By Douglas J. Hagmann
The current threats posed by ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, to world stability in general and to the U.S. specifically are very real and extremely dangerous. However, the origins of the group and hence the threats are not to be believed “as advertised.” We are being subjected to more lies from the White House to Foggy Bottom, along with many elected leaders who know the real story but insist upon pushing a false narrative.
Collectively, they are bringing us to the brink of World War III through Syria, which I have long contended, while simultaneously opening our country to a large scale attack that could equal the September 11, 2001 attacks. Unlike 9/11, however, we know at least part of their strategy.
First, ISIS did not mysteriously or unexpectedly originate from vaporous pockets of Islamic terrorists in an area that is referred to as the Levant, or the geographical region roughly bounded by southern Turkey to the north, Egypt to the south, the Mediterranean to the west and Iraq to the East.¬† No, ISIS was created through an intentional process of deliberate default by the U.S. and Western powers—including Israel, working in conjunction if not on behalf of the Saudis, Kuwait and Qatar. This unconventional alliance will be addressed later, but for now, it must be identified to understand the truly dangerous and evil confederation of complicity.
To understand the present, we must identify—and fully comprehend—the importance of certain pivotal events that brought us to this point. As the first decade of the 21st century, consumed by the Bush years of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was coming to a close, elements of Western and Saudi intelligence were deeply involved in orchestrating what is now known as the Arab Spring. As these plans were being laid, the process to select a new U.S. President was in progress. Specifically, the selection of the democratic nominee between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama was at issue.
Given the requirements needed to accomplish such an ambitious objective as reshaping the power structure of the entire Middle East, it is relevant to cite the “odd meeting” that occurred during the Biderberg Conference in Chantilly, Virginia, attended by Obama and Clinton, almost a year to the day (or exactly one calendar year if you use the starting and end dates) before Obama’s infamously important Cairo speech. It was on June 5, 2008 that Obama and Clinton went out of their way to ditch the press and sneak off to the Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly where Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and other globalist leaders were meeting at the Bilderberg conference. Shortly thereafter, it was Obama who was selected as the democratic nominee and ultimately, the next leader of the United States. A wise selection, perhaps, considering the globalist plans as detailed herein.
Whatever happened at that secret meeting, Obama was ultimately named as the 44th President of the United States, and Hillary Clinton was appointed as his Secretary of State.
From the very outset of the Obama foreign policy agenda, the intent to reshape the power structure of the Middle East was telegraphed to the world, but few understood the far reaching and world changing implications of this policy. On June 4, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama delivered his “New Beginnings” speech at Cairo University as referenced above. Perhaps the new restructuring of power within the Middle East was discussed at the ranch of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, located outside Riyadh, where he spent the night on his way to Cairo. From that point forward, it became increasingly obvious that the Saudi agenda was pushing America’s foreign, strategic and even military agenda throughout the Middle East. Obama’s bow to the Saudi king was deep, all we saw was his bony posterior protuberance, which is a lesson in political, or globalist perspective.
At the risk of appearing to digress, it is nonetheless important to revisit the controversy surrounding the legend of the man who is known as Barack Hussein Obama. We should recall the influence of the Saudis over Obama, from his college years to his presidential campaign. Was it not Saudi influence that paved his way into higher academia? During his campaign where he seemed to be cash poor, was there not controversy surrounding the contributions made to his campaign through anonymous internet donations, made possible through the campaign’s failure to adhere to standard protections against fraudulent and illegal giving? Suddenly, Obama had funds to carry him through the election cycle, many thousands untraceable to their origin but seemingly originating from overseas and in particular, Saudi Arabia.
Let’s also recall that the controversy surrounding the background and Constitutional eligibility of Obama remains at issue. The long form Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) still lacks the proper authentication to pass for legitimate documentation, and the person responsible for its origination was mysteriously the only fatality of nine occupants of a small plane that made a water landing off the coast of Hawaii last year. That’s quite a coincidence.
The truth, at least from my vantage point as a veteran investigator experienced in background investigations of top executives to hold their positions in Fortune 500 companies, the man known as Barack Hussein Obama has failed to furnish any authenticated proof of his Constitutional eligibility to hold office. Contrary to the corporate media, this issue has never been resolved in any court. This raises not merely a point of law, but the subject of allegiance. Look at the world today and ask yourself whether the commissions or omissions of Obama have benefitted the United States. If not, who or what nation appears to be the primary beneficiary of his agenda?
