A full length documentary was made about President Barack Hussein Obama. I found it posted on Youtube dated 2009. Today we are in the waning days of 2015. I wonder how much still rings true today, don’t you?
The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people.
The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery.
We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order's plans. It's not about Left or Right: it's about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation.
Covered in this film: who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda. If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this is the film for you.
Watch the Obama Deception and learn how:
- Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, the destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps and Martial Law.
- Obama's handlers are openly announcing the creation of a new Bank of the World that will dominate every nation on earth through carbon taxes and military force.
- International bankers purposefully engineered the worldwide financial meltdown to bankrupt the nations of the planet and bring in World Government.
- Obama plans to loot the middle class, destroy pensions and federalize the states so that the population is completely dependent on the Central Government.
- The Elite are using Obama to pacify the public so they can usher in the North American Union by stealth, launch a new Cold War and continue the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think I have actually found an issue that Conservatives and Leftists might actually have some common. And the incredible irony is this issue may equally divide the Conservative and Leftist camps into pro and against on both sides of the issue.
What is that issue?
The issue is called Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.
The plus implications of a TPP agreement is the schmooze of Free Enterprise and the tearing down of restrictive tariffs between the TPP signatory nations.
I have knowledge of the TPP negotiations on a periphery basis rather than a complete informed basis. So when I received The Western Center for Journalism (WJ) action alert email I was quite interested in their Conservative view. When I did a little cursory investigation is when I discovered there are some Leftists against TPP. In case you were unaware the WJ takes a Right Wing position that many (especially Leftists) consider a bit further to the Right than a lot of other Conservative organization
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is considered more Left Wing than Hillary Clinton, has come out strongly against a TPP agreement. Her reasoning is a bit different from the Conservative reasons for being against TPP, but the point is regardless of the reasons there is strong opposition from both Left and Right on the Trans-Pacific Partnership becoming a part of the Rule of Law.
Here is an excerpt from an article that is billed as showing the pros and cons of TPP:
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is a proposed free trade agreement between the U.S and 11 other trading partners bordering the Pacific Ocean. Current trade between the countries is $1.5 trillion in goods (2012 estimate) and $242 billion in services (2011 estimate). Once approved, it would be bigger than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), currently the world’s largest free trade area.
…
The TPP is between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the U.S. and Vietnam. The countries involved are responsible for 40% of the world's total GDP of $88 trillion, 26% of its trade, and 793 million of its consumers.
Notably, the agreement excludes China. It's meant to balance the trade dominance of both China and India in East Asia. It also provides a trade alliance that gives the U.S. an excuse to intervene in trade disputes in the oil-rich South China Sea.
However, all parties have signaled that other members can join in the future. So far, the Phillipines and China have indicated an interest.
Like most other trade agreements, it removes tariffs on goods and services, and sets reciprocal trade quotas. Unlike most agreements, but like the TTIP, it removes non-tariff blocks to trade and harmonizes regulations and statutes.
…
ProsThe TPP boosts exports and economic growth, creating more jobs and prosperity for the 12 countries involved. It increases exports by $305 billion per year by 2025. U.S. exports would increase by $123.5 billion, focusing on machinery, especially electrical, autos, plastics and agriculture industries.
The agreement adds $223 billion a year to incomes of workers in all the countries, with $77 billion of that going to U.S. workers. (Source: US Trade Representative, TPP Fact Sheet)
ConsMost of the gains in income would go to workers making more than $88,000 a year. Free trade agreements contribute to income inequality in high-wage countries by promoting cheaper goods from low-wage countries.
This would be particularly true for the TPP, because it protects patents and copyrights. Therefore, the higher-paid owners of the intellectual property would receive more of the income gains.
The agreement regarding patents will reduce the availability of cheap generics, making many drugs more expensive. Competitive business pressures will reduce the incentives in Asia to protect the environment. Last but not least, the trade agreement could supersede financial regulations. (Source: Public Citizen, Eyes on Trade, September 12, 2013)
Senator Warren has had her Senate staff publish a report on TPP called “Broken Promises”. Warren’s concerns seem to focus on how TPP will affect Labor in the USA. In this she is joining America’s big Unions. From a Labor perspective, there is concern of cheap foreign labor and greater production of goods and services in foreign countries that could affect employment of American citizens – in Warren’s case that would be Union backed Labor.
