Thread: CIA expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror

CIA expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror
'America has moved toward its Muslim enemies'
Published: 12 hours ago
Garth Kant WND Aug 28




President Obama appears to bow to Saudi King Abdullah, on April 1, 2009, in London


WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, one that practically accuses the president of treason.

A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.

Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?

As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.


Osama bin Laden

She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”

Why would Obama order the killing of bin Laden?

Because the president “couldn’t delay any longer,” once the opportunity was presented, Lopez told WND.

There were “no more excuses” available to avoid it and he “thought it might look good,” she mused.

The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.

Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez’s insights are backed by an impressive array of credentials.


Former CIA operations officer Clare Lopez

She spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. Lopez currently manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

What do YOU think? What should be done about ISIS? Sound off in today’s WND poll.

In a previous interview with WND, Lopez described the stunning extent of infiltration of the administration and other branches of the federal government by the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

She said the infiltration began under former President Bill Clinton but really took hold under the Obama administration, which, she said, “includes various levels of understanding and misunderstanding of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“Some in the administration genuinely appear to believe the Muslim Brotherhood can act as a foil or counterweight to al-Qaida, although with what’s going on in Syria, it’s hard to understand how they would still think that,” she observed.

Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, “consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading,” adding, they “take pains to assure the world they don’t think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?”

“In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror,” she said. “Even though President George W. Bush was obviously confused and mistaken when he called Islam a ‘religion of peace’ the day after 9/11, he wasn’t deliberately exonerating the perpetrators. Surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood agents of influence, he simply didn’t understand.”
President Bush at ground zero in New York on Sept. 14, 2001

President Bush at ground zero in New York on Sept. 14, 2001

She said Obama and his administration “have no excuse” for not knowing better, given the extensive investigation, research and studies done since Sept. 11.

Instead, Lopez maintained, it was the Obama administration “that actively purged truthful curriculum about the inspirational relationship between Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture and Islamic terrorism.”

In fact, she said, they were told what to purge by groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and even allowed some of those same groups to supervise the purge. All of that, she observed, “would seem to indicate certain knowledge about the Islamic threat, and a determined effort to ignore that threat.”

Lopez chastised the Obama administration for what she called beating a hasty retreat, under fire, out of Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing full well they would both fall to Islam, the Taliban and Iran, respectively.

“But we’d already written their Shariah constitutions, so the actual ultimate physical domination was already prepared with the legal precedent and foundation,” she observed.

By 2014, she maintained, U.S. leadership had purged all its training curriculum and official discourse of any terminology that would accurately identify the Islamic enemy, “and the time was right. Al-Qaida receded and [ISIS] arose. The U.S. couldn’t tell the difference between jihadist militias to save its life anyway, quite literally.”

The former CIA operative said, “as Israel fought enemies on all sides to remain free, secure and Jewish, America began to move away from Israel and toward its Muslim enemies. And, as Iran moved inexorably toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability, America helped.”

WND asked Lopez: How did America help Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism worldwide?

She said the Obama administration “consistently has engaged with this Iranian regime, pleaded with it to engage, and continue to engage, in obviously fruitless negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. The administration extended deadlines repeatedly, refused to hold Iran to account meaningfully for its terror support, including involvement in Sept. 11, lethal support to Iraqi militias in the 2000s and continuing harboring al-Qaida operations cell on its soil.”

Furthermore, Lopez insisted the administration refused to even broach certain key topics in negotiations (such as Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program) and failed to insist that earlier U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding Iran halt all nuclear enrichment be implemented before any further talks. Instead, she said the administration explicitly signaled, in the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action agreement, it would allow Iran to continue enrichment permanently.
Purported ISIS massacre in Iraq

Purported ISIS massacre in Iraq

ISIS crisis

After the ISIS threat first burst into public view, as the terrorist army sprang from Syria and shockingly began capturing great swaths of Iraqi territory with a savagery evidenced by its many massacres and beheadings, Lopez urged caution before the U.S. re-engaged in the area militarily.

She told WND the U.S. should protect its interests and those minorities facing genocide, but otherwise, let the warring parties sort it out, for the time being.

Obama briefly spoke to reporters Thursday about his options in dealing with ISIS, and sounded, at least on the surface, very much like he is doing as just Lopez has recommended, but with one big difference.

The president resisted calls to escalate airstrikes and destroy ISIS, emphasizing the U.S. is currently engaged in only limited efforts to protect American personnel and consulates, as well as providing humanitarian relief and protection of minorities where possible.