Much like the secret meeting in Chantilly where it would appear that critical decisions were made outside of the public’s purview and in violation of the Logan Act, it appears that there is a hidden power structure behind this particular man, and a concurrent shield of protection by the media to avoid any meaningful probes of his background. To mention any such things, however, is to be shunned, ostracized, and vilified.
It strains credulity that the most powerful intelligence apparatus in the world didn’t see the formation of ISIS coming. The closer one looks, the more that can be seen in the creation of this nebulous entity that is unrestricted by borders, which is a very important and significant characteristic of this threat. ISIS was created by design, with the full knowledge of those in power.
As the world watched the transformation of power in the Middle East through what is referred to as the Arab Spring, American intelligence assets landed on the shores of Libya. The landing contingent included U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was previously involved in diplomatic relations with Syria. Shortly thereafter and with the help of U.S. and other Western and Saudi intelligence assets, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, a now pliant and co-operating ally against terrorists, became the next victim of this U.S.-Saudi led agenda. Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted the news with shameful and unstatesman-like giddiness. In Libya, with Gaddafi removed and his son imprisoned, the U.S., with the aid of the British, French, Saudis, Qataris and others, established the largest CIA logistics center in Benghazi to ship arms and fighters across North Africa to Syria via Turkey.
While Michael Reagan was perhaps the first to write about this illegal covert arms operation in his column Building on a kernel of truth, I have authored more than four dozen reports on the role of Benghazi and the road to World War III. It is Benghazi where the truth must win out to prevent us from entering our death race to Damascus, or the beginning of World War III. To date, everyone has been misdirected, or intentionally directed to the “red herring” of diplomatic security as the proximate cause of the death of four Americans in Benghazi. It is nothing of the sort. The attack at Benghazi was an attack by proxy to stop the flow of arms and fighters on a mission to oust Assad and destabilize Syria, which is Russia’s red line in the sand.
Regarding Benghazi, the Select Committee on Benghazi, led by Trey Gowdy, will begin in about a month. We shall see whether this committee will be effective in ferreting out the truth, or be muzzled like the other queries before it. I expect that we will hear one of two things; either the committee will succumb to the official narrative that Benghazi was “a failure of security,” or less likely, provide the refreshing truth that it was a covert yet broadly orchestrated mission involving interwoven groups running arms and fighters across North Africa with sights set on Syria. The latter would then identify the true beneficiaries of this globalist agenda—the Saudis—and their captive agent in the Oval Office. This will not be permitted to happen, in my view, considering the “gang of eight” who knew the agenda far in advance.
As Benghazi blew up in the faces of Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the larger plot to oust Assad had to take different forms. Yet, the American public had awakened, even if for a few moments, and said “no” and “hell no” to yet another offensive or war in the Middle East. This pushback, however, did not stop the Obama-Saudi alliance from additional attempts to engage us in a conflict. We were treated to false flag events that included a chemical weapons attack purportedly conducted at the hands of Assad. Other attempts were made to engage us, yet our collective stomachs were full of the bile of this Renegade-in-Chief’s agenda.
As time marched on, we bore witness to the selection and installation of John O. Brennan as head of the CIA, an interesting choice considering his former involvement not just with the CIA, but with Obama and in particular, the Saudis. It is important to note his reported role in the passport office break-in in 2008, and his possible role with the video that supposedly sparked riots throughout the Middle East, leading to the attacks of 9/11/12. We also saw Hillary Rodham Clinton extricate herself from Foggy Bottom, a political move as she must insulate herself from the continued controversy of a foreign policy contrary to U.S. interests, especially if she intends to seek the 2016 democratic presidential nomination.
Clinton’s natural replacement was none other than John Kerry, whose personal and professional history is conducive to the globalist agenda. It is at this point where we see the actual birth of ISIS.
During John Kerry’s Middle East foreign policy tour during the 2013 Christmas and 2014 New Year, we heard Kerry state that the United States will not intervene in Iraq, which at this time is falling like a rock to jihadist terror groups. It was at this time that ISIS was birthed from conception to reality by Obama’s “hands-off” approach and Kerry’s implementation of the same. The U.S. essentially left our military hardware, Toyota Tundras and Humvees, keys still in the ignition, arms and other assets and walked away upon orders from the Renegade-in-Chief.
