After extensive investigation and analysis of the events on September 11, 2012, in Libya and Egypt, there is only one conclusion I am able to reach: the official narrative of the details of these attacks, provided by U.S. officials and parroted by a complicit, unquestioning media, are being deliberately misrepresented with regard to what actually happened.
Simply put, we are being lied to. But it’s much deeper and much more sinister than a simple lie, and it’s not over yet. In fact, what we are seeing is just the beginning.
The following represents a summary of my investigative findings, followed by what I suspect will happen next. The timing of the future events is anyone’s guess, and such events could even be modified or stopped completely by exposing the agenda of those who are actually behind the scenes.The attacks against the U.S. embassies in Libya and Egypt were planned far in advance by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and in the U.S. It would appear that the Egyptian president had, at the very least, foreknowledge of these attack plans. The White House and State Department were warned of impending attacks on or about September 4, 2012, a full week before the attacks were carried out. A logical question to raise is why, then, was nothing done to prevent or at least mitigate the effects of these attacks? The answer is not as simple as the question, and not what everyone appears to be asserting.Obama...is actively engaging in reshaping the geo-political structure of the Middle East, creating an Islamic caliphate from North Africa to Syria. The goal is to isolate Israel and push that nation into a confrontation with its Arab neighbors. Therefore, comparing Obama to Carter and 1979 to the present is not only naive, but dangerously so.According to the official government narrative perpetuated by news reports, the motive behind the embassy attacks is an obscure film called Innocence of Muslims. Investigation of that production by an alleged Israeli-Jew finds that the film was produced in such a fashion that it was never intended for any other purpose than to be used as a stage prop and fodder for media consumption.Originally, erroneously but deliberately linked to an “Israeli-Jew,” this low budget video is itself a lie. According to an analysis of the trailer, the video was hastily created on a low budget with bad costumes and fake backdrops. According to cast members, they believed the film to be about something entirely different than their lines portray - lines they never said. The offending audio was dubbed over.My investigation determined that the film, which remains accessible on You Tube despite its alleged volatility, could not possibly have been the motive for the 9/11 multi-national embassy attacks. The fact that it remains accessible on You Tube suggests something so sinister that I will refrain from going there - for now. Using the Danish cartoons and other similar controversies that led to violence as a historical template for comparison, all elements reviewed were inconsistent with previous incidents of provocations and subsequent violence.At this point, all investigative evidence suggest that this film is not the motive behind the initial violence, yet it continues to be used by members of the U.S. government and the media to point the masses away from the real motive. It has served its intended purpose well, and will ultimately result in conforming our First Amendment rights to a larger UN body. All criticism of Islam will eventually be illegal on a global scale.It is important to understand that the reason for sealing off Obama’s past is to prevent people from seeing the larger agenda of the man and the people who rose in an inexplicable meteoric fashion to the highest levels of public office - and entities and people behind him. Not only have we been denied the most basic access to his records and background, the top levels of our government have been concurrently infiltrated by both members of the Muslim Brotherhood and card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) under his watch and with his imprimatur. While this did not begin under his watch, the process was exponentially and even overtly increased to unbelievable levels the minute he assumed office.Lacking his bona fides, compliments of both sides of the false right-left political paradigm, we can learn much about Obama from the company he keeps, such as his advisors and associates. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s most visible handler, has a personal stake in the outcome of Middle East events to the point of actively shaping them.I have previously written and spoken about Obama’s 2012 contingency plans, and we are seeing them play our before our very eyes. The fuse for WWIII, as well as societal chaos in Western nations - and soon coming to urban areas in the U.S.- has been lit. The question is whether the plan will be exposed for what it is, or whether the facilitators and those complicit in this morass will continue their activities as instructed.
That the video Innocence of Muslimsslaughtered American diplomats in Libya and touched off a firestorm of angry mobs at American missions in Muslim countries will be Obama’s mantra for the next 52 days leading to November elections.
No one in the mainstream American media will be asking the question that matters most: “Why are Obama and Hillary Clinton trying so hard to stuff it down the throats of the public at large, that a poorly made video rather than an act of terrorism well-coordinated to take place on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001 killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three members of his staff in Benghazi, Libya?The answer to that question may mirror Jack Nicholson’s film retort to Tom Cruise:”You you can’t handle the truth!”Now 52 days out from re-election possibilities, Obama’s starring role has been switched from Osama Assassinator to the producer of the lie that radical Islam did not strike on Sept. 11, 2012—a video did.
“A Southern California filmmaker linked to an anti-Islamic movie inflaming protests across the Middle East was interviewed by federal probation officers at a Los Angeles sheriff’s station but was not arrested or detained, authorities said early Saturday.
“Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was interviewed at the station in his hometown of Cerritos, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Don Walker said.”
“Walker said Nakoula traveled voluntarily in a squad car with deputies.” (KNBC-TV)
Is that why he appears to be wearing handcuffs in pictures?
The spin that the video and not terrorist planning was responsible for brutal death at Benghazi, Libya, was reinforced yesterday by Obama White House Secretary Jay Carney who said, “But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large, or at U.S. policy, but it is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”
Don’t Nakoula’s interviewers want to know who really paid the estimated $5-million it took to produce “Innocence of Muslims”?