He also, like Lopez, said a broader strategy for the region was needed, but notably, he did not state what the goal should be.

The goal of the global war on terror, or GWOT, launched after Sept. 11, was understood to be the defeat of jihadism both in the Mideast and globally.

Obama articulated no such goal, and has, in fact, declared there no longer is a global war on terror.

That is where Lopez and Obama veer in entirely different directions.

She names the enemy as jihadis and states the goal should be their destruction.

“Above all, we must acknowledge that the enemy is supremacist forces of Islamic jihad,” Lopez told WND. “We must name, acknowledge, confront the enemy as he is – not as we wish him to be.”

She scoffed at the notion that what others call radical Islam was a “defeated ideology.”

“Oh? What ideology is that? The 1,400-year-old one that’s already made mincemeat out of six or seven major world empires? That one?”

In her previous interview with WND, Lopez explained what she thought was Obama’s real goal: Far from seeking the defeat of jihadism in the Mideast or globally, Obama preferred to let Sunni and Shiite jihadists each have their own spheres of influence in the Muslim world and America should withdraw its troops and influence from the region.
American journalist James Foley before his beheading by ISIS

American journalist James Foley before his beheading by ISIS

However, the ISIS crisis has caused Obama to re-engage militarily in Iraq, ordering airstrikes even while many commentators clamor for much more.

Ever since the video of the ISIS beheading of American journalist James Foley appeared last week, numerous military experts and political commentators have called upon the administration to wipe out ISIS before it makes good on its threat to attack the U.S. homeland.

Even Obama seemed to take the ISIS threat much more seriously than he did in January when he referred to jihadi factions in Syria as “jayvee teams.”

And, suddenly, an apparent ISIS emergency had set in, with these headlines appearing just over the weekend:


Law enforcement intensifying efforts to identify sympathizers
After that barrage, WND asked Lopez if she still believed the U.S. should protect just its interests and endangered minorities, or whether it should try to destroy ISIS (which she referred to as IS).

Lopez held firm, declaring, “It’s remarkable to me how unanimous our intelligence, media, military and political leadership all are about the need to ‘destroy [ISIS].’ It’s like they all were touched at the same moment by some magic wand, woke up to this threat, and fell into lock-step about the solution, without another thought. The epitome of groupthink, in my opinion.”

She did maintain Foley should be avenged, and other captives freed, if at all possible. In fact, she said the captors should be obliterated.

Furthermore, she recommended arming the Kurds and declaring them U.S. partners in the region, who should be supported in their national aspirations.

As for the terrorist army, “If [ISIS] makes one move against our regional partners – Israel, Jordan, the Kurds – we clobber them, then leave. If we determine that [ISIS] is plotting by itself or in conjunction with a nation-state, or other sub-national terror organization like Hezbollah, again – like Iran did with al-Qaida and Hezbollah – we clobber both of them, all of them, then leave. No nation building. They pick up the pieces, not us.”

But unless ISIS further threatens the interests of the U.S. or its allies, Lopez believes the U.S. should proceed only with extreme caution.

“I don’t think the USA should act as cats’ paw for either side of an intra-Islamic sectarian squabble, which has at least a 50-50 chance of winding up a pan-Islamic alliance against us, even as Iran and al-Qaida remain joined in an operational terrorist alliance that began in 1990, brought us Sept. 11, and continues to this day. No one is talking about Iran and its role, whatever it is, regarding [ISIS]. That concerns me.”

Other than protecting American interests and minorities, she recommended something Obama said on Thursday he would look into, inviting regional powers that feel threatened by ISIS to form a plan and deal with it. Lopez dryly noted, “We’ve already sold them enough advanced weaponry to take over the entire galaxy.”

One former Pentagon analyst, who wished to remain anonymous, appeared to speak for an emerging consensus in the defense community, when he told WND the ISIS threat needed to be addressed more vigorously, decisively and immediately, “considering that ISIS is now a full-blown army encompassing territory the size of Great Britain.”

“We, along with the regional powers, need to come up with a strategy to defeat them,” the analyst advised, echoing Lopez.

However, the analyst added, “In effect, we will have to go into full-blown warfare mode to do so, because they’re coming and nothing seems to be stopping them.”

The former Pentagon analyst then went a step further than many other commentators in suggesting, “the U.S. and allies may have to begin working with Syria and Iran to defeat a common threat. It isn’t the Shiites of Iran launching these jihadist groups. It’s the Sunnis under the control and financing of Saudi Arabia and a number of the other Gulf Arab states.”