Michael Wessel backs Senator Warren at Politico but he focuses on the secrecy involved in the TPP negotiations. And not just the typical secrecy involved in nation-to-nation negotiations, but the kind of secrecy that has very limited access to those authorized to view the memos and reports that have been saved from the negotiations. To the point that the authorized must go to a designated building and they must be watched by a government functionary:
You need to tell me what’s wrong with this trade agreement, not one that was passed 25 years ago,” a frustrated President Barack Obama recently complained about criticisms of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). He’s right. The public criticisms of the TPP have been vague. That’s by design—anyone who has read the text of the agreement could be jailed for disclosing its contents. I’ve actually read the TPP text provided to the government’s own advisors, and I’ve given the president an earful about how this trade deal will damage this nation. But I can’t share my criticisms with you.
I can tell you that Elizabeth Warren is right about her criticism of the trade deal. We should be very concerned about what's hidden in this trade deal—and particularly how the Obama administration is keeping information secret even from those of us who are supposed to provide advice.
So-called “cleared advisors” like me are prohibited from sharing publicly the criticisms we’ve lodged about specific proposals and approaches. The government has created a perfect Catch 22: The law prohibits us from talking about the specifics of what we’ve seen, allowing the president to criticize us for not being specific. Instead of simply admitting that he disagrees with me—and with many other cleared advisors—about the merits of the TPP, the president instead pretends that … (I’ve Read Obama’s Secret Trade Deal. Elizabeth Warren Is Right to Be Concerned; By MICHAEL WESSEL; Politico; 5/19/15)
Conservative anti-TPP concerns center around the distrust of laws forced on Americans that are beyond the scope of the Constitution and the concern that TPP will bypass Congressional oversight and/or approval protocols. Also there is a concern of mass immigration of foreigners taking American jobs. In essence the issue is a foreign infringement on American sovereignty.
The Conservative plus view looks at lower tariffs and markets that prosper the American economy via less regulations as well as products made less expensively thus costing consumers less money.
Senator Jeff Sessions list five concerns about TPP:
Congress has the responsibility to ensure that any international trade agreement entered into by the United States must serve the national interest, not merely the interests of those crafting the proposal in secret. It must improve the quality of life, the earnings, and the per-capita wealth of everyday working Americans. The sustained long-term loss of middle class jobs and incomes should compel all lawmakers to apply added scrutiny to a “fast-track” procedure wherein Congress would yield its legislative powers and allow the White House to implement one of largest global financial agreements in our history—comprising at least 12 nations and nearly 40 percent of the world’s GDP. The request for fast-track also comes at a time when the Administration has established a recurring pattern of sidestepping the law, the Congress, and the Constitution in order to repeal sovereign protections for U.S. workers in deference to favored financial and political allies.