Meanwhile, no one seems worried that Nakoula now nabbed by the feds, puts the treacherous Obama regime in full control of the spin on how an anti-Muslim film killed American diplomats in Libya, or worse what might be coming next.
Instapundit heads the piece “Why Barack Obama Should Resign.” That’s a good title. The column might also be titled, “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.” I remember a line from the philosopher David Hume that Hayek used as an epigraph to The Road to Serfdom. “It is seldom,” said Hume, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” There’s the innocent seeming accommodation here, the turning a blind eye to official violations of the law there, and, bang, before you can say Saul Alinsky, people are being rounded up at midnight by brownshirted men for making a movie that embarrasses El Presidente.
In case you think that is a baseless exaggeration by a knuckle-dragging, right-wing hater, take a look at the photo:
Just for the record, this is what it looked like for a man who made a film that made the Obama Administration uncomfortable:
By way of explication, Glenn Reynolds quotes the L.A. Times:“Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”
Got that? The chap made a movie. (He may also have violated probation, but that herring is red, Comrade.) As Glenn observes, “By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. . . . It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.”
The same debate we've seen over Obama's destruction of the American economy has already begun over his Middle East policy. Did Obama hand Egypt over to jihadis, and is he giving a green light to nuclear Iran, because of incompetence or his leftist ideology?
John Hinderacker over at Powerlineblog.com writes:
You could call his actions in the region incoherent, except that it's worse than that, especially if you take into account his hostility toward Israel. If a consistent principle can be deduced, it is that Obama wants to avoid doing anything that might advance U.S. interests. Maybe that's the answer, or maybe he just doesn't care enough to formulate a real policy. Be that as it may, one thing is clear: but for Obama's feckless participation in the overthrow of Egypt's and Libya's governments, yesterday's events would not have happened.
The answer, of course, is both incompetence and ideology. Muddle-headed ideologues of the left, such as our president, want America to be brought down to size. They truly believe that violent jihadi hate-groups can be tamed by appeasement, because the evil parties are Israel and America. So Obama helps depose Mubarak and Gaddafi, knowing they will be replaced by Islamic supremacists. He tells Israel they are on their own, we didn't really mean it about being allies. He blocks attempts to prevent a nuclear Iran, even by economic sanctions, because he doesn't like American shows of force and thinks we can live with a nuclear Iran. We lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, didn't we? Are we against Arabs, that we think they shouldn't have nuclear weapons, too? It sounds like a joke, but it isn't.Incompetence was also in full force this 9/11. The attacks in Egypt and Libya were preventable. Why weren't our embassies and consulates in the Middle East properly protected? Why are fifty Marines sent in after the fact? Why didn't we have intelligence in advance? When the mob was gathering outside the Cairo embassy, the frightened staff issued an apology. What is wrong with our diplomatic corps if that was their response? Clinton should have gotten on the phone to the Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi and explained to him what would happen if he didn't protect our embassy. The rent-a-riot, inflamed purposefully by publicizing an obscure anti-Mohammed video, should have been stopped before they got anywhere close to our embassy.When the embassy did issue their pathetic attempt at appeasement, and reissue it after our flag was torn down, Obama should have made a strong statement immediately, one that indicated that there are repercussions for attacking America. Instead, he allowed the apology to stand (for nine hours) until Romney condemned it. Desecrations of our flag didn't get the president's attention, but electoral politics did.
Obama, along with many liberal Democrats, believes that American strength is immoral. We shouldn't impose our views on other nations. So when the Muslim Brotherhood made its move last year, using the "Facebook revolution" as cover (and a very transparent cover it was), we abandoned Mubarak and told the Egyptian military to stand aside. We purposefully let the Middle East's oldest terror organization take over the Middle East's most populous country.
The Muslim Brotherhood is considered the father of the jihadi movement. It was adopted by Adolf Hitler under the Third Reich and grew from a languishing 10,000 members to a million strong by the end of World War II --Hitler's permanent legacy for world destruction. Yet our president and State Department believe in embracing the Brothers as modernizing moderates.
The Brothers started the modern jihadi movement, complete with a genocidal program against Jews. In the words of Matthias Kuntzel, "[t]he significance of the Brotherhood to Islamism is comparable to that of the Bolshevik Party to communism: It was and remains to this day the ideological reference point and organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas."
Mubarak was the reason there have been no attacks by Arab states on Israel for thirty years. The 1979 Camp David accords neutralized Egypt as aplayer in the Arab war against Israel. To protect his own life and power, Mubarak kept the Muslim Brothers of Egypt under control. In return, Egypt has been receiving a billion and a half dollars a year -- payoff money from the United States. Egypt didn't agree to a friendly peace, and it wasn't a democracy, but in terms of Middle East geopolitics, supporting Mubarak was a critical success factor.
