Spying On Friends Ordered By America’s Dolt-In-Chief





Photo credit: waif69 (Creative Commons)

The National Security Agency (NSA) cannot spy on anyone, friend or foe, unless its activities are authorized by the White House. In short, for the low information voter, Barack Obama had to order it.

Feeling betrayed by a nation she considered a good friend, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is very upset that the United States monitored her personal cell phone. Germany has had a long history of sharing information and intelligence with the United States. Allies obviously need a high level of trust in each other. The revelation that Obama’s NSA was spying on NATO ally leaders has dealt a serious blow to that necessary trust.

In addition to being thoroughly unacceptable and in exceptionally poor taste, Obama’s actions may well lead to the dissolution of NATO. European leaders have understandably lost trust in Obama. But don’t look for the mainstream press to report that fact.

Why?
Obama is possessed of a strong anti-colonial upbringing. It was first noted when he unceremoniously returned a bust of Winston Churchill loaned by the British to President Bush after 9-11. Obama was classless enough to send it back with a “no thank you” note! By spying on world leaders, he likely seeks to drive a wedge between the United States and her allies. It is his loutish way to fulfill the dream of his true father, Frank Marshal Davis, to get even with the former colonial powers and put the United States in its place. The world’s trust in its greatest nation has been compromised, precisely what Barack Obama hoped to accomplish.

Snowden
The latest revelations by Edward Snowden have seriously compromised Mr. Obama’s Spite House relationship with foreign leaders. It is highly probable that the private phone numbers of these individuals were provided to the NSA by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Collecting information on American citizens and allied leaders is a waste of time for an agency that is supposed to be protecting this country from external threats. After all, the current concern of the Intelligence community is that Snowden has documents detailing secret cooperation between belligerent nations. American officials don’t know what documents Snowden has, but they are concerned with what hasn’t yet shown up on WikiLeaks.

Closing
In a statement aimed at Obama, Chancellor Merkel said “I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.” Remember that American Intelligence Agencies cannot do a thing unless they have been authorized or ordered by the President. Obama owns this latest example of corrupt and boorish behavior lock, stock, and barrel.

 

Photo credit: waif69 (Creative Commons)

Commission Seeks Answers On Benghazi

Obama Who Is Benghazi SC Commission Seeks Answers on Benghazi

The Obama administration has been supporting jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, thereby furthering the goals of Islamists in the Middle East, argued several speakers at Accuracy in Media’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) conference last week. Why is this important to the exploration of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? First of all, it provides context for the terrible conditions that Ambassador Stevens faced when he traveled there that September, and the make-up of those who attacked our facilities there. It could also partially explain the administration’s eagerness to falsely blame the attack on a YouTube video that Muslims found offensive, rather than acknowledge poor security conditions and a growing al-Qaeda movement in the region. After all, the President believes that al Qaeda is on the run.

“Here’s the sentence, here’s the headline, that the Obama administration does not want broadcast anywhere or printed anywhere: ‘Obama Administration Arms Al Qaeda,’” Chris Farrell, Director of Research and Investigation at Judicial Watch, said at the conference. “That’s it, right there.”

Judicial Watch is the only organization litigating in Federal Court on Benghazi to date. It recently issued a new report, the second of two, on the Benghazi attacks and the Administration’s subsequent stonewalling.

“Look, this attack in Benghazi did not happen in a vacuum. It wasn’t a fluke. It didn’t just occur,” argued author and investigative journalist Ken Timmerman. “It was a policy shift that took place as soon as Obama took power to overturn our longstanding national security alliances in the Middle East and to support the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“I think the path, I think the green light, if you will, even, was given by President Obama in his 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, when he green-lighted the Islamic uprising that would follow over the next two years,” said Clare Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy. Lopez is a former CIA operations officer and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. “What happened in Libya was a follow-on to that green light, as well as what happened in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood rose up and seized power for a time.”

During the aforementioned Cairo speech, noted Timmerman, “sitting behind the President of the United States as he’s giving the speech, so they’re pictured in all of the news footage of it, are top members of the Muslim Brotherhood—at that point still an outlawed group although tolerated by the Mubarak regime.” Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt at that time, was not invited. This sends a clear message from our President.

As for Muammar Qaddafi, he was a brutal dictator, but “He had al-Qaeda jihadis in his jails,” said Lopez. “And yet, in March of 2011, the United States, together with NATO allies Italy, France, and others, decided to intervene in Libya. Why? To assist al Qaeda militias to overthrow a sovereign government that was no threat to the United States.” Those skeptical of the al Qaeda connections to Libya Shield, Ansar al Sharia, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), and other Libyan “liberation” freedom fighters should read John Rosenthal’s The Jihadist Plot, which details al Qaeda’s intricate plan to overthrow the apostate Qaddafi.

“As we know, we’ve had step-by-step accounts of the killing of Osama bin Laden, and some information that was probably classified,” noted Kevin Shipp, a former CIA officer and author of From the Company of Shadows, at the conference. “We’ve had step-by-step accounts of what’s going on in Syria, with the exceptions of some things about the gas. We’ve been given nothing about Benghazi. No, not even the smallest detail regarding what happened that evening.”

The reason we’ve been given step-by-step accounts of Osama bin Laden’s death is partially because it helped the President politically. Similarly, knowledge of Syria’s conflict assisted the President in making the case to send military and non-military aid. But Benghazi, where four people died? President Obama would rather that issue be swept under the rug.

Members of the Commission expressed their dismay that the administration did not mount a more vigorous attempt to rescue the Benghazi four and that, they argue, stand down orders were given.