This action permitted the formation of a rag-tag group of hardline terrorists to suddenly become fully armed and hardened, now birthed with the necessary firepower to wipe out any Iraqi military and police presence, the presence we trained, equipped and promised to back-up, yet unceremoniously reneged on our promise. This allowed ISIS members to give the Iraqi military and police one of two choices: leave or die. Many chose the former, but unfortunately many others were caught in the latter, looking for the assistance promised by the U.S. They are no longer looking.
Now equipped with some of the best hardware American taxpayer money could buy, ISIS began to grow and overtake the region, perhaps somewhere on the eighth hole of one of Obama’s perpetual golf games. Was it incompetence? It would appear doubtful based on the evidence to date.
Understand that the ouster of Assad against the wishes of Putin remains a primary objective of this globalist crowd of U.S. and foreign leaders. We’ve opened up a new front via the creation of ISIS to get to Assad and Syria, a move fully understood by Putin. Meanwhile, the globalist leaders, including the IMF which was first on the ground in Ukraine, also opened up the Ukrainian front against Russia and Putin, to keep him occupied while the U.S.-Saudi globalist alliance is busy in the Middle East. We are watching a global chess game for power at multiple levels, and these seemingly disparate events are linked by a globalist agenda.
The globalist leaders seem to be making their boldest moves yet to bring about the conditions necessary to unite the world against a nebulous terror threat known as ISIS. The open southern borders have provided unfettered access into the United States by ISIS members, or at least the perception of infiltration, as we prepare for the next 9/11 event. While we’ve seen so many “false flag” scenarios in our lifetime, from the Gulf of Tonkin to more recent domestic events, we can be certain of one thing: an event on par with, or exceeding that of 9/11, is needed to get the attention of the American public. It is the only thing that will serve to galvanize the public into acceptance of a new front, a new war, a new offensive, or the method to get us to rally behind the agenda we have so far rejected. This is the reason that the situation today is so precarious. Simply stated, false flags and the cry for the need of additional foreign entanglements aren’t working anymore.
Is ISIS a threat to us? Indeed it is, but one made in the basement laboratories of the globalists and the lawless leaders of our own government, and those of our allies.
The end-game objective is to create a threat so dangerous and nebulous that we must come together in a globalist fashion. Most Americans would not relinquish their national sovereignty to a one world government structure—not now, not yet. They would not consider a one world, or “new world” order under the present conditions. The attacks of September 11, 2001 softened us up to accept a Third Reich formation of “homeland security” and caused many otherwise rational Americans to accept a fatal blow to our civil liberties. Think about what the next attack of an equal or greater magnitude will accomplish. Oh, by the way, does anyone recall a recent report of a few missing nuclear weapons?
May God be with us all.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
We are witnessing one of the biggest government cover-ups since Watergate. A cover-up that involves murder, arms trafficking, and lies by high-ranking officials under oath.
It involves the murderous attacks in Benghazi, and congressional investigators just released a 46-page interim progress report that at least exposes Hillary Rodham Clinton and the White House lying under oath. Where’s the accountability? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the media?
A 46-page interim progress report of an ongoing investigation across five House Committees by the U.S. House of Representatives was released on Tuesday, April 23, 2013. The executive summary states that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed off on a reduction of diplomatic security forces suggesting that this reduction of security was, in large part, to blame for the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. The report emphasizes that this is “inconsistent” with her sworn testimony of January 23, 2013. Simply stated, Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath to congressional investigators.
Additionally, the interim report states that official press talking points issued by the U.S. intelligence community were altered by the White House and Senior State Department officials on Saturday, September 15, 2012 for the sole purpose of protecting the State Department. It was emphasized that these alterations were not for protecting any classified information whatsoever.
For those of us heavily involved in investigating and reporting the events in Benghazi, the interim report merely confirms what we’ve long known. But what isn’t being addressed by this report or elsewhere? Here is what you are not being told.
Much like blaming some obscure internet video for the motivation behind the attacks, everyone, including government investigators, is citing insufficient pre-attack diplomatic security for the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. While such security for the American embassy in Tripoli was indeed a concern, it is not the key issue, but a diversion from the real issue. The real issue will open up Pandora’s box of criminal activity, the likes of which that would rock our nation to its very core.
As I have written in past investigative reports, there was never an embassy or consulate in Benghazi. Now innocuously referenced in this report as the “Benghazi mission,” the facilities in Benghazi served as a logistics center for arms and weapons transfers from Libya, ultimately destined for the anti-Assad terrorists in Syria. It was used by the “State Department’s CIA,” which is quite different than the actual CIA known by Americans. It is here that I am providing a little-known fact, albeit one that creates angst among those seventh floor occupants of the official CIA headquarters and in the uppermost echelons of the U.S. State Department.
