire, a new Ottoman empire or Islamic Caliphate is being constructed, and the continued course of action by Obama will likely result in the crossing of the red line, quickly ushering in World War III.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
As politically incorrect as this might sound before one gives it careful and thoughtful consideration, I’ve often stated the following during my many hours of talk radio. Imagine yourself standing among the rubble of what once were the World Trade Center towers, still smoldering and riddled with the carnage of nearly three thousand people in the wake of the 9/11 attacks just a few days earlier. Smell the sickening and acrid smoky haze of death as it invades your nostrils and clings to your clothes. Regardless of where you look, all 360 degrees of your vision is filled with nauseating devastation. Visualize the recovery efforts that surround you and listen to the sobbing as loved ones of the missing place photos on bulletin boards near Ground Zero, hoping and praying for a miracle that would never come.
Watch as others bring flowers, small stuffed animals and votive candles to the edge of makeshift fencing hastily erected to separate the crime scene from what still strives to be normalcy. Like the rest of mainstream Americans, you are still stunned by the worst attacks on America since Pearl Harbor, ostensibly at the hands of some obscure Muslim group known as al Qaeda.
Now imagine that I walked up to you and told you that ten years from that date, a man named Barack Hussein Obama II, who as a youngster in Indonesia studied the Qur’an and as a man, publicly admitted that the Muslim call to prayer was “one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset,” would occupy the White House. Then I proceeded to tell you that the construction of Islamic mosques would be at an all-time high across the United States, including the push for a new Islamic center less than a hundred yards of the very site on which we stood. I then added that a Muslim advocacy group known as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (the ideological predecessor of Qaeda and Hamas), would be heavily involved in shaping U.S. policies ranging from domestic security to the implementation of Sharia (Islamic law) inside the United States.
Still standing amid the smoking ruins, I proceed to tell you that this man in the Oval Office, after years of legal stonewalling against providing authenticated, historical documentation of his personal and professional life, including his own Certification of Live Birth, was pressured into providing a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth that a commissioned law enforcement body in Arizona deemed a forgery. Not only is the man in the Oval Office Constitutionally ineligible to hold that position under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but veteran investigators of that law enforcement body deemed the document that he ultimately provided to be a forgery!
As you continue to gaze at the destruction, you see not only the sadness of the people nearby, but hear comments from others that indicate an anger unlike this generation has ever seen. On trucks, recovery vehicles and elsewhere, you see the American flag gently flapping in the breeze, and tell me that I’m crazy and that you’ve heard enough. It would never happen in America, and tell me that we will exact our revenge to emerge victorious over the evil that descended upon us just days earlier. You note that churches and synagogues have been filled to capacity since the attacks, and have been assured by President George W. Bush that we will identify and punish those who did this, and the nations who aided and abetted them.
Before you walk away from my narrative of conspiratorial madness, you allow me a few more seconds to continue. I then tell you that the man in the Oval Office will not only apologize for America’s historical foreign policy to the Muslim world, but embrace the very entities behind the attacks. He will be the impetus behind a major change of the landscape in the Middle East that not only allows for our abandonment of Israel, but an antagonism toward our ally. It’s all part of a larger, more sinister globalist plan of an Islamic-Marxist alliance that’s been planned and in place for decades. He will open his office, and the whole of the U.S. government, to the Muslim Brotherhood, and will not only change fundamentally America, but will “change the world.”
Convinced of my lunacy, you hastily leave, walking over the dust covered but still visible bloodstain on the walkway where at least one of the bodies landed after jumping from the raging inferno inside one of the towers. Averting your eyes, you take comfort in what’s visible around you. It’s men, women and even recovery dogs working together, on a mission to do what Americans do. Unite, recover, rebuild. The visible signs are everywhere, contrary to the narrative of the future I shared with you.
Back to the present day, I now ask that you be as intellectually honest with yourself as possible as you consider what your reaction would have been at that time, in that place and under the circumstances I described. Frankly, even I would have departed in disbelief.
In fairness, the few Americans in September, 2001 outside of the 13th Congressional district of Illinois or fellow politicians knew the name of the man known as Barack Obama II, who was serving only his second term as a state senator. Few could have anticipated his meteoric rise from a community organizer just over a half decade before to White House denizen. I suspect that even fewer would have envisioned the rapid changes to the geopolitical landscape that resulted from this man after assuming the seat of power over the free world.