With that in mind, here are the top five concerns about the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that must be fully understood and addressed before passage:
1. Consolidation Of Power In The Executive Branch. TPA eliminates Congress’ ability to amend or debate trade implementing legislation and guarantees an up-or-down vote on a far-reaching international agreement before that agreement has received any public review. Not only will Congress have given up the 67-vote threshold for a treaty and …
…
2. Increased Trade Deficits. Barclays estimates that during the first quarter of this year, the overall U.S. trade deficit will reduce economic growth by .2 percent. History suggests that trade deals set into motion under the 6-year life of TPA could exacerbate our trade imbalance, acting as an impediment to both GDP and wage growth. Labor economist Clyde Prestowitz attributes 60 percent of the U.S.’ 5.7 million manufacturing jobs lost over …
…
3. Ceding Sovereign Authority To International Powers. A USTR outline of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which TPA would expedite) notes in the “Key Features” summary that the TPP is a “living agreement.” This means the President could update the agreement “as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.” The “living agreement” provision means that participating nations could both add countries to the TPP without Congress’ approval (like China), and could also change any of the terms of the agreement, including in controversial areas such as the entry of foreign workers and …
…
4. Currency Manipulation. The biggest open secret in the international market is that other countries are devaluing their currencies to artificially lower the price of their exports while artificially raising the price of our exports to them. The result has been a massive bleeding of domestic manufacturing wealth. In fact, currency manipulation can easily dwarf tariffs in its economic impact. A 2014 biannual report from the Treasury Department concluded that the yuan, or renminbi, remained significantly undervalued, yet the Treasury Department failed to designate China as a “currency manipulator.” History suggests this Administration, like … …
5. Immigration Increases. There are numerous ways TPA could facilitate immigration increases above current law—and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening. For instance: language could be included or added into the TPP, as well as any future trade deal submitted for fast-track consideration in the next 6 years, with the clear intent to facilitate or enable the movement of foreign workers and employees into the United States (including intracompany transfers), and there would be no capacity for lawmakers to strike the offending provision. The Administration could also simply act on its own to ... READ ENTIRETY (CRITICAL ALERT: TOP FIVE CONCERNS WITH TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY; By Jeff Sessions; Sessions.Senate.gov; 5/4/15)
The Western Center of Journalism email has greater detail than I have attempted. Unfortunately the WJ email is also one of those disguised fund raisers masked in you making a “donation” for WJ to send out mass faxes. The WJ idea is a good one though. If you are a registered voter your Senators and Representative pay attention. So if you are like me and perhaps a little short of cash there are low cost to no-cost ways to contact Senators and Representatives about your concerns. So if you are passionate about stopping the TPP Fast Track I’ll provide the Congressional contact links. The drawback is you have to take the time to construct your on words. The WJ fax method means your concerns are written for you and all you have to do is add your name and make a donation. I encourage to do the thoughtful way or WJ fax way, but choose one to make your voice known.
Remember which ever you way choose to make contact BE SURE to include your name and complete address including zip code. This is how the politicians know you are a real voter and not Mickey Mouse.
"Some Even Believe We Are Part Of A Secret Cabal... Conspiring With Others Around The World To Build A More Integrated Global Political And Economic Structure—One World... If That Is The Charge, I Stand Guilty, And I Am Proud Of It."-David Rockefeller
We're talking about a globalist plot called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)... a dastardly scheme that conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly says will turn over "our authority as a sovereign nation to international authorities."
Mitch McConnell just did his part for large multi-national corporations and squeezed it through the Senate... BARELY. As a matter of fact, because of your Blast Faxes and calls in stanch opposition to TPP, McConnell had to pull every dirty deal out of his bag of tricks AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE to make it happen.
Make no mistake, your opposition to TPP totally changed the dynamic in Washington... so much so that the ultimate fate of this globalist scheme is presently UNCERTAIN in the House of Representatives.
If You're Thinking That Your Faxes And Calls Are Not A Powerful Weapon... Just Look At What You Just Did To Mitch McConnell.
Two weeks ago, Washington elites were high-fiving one another because passage of this New World Order trade scheme was considered a slam-dunk... a done deal... but that all changed once patriot Americans, like you, started burning up telephone lines and sending avalanches of faxes to Washington.
As a matter of fact, Mitch McConnell literally scrambled to make DEALS with his fellow Senators on the fly DURING THE CLOTURE VOTE when it became clear that the unthinkable was actually happening and he did not have the votes he needed to betray you after all.
According to conservative pundit and the son of former-President Ronald Reagan, Michael Reagan: "The NY Times reports a blur of 11th hour deals on the Senate floor on Thursday saved Obama's trade agenda from defeat, busting a filibuster to advance legislation that would enable the president to complete a sweeping, 12-nation Pacific trade agreement."
The Hill, the publication of record for Washington insiders, fleshed out the details: "More than halfway through the vote, it appeared supporters of fast-track might be stuck... McConnell then huddled in the well of the Senate floor... The breakthrough came when McConnell promised [Senator Maria] Cantwell that he would schedule a vote next month on an amendment authorizing the Export-Import Bank. As soon as he did, Cantwell wheeled around and voted 'Aye,' followed in quick succession by [Senators] Murray, Heitkamp and Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)."