Lopez disagreed on two fronts. She cited the danger in partnering with Iran, and she urged caution in implementing a short-term plan of confronting ISIS before developing a coherent long-term strategy for the Mideast and to defeat jihadism.

“I remain concerned that we not tip the balance in favor of either side in this essentially intra-Islamic sectarian fight between Shiites and Sunnis. Both sides are jihadist enemies of the U.S., our friends, allies and security interests,” said the former CIA analyst.

She noted, at the moment, IS is occupied with taking and holding territory in what used to be Iraq and Syria, while establishing administration and governance (including enforcement of Shariah) in that territory.


Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps

Lopez pointed out how ISIS is also fighting at least six adversaries on multiple fronts at the same time: against the Iraqi and Syrian governments; al-Qaida militias in Syria, non-al-Qaida militias in Syria; the U.S. and U.K. airstrikes; the Kurds; and maybe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or Qods Force, too.

And, she previously told WND, while countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey may have initially instigated and bankrolled ISIS, those regimes and others, such as Iran and Qatar, “play all sides of the jihadi game” and have “enabled a monster in ISIS” they can no longer control, and “they should be allowed to reap what they’ve sown.”

Furthermore, she maintained, U.S. leadership has proven incapable of sorting out who’s who or who’s backing whom.

“Right now, I think the most serious threat to the homeland comes from individual or small groups of individual jihadis carrying U.S. or other Western passports, who return home or can easily cross borders, including our own collapsed southern border, and mount attacks in the West, including America.”

Lopez said she would like to see more consideration given to exactly who and what ISIS is, where it came from and what it represents. She wants to know if it is the leading edge, “the current violent vanguard,” of what she called the 1,400-year-old supremacist forces of Islamic jihad.

“In many ways, al-Qaida prepared the ground for the Islamic State. Al-Qaida, which means, ‘the base,’ did its job, which was to awaken the Muslim masses, to prod the ummah to action against the infidel after a long hiatus. It spawned off-shoot franchises across the globe, not to mention in the virtual spaces of the Internet. It did its job and may now be superseded by [ISIS]. We shall see about that.”

She described how Sept. 11 accomplished its mission of drawing the leader of the free world, “the greatest obstacle to establishment of a universal Caliphate,” into devastating and costly wars in Muslim lands.

Lopez said the steady infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into positions of advice and appointment at top levels of U.S. national security ensured maximum confusion about whom Americans were fighting, why, “and even whether we Americans have anything worth defending in the first place.”

Now, she sees the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, a 57-member head of state organization of all Muslim states in the world plus Palestinians, as “sitting by idly as [ISIS] gobbles up its member states’ territory and threatens the borders of others.”

Lopez said Shiite Iran responded to some verbal threats and barbs by sends some Qods Force advisers to “prop up” what she called its Baghdad proxy, and to protect the Shiite shrines from ISIS attack, but not much else.

“Everybody waits for the U.S. to stumble into the scene once again like some deus ex machine, so the whole charade can begin all over again. American blood and treasure spent, amidst clamor for infidels to exit Muslim lands, boiling Muslim rage about the imperative to strike ‘the far enemy’ again, hit the kuffar (non-Muslim) in his homeland, even while the Caliphate consolidates its rule, begins to govern as the Islamic State it claims to be, and, all the while, the wealthy-beyond-imagination sheikhdoms supposedly most threatened by this ‘un-Islamic’ horde – and the emerging Shi’ite hegemon of the Persian Gulf – respond lackadaisically, if at all. What is wrong with this picture?”

Lopez told WND she was concerned that nobody in American leadership really sees or understands the big picture, and the U.S. seems to be manipulated to fulfill objectives not in its best interests.

“From my perspective, I’m seeing American national security interests steadily eroded, almost everywhere we look, and the forces of adversaries and enemies advancing. But, of course, to see this, it’s necessary first to know who we are as a people, what are our ‘first things’?”

Founding-Fathers-Americans-for-ProsperityShe wondered whether Americans were still willing to fight and die for such principles as independence, individual liberty, Bill of Rights freedoms, consent of the governed under rule of man-made law, noting, “At the very least, we are badly off the track envisioned by our Founding Fathers.”

“Our current national policy doesn’t even seem to consider ‘first things,’ or know what they are, when formulating and implementing recent foreign policy.”

She cited such examples as providing guns to al-Qaida in Libya, backing jihadist rebels in Syria, and what she described as enabling the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions while ignoring the Iranian people’s desperate struggle for liberty.

Lopez argued, before U.S. leaders could deduce the right course of action on the other side of the world, first they must figure out the right things to do at home.