In actuality, there are two Central Intelligence Agencies – unofficially, of course. The most “unofficial” agency works under the diplomatic cover of the U.S. State Department. It is in this venue where we will find the trinkets of treason inside Pandora’s box. It is here that the components of treason exist, covered by a cache of weapons and the bodies of the dead. It is from this covert intelligence operation directed by the highest levels of our government that we will find the truth about Benghazi and expose the lies about Libya and the globalist plans that have ignited the fuse for World War III.
We know that not everyone involved in the attack at Benghazi was killed. According to all official reports and verified by this author, there were at least 31 survivors of the Benghazi attack evacuated from the Benghazi “mission” about 90 minutes after the attack began. The 31 survivors and the bodies of Ambassador Stevens, Mr. Smith, Mr. Woods, and Mr. Doherty were ultimately transported from Tripoli to Ramstein, Germany, on a U.S. C-17, touching down at Ramstein at 10:19 PM on September 12, 2012.
So, who are they, where are they, and why haven’t we seen or heard any testimony from them?
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013, newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee regarding his knowledge of Benghazi. In one specific 90-second exchange between Congressman Dana Rorhabacher and Kerry as shown in this video, Kerry perpetuated the lie that there is nothing being withheld from congress or the American people about Benghazi, including any information that could be offered by the survivors.
What is evident from that exchange, however, is that Kerry is following the lead from former Secretary of State Clinton. His reticence to answer specific questions became quite clear by this one particular statement: “We’ve got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.” If one listens closely, the bluster from Hillary Rodham Clinton and her shrill cries of “what difference does it make” is still faintly audible in chambers.
What appears to be eluding most is the real reason the survivors have yet to speak to investigators. The Obama regime cannot allow the witnesses to be interviewed, as they are witnesses or operatives to illegal international arms trafficking coordinated by the U.S. Department of State.
Testimony from the witnesses might disclose the existence of five warehouses located in Benghazi, Misratah and Derna having direct connections to… Saudi Arabia. Their testimony might reveal that the U.S. State Department’s CIA was using the American taxpayers’ money, budgeted through congress, to collect arms under the auspices of taking them from the terrorists to make post-Qaddafi’s Libya a safer place.
In reality, however, the operational weapons were being collected and transported to these five warehouses in preparation of their transport to points north, to Jordan and Turkey for their ultimate use in Syria to destabilize the Assad government. For the inquiring minds, it is important to note that this process continues, although now the weapons are originating from Croatia, which happens to be where American personnel were busy training the anti-Assad terrorists on that fateful September day last year.
The witnesses cannot be allowed to talk freely for they might reveal that the U.S. is working directly with Saudi Arabia, through the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt, to provide our servicemen and women and our military assets to expand their pan-Islamic kingdom to the backdoor of Iran and the front door of Russia, a situation that is unacceptable to Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
The report as well as the feigned cooperation of officials from the Obama regime does not address the biggest lies of all. The U.S., by direct orders of Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are working closely with the Saudis to destroy and remake nations for a larger plan drafted by larger global interests.
It’s about vying for position at the table of the globalists. It’s about oil and energy, wealth and power, but the lie is so big that few can comprehend the larger picture. This larger picture, by the way, is disturbing on many levels, and involves decades of history rich in deception by both political parties. Its roots can be traced back to the creation of ARAMCO in the 1930s, followed through the years of the twentieth century as the incestuous relationship between the Saudi Royals and the U.S., its leaders and elected officials, forged clandestine deals that existed on September 11, 2001, the infamous meeting on the Truman balcony, and the election of a Saudi “cutout” in the person of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. It’s about the voluminous influx of campaign contributions to Obama in 2008, in amounts small enough to avoid reporting their origins. It’s about a takeover of America.
Whether it’s hand-holding or a slobbering kiss on the lips between U.S. presidents and the Royal family, or a bow so deep that all Americans can see is the backside of a leader, the view is the same. Whether sealed with a kiss or a bow, the lies continue. Regarding the latter, the attack in Benghazi and even the bombings in Boston occurred under a full moon, at least for all Americans. And I’m not talking about the celestial body.
How does Boston fit into this beyond what I’ve already written? Stay tuned, as there is much more to come. The lie is bigger than you can imagine, and there are more trinkets of treason to be exposed.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
What do the murders of four Americans in Benghazi have to do with the murders of three in a terrorist attack in Boston?