The Hill added: "McConnell’s proposal also pushed [Lindsey] Graham, who was also in the huddle, to vote yes" and The Hill goes on to state that Orrin Hatch made a last-minute concession to Senator Rob Portman that induced him to vote "yes" as well.
Here's the bottom line. The political elites in the Senate had to hustle, at the very last minute, to push this betrayal precisely because patriotic Americans pushed back; but, as the New York Times notes, this win "was not the overwhelming victory House supporters had hoped for" and "advocates concede they do not yet have the votes to hand the White House trade promotion authority."
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Is A Fraud. It Has Nothing To Do With Trade.
Let's get down to brass tacks. TPP is nothing more than a pretext for implementing a globalist agenda and eradicating American sovereignty and your freedom.
Don't take our word for it. Political pundit Dick Morris, hardly a tin-foil-hat type, calls TPP a "fraud" and writes: "The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has nothing to do with trade. While it officially embraces 11 countries plus the U.S., 76 percent of our trade with these nations is with Mexico and Canada, already covered by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Any export growth is likely to have been already covered by NAFTA, making the TPP irrelevant to our trade relations."
Morris goes on to explain: "The World Trade Organization has reduced tariffs to almost nothing... the US already functionally has free trade with all of the countries of the Pacific Rim" and he adds: "The TPP is nothing but an effort by the globalists to circumvent American sovereignty, transferring a host of issues from the control of the U.S. Congress and the various state legislatures to international trade courts."
So what's the real agenda behind pushing TPP? Morris adds that TPP gives "multi-national companies the right to sue the American government to force changes in our laws in a foreign or international court."
Why is that important? Morris yet again: "Multinational corporations find bureaucrats easy to control, subject as they are to the influences of the revolving door between regulators and those they regulate. Coming from industry or planning to return there, the supposedly disinterested bureaucrats are anything but impartial."
And just in case you were wondering why TPP is being kept under lock-and-key... just in case you were wondering why the public is not allowed to read it... just in case you were wondering why elected officials must lock themselves in a room in the basement of the Capitol Building to read it and are prohibited from taking notes and must even relinquish their cell phones before locking themselves away to read the bill... the answer should now be obvious.
In a nutshell, multi-national corporations are spending millions (perhaps billions) to convince our elected officials to willingly cede their Constitutional authority and hand our national sovereignty over to Barack Obama and an oligarchy of international corporations... it's all about the Benjamins... your liberties be damned.
Let's Recap... Subverting Our Sovereignty For The Benefit Of Globalists Is Not Free Trade... It Is Tyranny.
If you're still having a hard time believing that TPP will give Barack Obama and globalists unprecedented powers... if you're having a hard time believing that TPP is nothing more than a concession to an international oligarchy that will cost us our sovereignty, our freedom and millions of American jobs... don't take our word for it.
Here's a refresher course on what Phyllis Schlafly says about TPP:
The text of TPP emphasizes that it is a "living agreement." Translated out of bureaucratese code language, that means the text of TPP can be changed in major and minor ways by executive action after Congress passes the document.
TPP will facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the United States. TPP opens the door to more waves of illegal immigrants and allows Obama to make future changes without any congressional oversight or expiration date.
Kevin L. Kearns of the U.S. Business and Industry Council calls this "another power grab" that will let Obama and his employees rule by executive action. By the device of not calling TPP a treaty (even though it involves 12 countries on three continents), the globalists induce the Senate to abandon the 67-vote threshold for treaty ratification and even the 60-vote threshold for important legislation.
Fast Track turns over some of our authority as a sovereign nation to international authorities, which is a major longtime goal of the internationalists, the so-called kingmakers and big business lobbyists. The code language that hides this in TPP is the statement that calls it a "living agreement."
Giving Barack Obama, a man who has repeatedly shown his hatred for this country and a willingness to subvert our Constitution, such broad powers is like giving an arsonist a book of matches and a can of gasoline.
Schlafly Is Not Alone. Here's What Others Are Saying...