She asked, “When do we go back to fighting for ‘first things’ again?”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/cia-exper...2DvWxSsEJyh.99

If you trained ISIS "YOU ARE ISIS"

If you Armed ISIS "YOU ARE ISIS"

Stop the Impeachment Talk

Start the War Crimes / Crimes against Humanity Trials

Conservative Lady

Is ISIS already living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?




Is ISIS already living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
(by L. Todd Wood, WCJ) -- So now even our Secretary of Defense is warning American citizens that The Islamic State is coming for them and is preparing to attack the United States in a major way. He tells the American people to Be...
gopthedailydose.com

Is ISIS already living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Posted on 24 August, 2014 by clyde



(by L. Todd Wood, WCJ) — So now even our Secretary of Defense is warning American citizens that The Islamic State is coming for them and is preparing to attack the United States in a major way. He tells the American people to Be Ready.
Excuse me, but I thought the number one responsibility of the President of the United States was to protect the American public and, as Commander in Chief, defeat our enemies. That is what the Constitution calls for; but that is not the agenda of this president, our Dear Leader. Rather, President Obama has created a scenario for the destruction of the United States.
We’ve talked over and over on these pages about the out of control spending on wealth redistribution and the burgeoning federal deficit that is approaching twenty trillion dollars. The deficit has come down somewhat recently but is scheduled to skyrocket as expenses for Obamacare kick in. This explosion of debt has crowded out spending on needed priorities such as military spending, which is the first and foremost responsibility of the federal government. Our military is being downsized to irresponsible levels at the exact moment when the threats against this country are ballooning all over the world. I believe the run up in debt and the resulting reduction in military spending by the United States is on purpose.
Now let’s shift the discussion to the border. Since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security has made a huge issue of keeping watch of who enters the country. The consequences of a weapon of mass destruction being detonated within the country in a major city are too horrible to contemplate.
However, since the children began showing up on the border and the Obama administration began relocating them across the country even without informing state officials, we now have thousands of individuals who are here illegally–and we don’t even know who they are! The administration even recently admitted that many were flown across the U.S. without any proper identification at all. Many of these children are now known to be violent gang members from Central America. Many of them look like adults. Many of them are very possibly terrorists who used the border crisis and the Obama administration’s refusal to secure the border as a way to enter the country.
Now let’s take this a step further. We know the Obama administration has been hellbent on removing American troops from the Middle East since coming to power. Obviously, our intelligence services briefed the White House on the consequences of this action. The administration had to know that removing American troops would foster the rise of Islamic jihadism and terrorism in the region once our forces were removed. President Bush always said, I’d rather fight them over there than here. Now we have a situation where a violent Islamic caliphate has been created in the Levant and Iraq. The administration had to know this would happen. The question is, why did they let it happen?
So currently, we have a much weaker military. We have an open border where terrorists are pouring through. Terrorism is back in force after we spent trillions and lost thousands of brave soldiers to defeat it. ISIS now has unimaginable resources and can provide these terrorists in-country with weapons of mass destruction that could destroy our cities. We have an arch enemy that only a few days ago vowed to raise the flag of ISIS over the White House.
With all of this being allowed to happen in front of our faces, the question has to be asked: Is ISIS already living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Red Flag News


http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/08/2...lvania-avenue/

Is President Obama An Agent For Islamists The Way King Edward VIII Was For The Nazis?