Obama and Hillary threw all that away with their embrace of the Arab Spring. It could have gone differently. We could have spoken out in support of Mubarak, showing the world that we are trustworthy allies. Instead, we abandoned a crucial ally when the mob howled. We could have told the Egyptian military that they had better make sure the Muslim Brothers don't take over the country. Instead, we told them to step aside and usher the Brothers into power.Hillary's State Department proclaimed that the Muslim Brothers had become moderates. Anyone having a flashback to the Carter era, when all the liberals knew that the Ayatollah Khomeini would be a partner for peace?The Obama Doctrine on the Middle East was hinted at in the president's 2009 Cairo speech, during a Middle East tour in which Obama did not visit Israel. Obama apologized for our war on terror. "The fear and anger" after 9/11 "led us to act contrary to our ideals," he told the Egyptian crowd. In a speech in France, Obama declared that America must make deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal, because otherwise we don't have "the moral authority to say to Iran, don't develop a nuclear weapon."One of the most chilling visuals in 2016: Obama's America is a map of the world's nuclear arsenals. Obama has already cut our nuclear warhead arsenal from 5,000 to 1,500 (in an "arms treaty" that allowed Russia to increase its arsenal). He has asked the Pentagon to report to him on reducing our nuclear warheads to 300. That's about the same number as France. Pakistan has 110 nuclear weapons. Obama, it seems, believes in equality in national defense, as well as in class warfare.In July, five conservative congressmen, including Michele Bachmann, expressed alarm over evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has succeeded inplacing operatives in key positions throughout the Obama administration. In Bachman's words, State Department polices "appear to be a result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood." Instead of backing up Bachmann, our Republican leadership joined in Democrat attacks on her.The point here is not only that the Muslim Brotherhood is influencing American foreign policy. The arrow points in both directions: the Obama/Clinton policy of tolerating and even promoting the power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is the same policy that promotes their front groups in America. It is the liberal idiocy that our enemies are friends, and our friends enemies.
There can be little doubt that the America that Obama envisions is one which disparages and shuns its allies — Honduras, Poland, the Czech Republic, Egypt of the recent past, and, most prominently, Israel — while establishing ever closer ties with its overt enemies — Russia, Turkey — and winking at sundry terrorist organizations — Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and local offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.Even more worrisome, the president’s program of sanctions against the regime of genocidal ayatollahs in Iran is so riddled with waivers and exemptions as to be ineffective and his coddling of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt reveals an administration playing fast and loose with America’s future.The United States of America is now something alarmingly close to what we might describe as the rogue regime of Obamerica. The “end,” in the acceptation of “purpose,” of this strange new nation appears to be the reversal or erasure of its Republican heritage and its replacement by what Barry Rubin calls a stealth-leftist anti-American substitute.
The past week has shown us what a Post-American world looks like and it isn’t a batch of treaties that lead to men and women from around the world meeting to decide how to feed the hungry, clothed the naked and take everyone’s guns away to banish violence from the world. It’s mobs of violent savages ransacking embassies while their suited brethren use it to explain to our decadent leaders that the only way we will have peace is if we let them decide what sections of the Bill of Rights we get to keep.Forget the UN, the Post-American order isn’t a blue flag, it’s a black flag with Mohammed on it. There are far more people in the world who believe in a world order based on the violent ravings of a 7th Century madmanIn the new world order we will cower behind our televisions while the global mob, composed of whoever has the most surviving kids living on international handouts, will tell us what laws they want us to live under. And those will not be tolerant laws, they will not protect women or gays, let alone minority religions, they will be the laws of the violent majority, not that of the Christians or Buddhists, or the tinier numbers of Jews or Atheists, they will be the laws of Islam, because Muslims are willing to do what they aren’t, go out into the streets and kill to establish those laws.Let us dispense with any pretense that if we do criminalize defamation of religion or prosecute Mohammed cartoons as a hate crime, that this will be because we are tolerant or respect religion. It will be because we are afraid of Muslims and we are right to be afraid of Muslims because our leaders are gutless cowards who have no idea how to deal with anyone whose greatest fear in life isn’t being called a racist on the evening news.And let us dispense with the pretense that the growing internationalism is humane, rational or orderly. It is nothing of the sort, it is a mob of savages that kills to convey its demands to the officials who pretend to be running a humane and rational world order and uses them as its mouthpiece.Any order that takes its laws from savages will be an order of savages, no matter how urbane and cultured the men and women who have chosen to act as their international representatives, while pretending to be ours...Their global order is not taking us to the 22nd Century, but back to the 7th Century, and of all the things that they owe us, the least of them is to be honest about that.Having ignored the crisis for as long as possible, they are now discussing on what terms the raiders should be able to impose their laws on us, while bellowing at us that any notion of Sharia law being imposed on us is a fantasy of racist extremists, even as they cower when the actual racist extremists tell them they want Sharia law or they will go on bombing, burning and killing. And there is still not even the faintest twinge of an honest discussion of this subject in any official forum, even as officials arrest men and women for the crime that in most Muslim countries is honestly known as blasphemy.
Members of Iran's elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) are in Syria providing non-military assistance and Iran may get involved militarily if Syria comes under attack, its commander said on Sunday.The statement is the first official acknowledgement from a senior military commander that Iran has a military presence on the ground in Syria where an uprising has left tens of thousands dead since it began 18 months ago.