Here's what others, on both sides of the political divide, are saying:
We don't create good jobs for Americans by entering into unbalanced trade deals that forgo congressional scrutiny and ignore the law only to import low-wage labor, undercut American workers, and drive wages lower than the Dead Sea. The Obama administration has fooled and failed the American people for far too long. I cannot support giving this administration trade promotion authority (TPA) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). ... Personally, I wouldn't trust this administration to negotiate a deal on a secondhand Subaru. -Mike Huckabee
It is simply unbelievable that anybody — and most especially GOP lawmakers — would even contemplate giving this president so-called "Fast-Track Authority" on the TPP. His serial failures to negotiate fair prisoner swaps, sound arms control agreements or sensible diplomatic normalizations neither inspires confidence nor warrants Congress turning its check-and-balance role into a blank check. -Frank Gaffney
Such pacts used to be called "free-trade agreements"; in fact, they were managed trade agreements, tailored to corporate interests, largely in the U.S. and the European Union. -Joseph E. Stiglitz, MarketWatch, The Secret Corporate Takeover Hidden In The TPP
Free trade deals are about profits for corporate America — not bus drivers, hotel workers, teachers, firefighters — real working people. -Larry Hanley, international president of the Amalgamated Transit Union
The president has circumvented Congress on immigration with serial regularity. But the TPA would yield new power to the executive to alter admissions while subtracting Congressional checks against those actions.... The plain language of TPA provides avenues for Obama and trading partners to facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the U.S. -Senator Jeff Sessions
I'm for free trade, but I am not for giving more authority to a president who ignores the Constitution, the separation of powers and will of the American people. This particular president must not be given any more power to do anything else to harm this country. He cannot be trusted. -Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
Sadly, Barack Obama and political elites within the GOP have finally reached consensus on an issue: What is good for international globalists and multi-national corporations is good for them and they're willing to give their fat-cat friends lavish gifts even if they must violate the Constitution, give a wanna-be dictator even more power and surrender our sovereignty to make it happen.
I am proceeding to post a number of articles that demonstrate President Barack Hussein Obama is a Foreign Policy hack. The theme is the cover-up taking place with Benghazigate.
A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last July which resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.
It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.
The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a copy of that letter (translation beneath it):
Translated, the document reads:
National Transitional Council – Libya
8/30/11
Code: YGM-270-2011
Mr. Abdel Hakim Al-Khowailidi Belhaj
Greetings,
We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.
Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil
President, National Transitional Council – Libya
Official Seal of National Transitional Council
Copy for file.
As for Belhaj’s bonafides as an Al-Qaeda ally, consider the words of the notorious Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a report published one day prior to the date on the memo above, ABC News quoted the Al-Qaeda leader as saying the following – in 2007 – about the man the NTC put in control of Tripoli in 2011:
“Dear brothers… the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq (Belhaj); and the rest of the captives of the fighting Islamic group in Libya, here is good news for you,” Zawahiri said in a video, using Belhaj’s nom de guerre. “Your brothers are continuing your march after you… escalating their confrontation with the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the crusaders of Washington.”
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was founded by Belhaj.
In a BBC report from one month earlier – on July 4, 2011 – a man named Al-Amin Belhaj was identified as an NTC spokesman and said the following:
“Everyone knows who Abdel Hakim Belhadj is. He is a Libyan rebel and a moderate person who commands wide respect.”
Abdel Hakim Belhaj had been identified in a video report embedded in the BBC article as…
“…about the most powerful man in Tripoli.”
Abdel Hakim Belhaj is many things but moderate is not one of them.
Interestingly, according to a report by the Jamestown Foundation in 2005, the man who attributed the ‘moderate’ label to Abdel Hakim Belhaj was actually a leader with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood:
This last week Al-Amin Belhadj, head of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, issued a press release on the Arabic language section of Libya-Watch, (Mu’assasat al-Raqib li-Huqquq al-Insan) calling for urgent action on behalf of 86 Brotherhood members imprisoned since 1998 at Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison and on hunger strike since October 7.
The nexus between Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood comes into clearer focus when one looks at the Libyan Ambassador to the United States. His name is Ali Sulaiman Aujali. He had the following to say about Belhaj according to an ABC News report:
“(Belhaj) should be accept(ed) for the person that he is today and we should deal with him on that basis… people evolve and change.”
Really? How many times do westerners have to fall for this line before they trip over it?