August 27, 2014 by John Myers

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” — Barack Obama

“The two people who have caused me the most trouble in my life are Wallis Simpson and Hitler.” — Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
Islam is becoming more extreme with each passing year and with only token impediment from President Barack Obama. I believe the president is either naïve or he is purposely helping Islamic aspirations for global domination.
That there is something wrong at the White House is becoming apparent in the wake of the cancer that can be seen in the growing violence in the Middle East by the Islamic State. The terrorist group also known as ISIS or ISIL is a cancer that is a long-term threat to all of us. It is a cancer whose virility can be diagnosed by the gruesome beheading of American photojournalist James Foley, reportedly by a born and bred Englishman who joined ISIS and is now a wanted traitor.
Still, apologists say this and every other terror attack and broadcast execution have nothing to do with Islam. Rather, such acts are the work of terrorists or — as former President George W. Bush called the 9/11 terrorists — “evildoers.”
News flash: Islam at its marrow is the evildoer. It isn’t because the majority of Muslims are involved in a global jihad. In truth, they are a very small minority. Instead, it’s because more than 90 percent of Muslims refuse to speak out against the barbaric goals of the terrorists in their ranks.
In many ways radical Islam is no different than Nazism of the 1930s. But rather than a single race following the evil edict of Adolf Hitler, evil and radical Islam is driven by millions of Muslims following the teachings of the Quran.
Liberalism brings with it an army of appeasers. In the late 1930s, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and America’s ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy, thought Hitler was a leader they could work with. Certainly, most of the 40 million Germans didn’t want war. When the Nazi leadership pressed it upon them, a small minority protested and many were exterminated.
World War III may have commenced, and the apologists are doing their utmost to deny the fact that radical Islam has its sights set not only on the domination of the Middle East but also on — within the next half century — the world.
In an interview with Mike Huckabee, author Joel Richardson said the number of radical Muslims is as high as 250 million. They are soulless when it comes to murder and mayhem against Western democratic nations. That is a quarter of a billion people spread around the world — some likely living not far from you, some hoping for the death and destruction of “nonbelievers” as is proclaimed in the Quran. This idea that Islam is a peace-loving religion — as expressed by Bush and emphasized by a man I consider to be a Muslim, Obama — puts America in grave jeopardy.
I believe that Islam is as evil and an even greater world threat to free thought than Nazism. Radical Muslims are fighting a guerrilla war in which thousands, and sometimes millions, of Islamic zealots become more radical each year and more willing to take up arms against the very peoples who provide them freedom and comfort.
Two hundred and fifty million Muslims are devoted not to a man and twisted hate and political dogma but to their god, their prophet and even their imam. To go against them and the Quran does not risk jail or even execution but the eternal damnation of hellfire.

The Traitor King

If I ever get to the pearly gates and meet Saint Peter and if I am able to get past all my sins, he might ask me what my area of expertise was. I will not say investing or energy or writing, I will say the era of World War II because I have soaked it in all my life through writings and interviews with men of both sides of the European theater of war. Yet one evening, as I watched a documentary titled “Britain’s Nazi King,” I realized how little of that time period I really understood. According to a respected production company, King Edward VIII and his consort, Wallis Simpson, corresponded openly with the Nazi hierarchy and even knew of Hitler’s plan to restore him as the rightful king after the Germans invaded and occupied England. This all happened as Ambassador Kennedy and many others on both sides of the Atlantic believed the defeat of England was fait accompli.



My wife, born in England and a royalist to her core, was out the evening I watched “Britain’s Nazi King.” When she returned home, I told her what I had just watched. She looked at me as if I had completely cracked up.
I didn’t raise the subject again but read much more about it, including how Prime Minister Winston Churchill told one confidant that he believed Edward and Simpson should be shot as traitors.
My wife was shocked when a National Geographic program came on TV regarding the traitorous acts of Edward, especially when she realized that it took five decades before this revelation had been revealed by declassified FBI files.



My wife — just as my English mother — had always believed that the king had abdicated the throne simply because he wanted to marry an American divorcee.
That was hardly so, as it turned out. Allied intelligence had a huge case file on Edward and Simpson. Luckily, Edward had only ceremonial powers. He did not in any way direct the government or the political decisions made by Great Britain.
What if Edward had been an imperial king with immense powers? What if he had not only had dictatorial control of the empire but also a group of loyalists in his court that would have done anything to protect him? What if the aristocracy had been fully invested in him? If that had been the case, I dare say I would be writing these words to you in German.

What Did The President Know And When Did He Know It?

What if there is even a small chance that Obama is loyal to the Quran and Islam? Does that sound crazy? It’s no crazier than Edward being the Nazi king. And even if there is one chance in 10 that Obama is loyal to the Quran and Islam, it deserves consideration because Islam may be a nemesis to the West.
Factor in that there is only one chance in 100 that I am correct of the threat of Islam. Do you want to see your nation destroyed, your values upended, over one chance in a 100? Millions of people play the lottery for one chance in a million. And if a doctor said you have a 1 percent chance of having terminal cancer, how upset would you feel?
I feel very upset. Maybe you and I face only a one in 100 chance of Islam obliterating us, our children and our grandchildren. But even at that, I don’t like those odds. I can only hope I am dead wrong and not a dead infidel.

Yours in good times and bad,
–John Myers

http://personalliberty.com/president...rd-viii-nazis/

Joe the Plumber

CLICK HERE for more proof that the Obama family is UP TO ITS NECK IN MUSLIM TERRORISM.