I imagine that few people, from the vantage point of “ground zero” in the immediate days following 9/11, could have predicted the events described above a decade in advance. Unless, of course, you are one of the planners, one of the men behind the proverbial curtain. But let’s take a look at what looked like lunacy in 2001.
On June 4, 2009, less than six months after assuming office, Barack Hussein Obama II delivered a speech in Cairo, Egypt, that ushered in dramatic changes within the Muslim world that would forever alter the political landscape of the Middle East. Perhaps acting in response to correspondence by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama is openly apologetic to the Muslim world while being passively aggressive to the nation of Israel, our only democratic ally in the Middle East. At the same time, he opens his arms to the Muslim Brotherhood while tactically omitting any reference or acknowledgment to then-Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.
Less than a year later, Obama advances the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood by appointing a young lawyer named Rashan Hussain to the position of Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. This post was created by George W. Bush in 2008, ostensibly to promote mutual understanding and dialogue between the United States and Muslim communities around the world. Hussain has tangential ties to the Muslim Brotherhood via common and connected entities.
That same year, the United States State Department under the direction of Hillary Rodham Clinton, lifts the visa ban on Tariq Ramadan, the Egyptian-born grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. Also in 2010, Rashan Hussain wastes no time in meeting with Tariq Ramadan at a U.S. sponsored conference, and meets with the Mulsim Brotherhood’s grand mufti in Egypt.
Promoting change in Egypt, the man called Obama has a private meeting with Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Egypt’s foreign minister. Gheit recounts the meeting to an audience of millions on Egyptian television that “the American president [Obama] told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”
Events in Egypt move quickly, and the Mubarak government loses the support of the United States. Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi calls for “days of rage” in Egypt and throughout the Middle East, ultimately prompting riots in Egypt and elsewhere. Within months, Qaradawi, who was in exile from Egypt for 30 years, is welcomed back after the orchestrated fall of Mubarak.
The power vacuum that exists in post-Mubarak Egypt is quickly filled by the Muslim Brotherhood with the help of the U.S. State Department. It is at this time that Egypt’s new power structure advises Israel and the rest of the world that the peace treaty with Israel will be null and void.
While the Muslim Brotherhood assumes control in Egypt, Obama, who has yet to visit Israel, makes demands that Israel revert land back to the Palestinians, calling for Israel to go back to their indefensible 1967 armistice lines. Obama also authorizes $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas in Egypt, while instructing his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to assure congress that the Muslim Brotherhood has changed from its extremist roots to a secular organization. The birthing of tolerance that began under Bush 43 has led to full nurturing under Obama.
Obama also orders Department of Justice head Eric Holder to cease and desist any further criminal prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups and offshoots identified as co-conspirators who ultimately funded Hamas and other Islamic terror groups.
The Hillary Clinton State Department, meanwhile, dispatches William Taylor, special envoy to the Middle East and an associate of members to the Muslim Brotherhood, to Egypt to assist in the transition from the Mubarak regime.
It is disclosed that Hillary Clinton’s “body person,” Huma Abedin, the wife of disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner, has close and personal ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and by association, to Muslims connected to al Qaeda. This is further detailed in correspondence from U.S. House of Representative Michelle Bachman.
Today, well over a decade after the attacks of 9/11, we find infiltration of Islamists, Marxists, Communists and globalists in nearly every area of American government. What Progressives have gleefully praised as a wave of democracy sweeping the Middle East known as the Arab Spring is nothing more than the foundation for a New World Order, where Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood are working in conjunction with their secular partners to forever change the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Egypt is just one country, one regime, one piece of the global puzzle. There have been others, and there will be more.
Looking though the current Middle East situation through the prism Obama the Progressive, the Marxist or Muslim, one thing is clear. Obama exists and remains in the Oval Office to advance a specific agenda. He was selected as the man for the job based on his past, the part to which we are not privy. And therein lies the importance of his Certificate of Live Birth, his identity and his past associations. It’s about his allegiance and agenda. His agenda, in part, was set for him. It is an ambitious globalist agenda, one that will neutralize the United States while elevating the very people, groups and nations that attacked us on 9/11. But that’s only the first part. The rest of the agenda has yet to be implemented.
Lunacy? Let’s talk in ten years, perhaps when we stand on the rubble of what once was.