Aujali represents one individual who is willing to bridge the gap between Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now, fast forward to 9/13/12, two days after the attack in Benghazi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton celebrated the Muslim Eid holiday in the Ben Franklin room in Washington, D.C. and shared a podium with none other than Ali Sulaiman Aujali and a woman named Farah Pandith, who is a prominent name inside the Muslim Brotherhood in America.
In 2009, Pandith was sworn in as a U.S. Representative to Muslim Communities by Hillary Clinton. Pandith followed the path of the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress and was sworn in on the Qur’an.
Another interesting alliance revealed itself in various cities across America in the days after the death of Ambassador Stevens. In at least both Los Angeles, CA and Columbus, OH the Libyan American Association aligned with CAIR to hold a vigil for Ambassador Stevens.
"The SEALs removed one threat to America, now it's time for the voters to remove the other." - Retired Navy SEAL Brad Nagel
Veterans for a Strong America has filmed a shocking interview with Navy SEALs who tell the TRUTH about the Obama Administration and the incredible danger it poses to America.
These guys know the facts. They were silenced by their service. But they refuse to remain quiet any longer. The stakes are simply too high.
"Obama's love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear and present danger to America, but worst of all are the lies and failure to act, especially in Benghazi, that got my buddies KILLED," says Brad Nagel, 20 year Navy veteran and former SEAL.
Newly released emails indicate that the Obama White House KNEW WITHIN 30 MINUTES of the initial uprising that the American Embassy in Benghazi was under full terrorist attack. An American drone reportedly sent the State Department situation room real time footage of the jihadist assault. As State Department officials watched the bloody, clearly pre-planned and well organized attack unfold; our Commander in Chief refused to take action. It has been further reported that instead of staying in the situation room, the President retired to his quarters for an early bed time, leaving horrified State Department personnel alone with the live feed horrors from Benghazi.
Of the four killed during that 7 hour battle, 2 of the people died in the final hour. Ty Woods, a former SEAL teammate of Nagel's was one of the last to die. "Ty ran his weapon dry and killed 50 jihadists before he was taken down. If this Administration had used the intel they had and sent help, my friend might still be alive" said Nagel.
Other SEALs are just as furious with Obama.
"If Obama sent Ambassador Stephens to a death sentence mission in Benghazi; what will he be willing to do to the American people to appease what appear to be deep Muslim Brotherhood ties?" - asked former Navy SEAL Benjamin Smith.
Brad Nagel, Benjamin Smith and a host of other SEALs have come forward to speak out in a serious of shocking and hard hitting commercials we are producing at Veterans for a Strong America.
IT IS IMPERATIVE WE GET THESE VIDEOS TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BEFORE ELECTION DAY.
BARACK OBAMA IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO AMERICA.
BUT WE NEED YOUR HELP.
We are simply a bunch of prior service and retired military guys who are afraid for our country. We are not wealthy. Many of us struggle just to get by. We simply do not have the funds to get this video out.
We were silenced during our years in the service. But the oath we took to protect and defend the Constitution DEMANDS that we speak out now, to protect America.
Data points continue to accumulate about the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. The picture that is beginning to emerge from connecting those dots is deeply concerning on multiple levels. Two related issues dominate this analysis: The systematic stripping of security protection from the Benghazi mission prior to the 9/11 anniversary attack and the cold-blooded refusal to send or even permit local help the night of the attack.
As Fox News Bureau Chief of Intelligence Catherine Herridge suggested on the “Mike Huckabee” show on Oct. 27, both of these critical subjects may have been driven by a perceived need to cover up the likely purpose for the existence of that mission in the first place, i.e., to serve as a U.S. command hub for the movement of weapons out of Libya to Syrian rebels fighting to bring down the Bashar Al-Assad regime.
It has now been established through the persistent work of Congressional leadership figures and such investigative journalists, media and talk show hosts as the Fox News network, the Glenn Beck show, Michael Coren at Canada’s Sun News, Aaron Klein at World Net Daily and Diana West that the Benghazi mission played a central role in a U.S. government policy of “engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East,” as Center for Security Policy president, Frank Gaffney, put it.