Obama Facilitated ISIS: A “Plain View” Case For Treason
Has President Barack Obama in fact given aid and comfort to the enemy ISIS? If...
joeforamerica.com

Obama Facilitated ISIS: A “Plain View” Case For Treason

Posted by Adina Kutnicki on Aug 27, 2014 in Islam

Has President Barack Obama in fact given aid and comfort to the enemy ISIS? If he facilitated their rise – it is a case for treason:
MUCH info is bandied about throughout regular and alternative media, especially regarding the explosion of wildfires engulfing the Mid East. In fact, countless are now realizing – to their horror – that America is ever more vulnerable, even juxtaposed to the shattering precipitated by 9/11/01.
IN this regard, what part, if any, has Barack HUSSEIN Obama played in the rise of this exploding threat level, primarily resonant due to the obvious barbarism of ISIS aka ISIL?

Commentary by Adina Kutnicki



IT is nigh (surgically) impossible to separate Barack HUSSEIN Obama from the death and destruction swathing across the Mid East & beyond. Like a pig to its sh-t. Coming to an explosive theater near you!
STILL, if one insists on indulging via flights from fancy into varying shades of gray, well, go right ahead. But don’t dare drag others down this danger-filled rabbit hole. Most significantly, some things ARE black and white, as discomfiting as it may seem. You just gotta buck up. As is said, “man up”…women alike…good vs evil…right from wrong. Far too many operate ala mental and intellectual disconnects/gymnastics, those which defy all rational logic. So-called smarties too. Simple as that. Besides, associated meandering obviates ones integrity – personal or professional – to pretend what is isn’t. It is no longer an “opinion” or subjective question: is the POTUS operating in the interests of America? That (leaky) ship has long since sailed.
DESPITE all of the above it is intrinsic to separate various groupings: individuals who are truly malignant and adhere to Islamic jihadi tenets; from bedazzled Obamabots – those who stubbornly refuse to believe said malignant intent – irrespective of all evidence; to individuals who are absolutely confused as to what’s what. A motley crew. Be that as it may, it is this site’s core mission to educate. Forewarn.
Hopefully, my small effort will enlighten Israelis and Americans (and the west in general) to the dangers posed by our common foes. These dangers are fueled exponentially by the morphing of the Red/Green alliance-radical leftists and Islamic jihadists.
IN line with said mission statement truth-telling is not optional. It is obligatory. So while it was also the case that a slight smattering of “rebels” aligned with principles of some variant of democratic views, the fact of the matter was that said actors were NOT the ones the Islamist-in-Chief set out to arm. The proofs are manifest. They are laid out, in all their ignominy, at this site and elsewhere.
GOING a step further, consider said exhibits akin to those used by law enforcement. Inherently, when deciding whether it is legal to seize certain evidence via the criminal law tenet, Plain View Doctrine, one cannot make it up as one goes along, unless living by the laws of the jungle, or within an Islamic 7th century “law of the sword” mandate. This bears repeating over and over. In other words, some evidence is so weighty – so obviously in “plain view” – it is impossible not to (mentally) seize upon it!
The plain view doctrine is a concept in criminal law that allows a law enforcement officer to make a search and seizure without obtaining a search warrant if evidence of criminal activity or the product of a crime can be seen without entry or search.
AGREED, the charge of treason is separate (and apart) from criminal law. In fact, it is duly delineated within the Constitution:
To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
ATOP all of his crimes against the American people, consorting with the enemy takes on special significance. Resonance. It reaches the HIGHEST bar in national crimes. So if operating under the premise that ISIS/ISIL/Hamas (and the entire Brotherhood Mafia…their Shia helpmates in toto) are avowed enemies of the U.S. (by extension, the entire west), surely treason is more than supportable. It rises to the occasion – on steroids!
BUT to connect the Jihadi-in-Chief to ISIS one must resurrect the roots of his Mid East wildfires. Upheavals. Alas, from the moment that he PLANNED the ouster of Egypt’s Mubarak all hell broke loose, as intended. Say what?
WELL, as a result of his “meddling” and his championing of the Brotherhood Mafia, Egypt’s leaders filed an indictment against Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Hill too. Interesting. Congress has yet to do the same. Orwellian.
The underlying theme of the trial seems to be a case being made against the Obama administration. Testimony by Mubarak administration officials is that the Obama administration had a direct hand in the 2011 revolution in Egypt. In reality, according to testimony, it wasn’t a revolution at all but a conspiracy.
KNOW this to the nth degree: Egypt’s toppling was designed as a knock-on effect to lead into Libya; ipso facto as a gateway to topple Syria via MASSIVE weapons-running – MAN-PADS as prime booty – resulting in Benghazigate. The operational end point involved transfers to the “rebels” in Syria. Basically, said fires were meant to assist the “rebels” – via the Islamist-in-Chief’s mischief – to install the Brotherhood Mafia into power, even though Obama Inc.’s thrust into Egypt didn’t go as planned. Machiavellian.
MORE specifically, ISIS is an outgrowth of said “rebels” and Obama Inc. helped to arm and train them! Sounds like conspiracy-talk, but no less true.