Plenty, if you understand what you are seeing in the abstract expressionism of the Jackson Pollock painting is actually a blood trail, and the Pollock painting you are closely studying is an exact reproduction of one of his earlier works. It is a reproduction of a reproduction. We’ve seen this picture before, a bloodstained tangle of lies being sold to us as an artistic masterpiece. But you have to step farther back, not closer to the painting, to see the blood trail.
Does anyone still remember the terror attack and murders of Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? Does anyone still care? How about the indignation shown by Obama’s then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on January 23, 2013, when being questioned by Senator Johnson about whether the American people were misled about the motive for the attacks? Animated and agitated, Clinton never did answer the question, instead waving her arms and pounding her fist on the table before her in a decidedly undiplomatic fashion while shedding absolutely no light on what she knew and when she knew it.
Her response was dreadfully shrill yet non-committal, instead rebuking the Senator for seeking the truth with “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans What difference, at this point, does it make?”
In the wake of the bombings in Boston and amid information the government and media do not want you, the average American citizen, to know, motive and causation make a lot of difference. Compare Clinton’s terse response to questions surrounding Benghazi with that of Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, whose testosterone levels rose sharply as she decided that she would not even dignify Congressman Jeff Duncan’s questioning last week about the reported involvement of a Saudi national identified as Abdulrahman Ali Isa al-Salami al-Harbi, a/k/a Abdulrahman al Harbi.
In the event you don’t recognize that name associated with the Boston bombing, the media initially reported that a Saudi national, later determined to be al Harbi, was under guard at a Boston hospital after being injured in the attack. He was seen running from the explosions and tackled by police a short distance from the bombing site. During the normal investigative process of al Harbi, investigators learned that he was reportedly the subject of an alleged deportation order under Section 212 3B Immigration & Nationality Act regarding “Security an”, but completely unrelated to Boston. To get on this list requires some pretty substantial evidence. To be removed from this list is practically impossible, short of detention or death.
Amid the flurry of media reports that followed, however, his name and status at the hospital were gradually and methodically being erased from news reports and people’s memories. An intentional government and media brown-out turned into a noticeable blackout, even while federal authorities were searching his fifth-floor apartment at 364 Ocean Avenue, Revere, MA and removing various items for forensic analysis.
Before the last items were taken from his apartment, I am told, orders were given to immediately stop any investigation of al Harbi. Suddenly and inexplicably, al Harbi became off limits, and a few federal agents are angry and want to know why.
His status under Section 212 3B was reportedly rescinded about 5:30 p.m. ET Wednesday, and he suddenly enjoyed protective status on orders from the ‘highest levels of our government’, but not before Congressman Duncan had a copy of the 212 3B status of al Harbi. Additionally, it is reported, not only was the order rescinded, but his file was made to appear as if the order never existed in the first place.
According to sources close to this author, al Harbi became the primary focus of a high level diplomatic meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal on Tuesday morning, the day after the marathon bombing and the day before his status suddenly changed. The 10:00 am meeting was abruptly closed to the media with only minutes notice, something that rarely happens. The reason, according to sources with “knowledge” of the matter, is due to the classification of al Harbi as a person of interest in the marathon bombing and his status as a Saudi “elite”.
The aforementioned file alteration and status were changed following this meeting, and arrangements were reportedly made for him to leave the United States. As all of this reportedly took place in such a very short period of time, it is important to understand that the alleged changes had to have the approval at the level of the U.S. Secretary of State, or higher. It was done on behalf of the Saudis, with approval and direction from the highest levels of our own government. Why is this important to the events in Boston and Benghazi?
First, don’t get stuck in the minutia of al Harbi, just be aware of it and who is behind it. Instead, look at the larger picture. To be clear, al Harbi himself is not the main story here. It’s bigger than that, and the problem is that people are not thinking big enough. It’s about an agenda to shape the world power structure. The Obama regime is in place to finish what was started long ago. Now, the players under Obama and a complicit press are shielding the truth from the American people. We are not being told the truth about anything, from Benghazi to Boston, and the common factor in all of this is Saudi Arabia.