According to media reporting, Benghazi was staffed by CIA operatives whose job may have been not just to secure and destroy dangerous weapons (like RPGs and SAMs) looted from former Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s stockpiles during and after the 2011 revolution, but also perhaps to facilitate their onward shipment to the Al-Qaeda- and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian opposition.
President Barack Obama signed an intelligence finding sometime in early 2012 that authorized U.S. support for the Syrian rebels and by mid-June 2012, CIA operatives reportedly were on the Turkish-Syrian border helping to steer weapons deliveries to selected Syrian rebel groups. According to an Oct. 14, 2012 New York Times article, most of those arms were going to “hard-line Islamic jihadists.”
One of those jihadis may well be Abdelhakim Belhadj, former leader of the Al-Qa’eda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and head of the Tripoli Military Council after Qaddafi’s ouster. During the 2011 revolt in Libya, Belhadj was almost certainly a key contact of the U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition, Christopher Stevens.
In November 2011, Belhadj was reported to have met with Syrian Free Army (SFA) leaders in Istanbul, Turkey, as well as on the Turkish-Syrian border. Further, Belhadj’s contact with the SFA comes in the context of official policy adopted by the post-Qaddafi Libyan “government,” which sent a delegation to Turkey to offer arms and possibly fighters to the Turkish-backed Syrian rebels. “There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria,” according to a Libyan source quoted in a November, 2011 Telegraph report.
The multilateral U.S.-Libya-Turkey agreement to get weapons into the hands of Syrian rebels – which were known to be dominated by Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood elements — by working with and through Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist figures like Belhadj, seemed confirmedby the appearance of a Libyan-flagged vessel, Al-Entisar, which docked at the Turkish port of Iskanderun on September 6, 2012.
Suspected of carrying weapons bound for the Syrian rebels, the ship’s cargo reportedly included Russian-designed, shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS, RPGs and surface-to-air missiles—all of them just the sort of weapons available in Libya.
Stevens’ last meeting in Benghazi the night he was killed was with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, who is variously reported to have been there to discuss a weapons transfer or a warning about the possible compromise of the Libyan weapons pipeline to Syria. Whatever the topic of Ambassador Stevens’ discussion with Akin, he clearly and knowingly put himself in harm’s way to be there, in Benghazi, on the night of September 11.
The urgency that compelled Stevens to Benghazi that night seems especially difficult to understand given what was known to him as well as to senior levels of the Obama administration about the extremely dangerous situation in post-Qaddafi Libya.
It is all the more baffling then that, in view of the obvious priority that the U.S. government had placed on its Libya-to-Syria weapons pipeline operation, such a systematic effort in the weeks leading up to the September 11 attack was dedicated to stripping the Benghazi base of the security protection it so desperately needed in a deteriorating Libyan security environment and despite the repeated pleas of Ambassador Stevens and others in both Tripoli and Benghazi for more security.
In August 2012, Stevens reported that the security situation in Benghazi was deteriorating, yet in spite of this, the 16-man Site Security Team assigned to Libya, comprised of Special Forces led by SF LTC Andy Wood, was ordered out of Libya, contrary to the Ambassador’s stated desire that they stay.
Note that, at any time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have ordered the deployment to Benghazi of additional security experts from the Department of Security (DoS) Bureau of Diplomatic Security (or Diplomatic Security Service—DSS), but apparently chose not to do so.
Instead, DoS hired a British firm, Blue Mountain, to manage its security in Benghazi, and Blue Mountain subcontracted the job to a local jihadist militia called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade who have known Muslim Brotherhood ties.
Then, in what may have been the attack “green light,” on September 10, 2012, AQ leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan number two, Abu Yahya al-Libi, who had been killed in a June, 2012 drone strike in Pakistan. The timing suggests that al-Zawahiri may have given the attack go-ahead after receiving word that Stevens had arrived in Benghazi that day—further suggesting that perhaps AQ knew of Stevens’ travel plans.