DEFY anyone to counter said charge sheet…
SIGNIFICANTLY,
The Muslim President of the U.S. Barack Obama lied about ISIL. We know this because as a Muslim, he would know the truth about who ISIL is. We also know this because he has access to far more intelligence than those of us who knew who ISIL was with far less information at our disposal.
Obama’s Muslim brother Malik Obama runs a foundation given illegal tax exempt status by Lois Lerner and is connected to Sudan’s terrorist regime as well as Hamas through his boss Suar al-Dahab. Barack Obama’s Muslim grandmother Mama Sarah Obamaruns a foundation that Barack Obama’s Muslim cousin Musa Ismail Obama says uses funds to send Kenyan students to virulent Wahhabist schools in Saudi Arabia. Barack Obama’s Muslim uncle Sayyid was caught on video saying that the entire family is Muslim.
Yet, Muslim Barack Obama didn’t see ISIL coming?
youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf7DPpPcMzI
Even if you’re of the persuasion that believes Barack Obama is the only non-Muslim member of his clan, wouldn’t you think with all his familial Muslim resources, he’d pick up the phone and get their take on ISIL before calling it “JV” (assuming he didn’t trust his own intelligence committee)?
CLICK HERE for more proof that the Obama family is UP TO ITS NECK IN MUSLIM TERRORISM.
Here is a short video that shows just how Muslim Obama’s family is. His uncle Sayyid can be heard saying all of them are:




IN furtherance of the charges that Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s family is a jacked-up Muslim Brotherhood family entity, there exists prima facie evidence that his closer than close half bro is, in no uncertain terms, a key Brotherhood operative. Ditto… the jihadi despoiling the People’s House! Not only that, the Traitor-in-Chief abused the IRS’s non-profit laws to assist Malik’s Brotherhood front-arm. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Again, in “plain view”.
CONSEQUENTIALLY, while Islamic jihadis will do what they always do – slaughterhouse-like – the fact of the matter is that an open sesame, granted by the heretofore leader of the free world, is more than treasonous. It is a war crime!
AS such, ISIS/ISIL (and other hydras) jihadis will make good on their threats, and they are more than likely already on American soil. Don’t have any doubt about this.


Judge Jeanine asks Brigitte Gabriel if ISIS is already here. YES, they are being monitored by DHS!

AN ominous post on Twitter, purportedly from somebody connected with Islamic State, shows a photo of the Old Republic Building, 307 N. Michigan Ave., in Chicago and the White House.
قهر الطواغيت‏@Sunna_rev

#AmessagefromISIStoUS We are in your state We are in your cities We are in your streets You are our goals anywhere pic.twitter.com/1EYMgCWJse




The text reads:
#AmessagefromISIStoUS
We are in your state
We are in your cities
We are in your streets
You are our goals anywhere.
The handwritten note is dated June 20.

TRUTH dare be told, Islamic killers are not verbal blowhards, unlike many western poohbahs. They are ready to pounce. They mean what they say, whatever horror is being planned. But what matters most within this discussion is that they have the Islamist-in-Chief’s wink and a nod…high-fiving them along, regardless of how many drone strikes eventually are ordered to keep them at bay in the Mid East theater! Swatting at flies. They know who armed them and that is worth much more for their onward thrust than any amount of dead “martyrs”! Readers, don’t be fooled by whatever smoke and mirrors show comes down, so “ordered” by the Islamist-in-Chief and his gang of surrogates, including Hagel and Brennan.