Our intimate relationship with Saudi Arabia began in earnest (most recently) under George Herbert Walker Bush, and was further expanded by George W. Bush, a/k/a ‘Bandar Bush,’ a name earned for his intimate relationship with Prince Sultan bin Bandar of Saudi Arabia. It should be clear by now that the continuity of this globalist, Pan-Islamic agenda that existed under Bush was further solidified and even expanded by the Obama administration. It is not a political agenda, but a globalist one. We do not have elected leaders who favor the U.S., but internationalists that favor the globalist agenda. Understanding this should explain that the right-left paradigm is a historical artifact, and provide perspective on how the government is pushing this agenda toward completion. We’ve been overtaken and captured from within.
We’ve learned from the 2001 attacks that the Saudis are the largest exporters of terrorism, yet we continue to work for them, providing our military assets and our troops to doing their dirty work. Through the Muslim Brotherhood, they have infiltrated many, if not all levels of our government. As stated, this did not begin under Obama, but was expanded under him. And what better presidential candidate was there to accomplish this objective? Now does his meteoric rise from a community organizer to state senator to President make better sense?
We still cannot even have any intelligent conversation about Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to hold the Office of President without being marginalized by both sides of the political divide. Why then, would we expect the truth about Benghazi? And yet, Americans believe what they see and hear about everything from Benghazi, Boston, and even to matters of our economy? We are a captured operation.
Just as the situation involving al Harbi provides us with a window into this agenda, Benghazi provides us with that same window. Unraveling the truth from the lies in both instances will show just how deep the U.S. is involved with expanding the Saudi Kingdom of power across the Middle East, even at our own national peril. Of critical importance, this relationship is leading us on the path to World War III.
Before the marathon bombings, Russian intelligence officials warned the U.S. about the Islamic terror threat posed by Islamic terrorists in the U.S., including the older brother of the Boston bombing duo. The FBI KNEW the identity of the elder Boston bomber a year ago. Yet, the U.S. DHS, under the Obama regime, deliberately ignored the warnings. We’re spreading and actually sponsoring this radicalization through this Pan-Islamic agenda, yet most people cannot see the bigger picture.
Putin warned us that our policies were the equivalent of playing with dynamite, and continuing to play would result in a direct confrontation with them. During the so-called Arab Spring, Putin also warned the U.S. not to destabilize the Middle East, and warned Obama not to meddle in the affairs of Syria, which he described as their ‘red line in the sand’. Syria holds strategic military and economic importance for Russia and China, and is the backdoor to Iran, another country of importance to both superpowers.
Despite these warnings, the U.S. set up the largest weapons running operation in Benghazi, a location from where weapons were shipped under U.S. operational command to the Islamic terrorists in Syria to topple the Assad regime. The Saudis were the paymasters for this operation, but are duplicitous.
Benghazi was the direct result of this operation, and we now find ourselves in a proxy war with Russia-and soon to be China-with no peaceful end in sight as the U.S. continues to do the dirty work for the Saudis, the internationalists, the international bankers, and the global elite. The terror attacks in Boston were the latest blowback from our foreign policy, and there will be more.
Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, and the entirety of the Obama regime are refusing to provide Americans with any truths about what is actually taking place, whether it is about a sole Saudi citizen or the attacks in Benghazi, and complete Saudi agenda. Meanwhile, clueless Americans cheer as the younger bombing suspect is arrested after one of the most unprecedented manhunts in U.S. history, but fail to see all of the entanglements of the Pollock painting. We are willfully and almost gleefully giving up our rights because of the globalists who are running the foreign and domestic policies.
Like the Pollock paintings, people must be able to see the connections—the blood trails—that connect the terrorist attacks in Boston to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. We are emboldening the Muslim terrorists by our foreign policies. We are training them, arming them, and in some cases, siding with one faction over another. We are not exporting peace or freeing people from oppression, but creating a new world order.
Time and again, from the first World Trade Center Bombing to 9/11, from Benghazi to Boston, we see the same template reproductions of the paintings, yet don’t recognize it.
We are not dealing with Americans with an American mentality. No, we are dealing with Americans in name only, driven by an internationalist, global mentality.
The ‘elected’ are the ‘elect’ vying for a future seat at the global table. They are hidden amid the entanglements of the Pollock work. They are the very ones who will lead us into global conflict.
So when you see the next massive manhunt that closes a city, understand that this is of our own doing. This is part of a larger agenda that you must step back from the painting to identify. While we surrender our rights domestically, we advance on the path that takes us into WW III. Boston was an indirect blowback from Benghazi, but the truth of the matter will continue to remain hidden unless we demand and receive answers to the proper questions. That is assuming, of course, there is anyone left to ask such questions.
Step back and look at the larger picture. See the blood trail that extends among the continents.
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.