Once the attack unfolded at the Benghazi base, it quickly became apparent that the minimal number of U.S. and local security staff was completely unequal to the scores of heavily armed jihadist attackers swarming the compound. And yet, despite a live-streaming video from an overhead drone, plus cables and cell phone calls that, altogether, must have been received by hundreds of administration diplomatic, intelligence and military officials (including the U.S. President, Vice President, Secretaries of Defense and State, and Directors of National Intelligence and CIA), military support from regional bases was denied repeatedly to the besieged Benghazi defenders.
Worse yet, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, who was providing security for CIA operatives at the Benghazi annex facility, and Glen Dougherty, who had arrived on a rescue flight dispatched by the CIA Chief of Station in Tripoli, repeatedly were denied permission by their CIA chain of command on the ground to go to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and the others.
Eventually, they went anyway, and succeeded in saving many lives because of their moral and physical courage. Once back at the CIA annex, they all came under heavy fire there too. Again, Dougherty and Woods requested military backup, at least to silence the mortar fire that they had been able to identify by laser painting it. They fought on alone for hours, but when no help came, that mortar barrage eventually took both their lives and seriously injured others.
When asked why he didn’t authorize military assets to scramble to Benghazi’s defense, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta claimed that he didn’t know what was going on and “could not put forces at risk in that situation.” This is patently false on both counts: Panetta most certainly did know that an American Ambassador and other staff were under military assault by jihadist forces who had invaded the sovereign territory of a U.S. diplomatic facility. Whether U.S. military assets — either air support or Special Forces — could have arrived in time to save lives is unknown at this point, but the administration’s refusalto say when the president first learned that Benghazi was under attack, that the ambassador was in peril and that the Al-Qaeda-linked Libyan jihadist group, Ansar al-Shariah, had taken credit for the attack invites speculation.
The White House refusal to comment on when exactly the president first met with the National Security Council after the attack began doesn’t help either. (And the weeks of deliberately false statements from a range of administration figures who tried to claim that an obscure trailer for a film no one had ever seen was to blame for the Benghazi debacle only confirms suspicions about the administration capitulation to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) demands for limits on free speech.)
For his part, CIA Director David Petraeus has denied that either he or anyone else at CIA refused assistance to Dougherty and Woods, saying that “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” This leaves only the president himself responsible for the decision to allow the Benghazi base to fall and four Americans to die.
How could he or any of those present when this momentous decision was made not have tried to make every effort imaginable to defend American territory and save American lives? House Government Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa believes President Obama had a political motive for rejecting Ambassador Stevens’ security requests because he wanted to show that conditions in Libya were improving, possibly to justify U.S. intervention in the Libyan revolution or even help pave the way for oil company investment.
Whatever the thinking that left a U.S. mission abroad so undefended that it practically constituted an open invitation to Al-Qaeda, and then, in cold blood, refused to launch military support in defense of Americans fighting and dying to defend U.S. sovereign territory from jihadi assault, the cover-up is fast becoming the worse failure. It is time for administration leaders, from the president on down, to explain both their actions and their failures to act.
Born in Bethlehem of Judea, Walid's grandfather was the Muslim Mukhtar (chieftain) of Beit Sahour-Bethlehem (The Shepherd's Fields) and a friend of Haj-Ameen Al-Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and notorious friend of Adolf Hitler. Walid's great grandfather, Abdullah Ali Awad-Allah, was also a fighter and close associate of both Abdul Qader and Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who led the Palestinians against Israel. Walid lived through and witnessed Israel’s Six Day War while living in Jericho. As a young man, he became a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and participated in acts of terror and violence against Israel, and was later imprisoned in the Russian Compound, Jerusalem's central prison for incitement and violence against Israel. After his release, he continued his life of violence and rioting in Bethlehem and the Temple Mount. After entering the U.S, he worked as a counselor for the Arab Student Organization at Loop College in Chicago and continued his anti-Israel activities. In 1993, Walid studied the Tanach (Jewish Bible) in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam. Six months later, after intense study, Walid realized that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie. Convinced he was on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy. Driven by a deep passion to heal his own soul, and to bring the truth about the Jews and Israel to the world, Walid shed his former life and his work as a software engineer and set out to tirelessly bring the cause of Israel to tens of thousands of people throughout the world: churches and synagogues, civic groups, government leaders and media.