TO reiterate: treason? MORE than (Constitutionally) supportable!


http://joeforamerica.com/2014/08/isl...qEizE7Sy9wx.99

WND Related Stories

African caliphate 'likely to succeed'
ISIS stepping-stone to Europe identified
ISIS chief challenged to famous Bible showdown
Muslim asked if Islam demands massacre of Christians
U.N. delivers tough words, little action on ISIS
Islam expert: U.S. groomed for Shariah
ISIS about to become a nuclear power?
Americans fighting with ISIS 'obliged' to attack U.S.
Inhofe: ISIS strategizing to 'blow up' U.S. city
ISIS preparing for move against U.S.
Is this the face of the next Muslim terrorist?
Destroying churches part of 'Islamic doctrine'
ISIS terrorists: We're here in Ferguson
Jihadists prep for takeover of Spain
CIA expert: Obama, Osama share Mideast goal
'We were holding back tears as we filmed'
ISIS 'genocide' aims for Christian-free nation
Evidence: Obama was warned ISIS would explode
Iraq war hero: U.S. needs troops back on ground
5-year-old Christian boy cut in half by ISIS
Jordan's shock plea: Bring back Saddam's party
Fox News star: 'They are coming for us'
Obama 'doesn't know what to do in Iraq'
Baghdad church leader: 'Hell has broken out'
Congressman to Obama: 'Your conscience will haunt you'
Iran to offer counter-terror help to Lebanese army
ISIS goes on horrific beheading spree
ISIS mimicking bloodthirsty predecessors
Islamic State puts target on Spain, Rome
Iran offers to help Lebanon fight Islamic State
John Bolton: Middle East 'spinning into anarchy'
Saudis regroup amid Islamic State threat
Palestinian jihadists seek unity with ISIS
ISIS puts bull's-eye on Mecca, Medina




http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/cia-exper...2DvWxSsEJyh.99

Putin Says Everything U.S. Touches Turns Out Like Libya Or Iraq

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/29/2014 08:18 -0400

Having been quiet for a few days, comfortable sitting back and watching NATO, Europe, and the US escalate each other's talking points to a frenzy of populist revolt, Russia's Vladimir Putin has come out swinging this morning:

• *PUTIN: NO MATTER WHAT U.S. DOES, IT TURNS OUT LIKE LIBYA, IRAQ
• *PUTIN SAYS UN CAN'T BE FOREIGN POLICY TOOL FOR U.S., ALLIES
• *PUTIN: EUROPEAN LEADERS FAR FROM SHOWING INDEPENDENT THINKING
• *PUTIN SAYS RUSSIA IS COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T FEAR ANYTHING

In addition to discussions of The Bolsheviks, agreeing Stalin was a tyrant, and slamming liberal economic models for creating crises, Putin notes his approval rating is high because "he is confident he's right."
Some more fun soundbites:

• *PUTIN SAYS BOLSHEVIKS BETRAYED NATIONAL INTERESTS IN WWI
• *PUTIN SAYS UNFORTUNATELY SUCH PEOPLE IN RUSSIA TODAY
• *PUTIN SAYS LIBERAL ECONOMIC MODEL LEADS TO BUILDUP OF CRISES
• *PUTIN SAYS NOBODY DENIES STALIN WAS A TYRANT
• *PUTIN SAYS LEADERS WIN SUPPORT BY BEING CONFIDENT THEY'RE RIGHT
• *PUTIN: FIGHTS AT UN SOMETIMES FIERCER THAN DURING COLD WAR
• *PUTIN SAYS UNITED NATIONS NOT ALWAYS EFFECTIVE

And perhaps of most note... just as Obama pronounced yesterday that US would not engage militarily:

• *PUTIN: RUSSIA FAR AWAY FROM BEING SUCKED IN GLOBAL CONFLICT

But...

• *PUTIN SAYS RUSSIA IS NUCLEAR POWER, STRENGTHENING CAPABILITIES
• *PUTIN: RUSSIA STRENGTHENS ARSENAL TO FEEL SAFE, NOT THREATEN
• *PUTIN: DON'T THINK ANYONE SEEKS LARGE-SCALE CONFLICT W/ RUSSIA

* * *
So - just like the Cold War - military build-up on either side and constant escalation in tensions...


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...-libya-or-iraq

USA Is Number 1 Again...

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/28/2014 21:46 -0400

...In Foreign Bribery.



As OECD notes,

The most widely accepted estimate of global bribery puts the total at around USD 1 trillion each year (World Bank, 2004). In the developing world, bribery amounts to around USD 20 billion to USD 40 billion a year – a figure equivalent to 15-30% of all Official Development Assistance (World Bank, 2007).

Corruption in awarding business contracts has social, political, environmental and economic costs which no country can afford. Serious consequences result when public officials take bribes when awarding contracts to foreign businesses for public services such as roads, water or electricity. A USD 1 million dollar bribe can quickly amount to a USD 100 million loss to a poor country through derailed projects and inappropriate investment decisions which undermine development.

Source: OECD


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...number-1-again

http://www.alipac.us/f9/obama-blamed...-order-296007/

http://www.alipac.us/f9/confirmed-u-...ldwide-296265/