“If the President’s child were in Benghazi, would the rescue attempt have been more aggressive?” asked Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, at the conference. Tyrone Woods was one of two former Navy SEALs who, along with Ambassador Chris Stevens and information officer Sean Smith, was killed that day in Benghazi. Charles Woods asked the same question at a hearing before Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) committee three days later. At the hearing, Rep. Issa announced that he had subpoenaed two Diplomatic Security agents who were on the ground in Benghazi that night. He said that the State Department had suggested to him that these two might not want to come forward because there was an FBI investigation ongoing.

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who also spoke at the conference, noted that those involved were consistently politicizing the FBI investigation by using it as an excuse to not provide information.

“I appreciate the fact that this Citizens’ Committee is here, but I wish that it wasn’t necessary,” said Woods. “I wish that it was not necessary, because the truth voluntarily should have been presented by our administration.”

The Commission is dedicated to finding out the truth behind the Benghazi attacks, and this work is ongoing. Captain Larry Bailey (Ret.) invited confidential sources to contact him and to be assured of total privacy and anonymity. Videos and transcripts from the September 16th conference are being posted at the CCB website.

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 

Al Jazeera Favorite McCain Ignores Constitutional “Niceties” On Syria

McCain Wacko Birds Roost SC Al Jazeera Favorite McCain Ignores Constitutional “Niceties” on Syria

Near the end of a long story about whether there is justification for a U.S. military strike on Syria, CNN said, “Finally, there is the U.S. Constitution, which holds that only Congress can declare war and only Congress can appropriate the funds to wage war. The last time such niceties were observed was for America’s entrance into World War II.”

The constitutional provisions have become “niceties.” In fact, however, President Bush went to war against Iraq after Congress passed a resolution of support. It was not a formal declaration of war, but it served the same purpose. At least Bush went to Congress for a vote.

CNN added, “The 1973 War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of launching military action and bars U.S. armed forces from fighting for more than 60 days without congressional approval.”

As we pointed put in a column on Obama’s war against Libya, the law says more than that. The War Powers Act says the president can go to war on his own only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. It authorizes the use of force only in situations “where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.”

Where is the imminent threat to the U.S. from Syria?

Though out of session, members of Congress, led by Scott Rigell (R-VA), are moving to assert the primacy of the Constitution in the current Syria crisis. His letter to Obama says, “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”

In 2007, then-Senator Obama loudly declared that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” This is a correct understanding of the law.

At the time of the Libya operation, we noted that Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who had turned into an advocate for Al Jazeera, became an enthusiastic supporter of the war, conducted with the approval of the Arab League and the United Nations, but not Congress.

Al-Jazeera, committed to the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the region, openly backed the “pro-democracy fighters” in Libya, playing down their links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Qatar, the sponsor and funder of Al Jazeera, was the only Arab state to join in NATO operations against Libya.

As Yogi Berra might say, Syria is déjà vu all over again. Once again, McCain, Qatar, and Al Jazeera are leading the cry for U.S. military intervention.

On Tuesday, McCain was on the Neil Cavuto show on Fox News, followed by an appearance on CNN about an hour later. McCain certainly knows how to use the media, and they play right into his hands. He was never asked during these interviews about the legality or constitutionality of intervening in Syria.

In our column, “Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional,” we pointed out that the comparison to the war in Iraq was wrong and that the correct parallel was President Bill Clinton’s illegal and unconstitutional military intervention in the civil war in Kosovo, then a province of Serbia. We said. “Serbia, like Libya today, did not present a threat to the U.S., but in both cases Democratic presidents went to war with those nations anyway, in order to strengthen international organizations.”

Obama is doing the same thing regarding Syria.

“As he contemplates the American response to Syria’s gas attack, President Obama has made it clear that he is consulting international law,” notes U.S. News & World Report. The publication claimed that “a consensus is building that it may be lawful to use military force in defense of human rights without violating international law,” a concept known as the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) and popularized by Obama advisors such as Samantha Power.

We noted at the time of Obama’s Libya intervention that the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine was mostly the work of the World Federalist Movement, a group dedicated to promoting world government by strengthening the United Nations system.

The only “consensus” in favor of the concept comes from one-worlders who want to supersede the U.S. Constitution.

But Al Jazeera is also weighing in. “The Obama team is said to be looking at the 1999 NATO air war on Kosovo as a precedent,” the channel reported. “Back then, the U.S. bypassed the [U.N.] Security Council and sought backing from NATO instead, using the protection of civilians as justification.”

It’s true that Clinton used NATO rather than the U.N. But NATO, which came into being through a treaty as a defensive military force, had been illegally transformed without the benefit of a treaty into an offensive military force.

The result, as we pointed out at the time, was that Clinton intervened on behalf of the Muslim terrorists in the Kosovo Liberation Army against the Christian Serbs. The result was the creation of a Muslim state, Kosovo, in the heart of Europe.

After the Libya intervention, our media tried to put the best possible face on the illegal actions of the Obama Administration. The media wanted to avoid the issue of whether Obama’s unauthorized attack on Libya was an impeachable offense. The chaos and lack of security later resulted in the murders of four Americans in Benghazi.

At the time, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell (KY) said he was depending on Senator John McCain, who had recently been praising and appearing on Al Jazeera, for the answer. “Senator McCain has been to Benghazi [Libya] as I think everyone knows. He is keeping us posted on what he thinks ought to be done,” McConnell said.

McCain had been in Benghazi meeting with Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the September 11th terrorist attack.

In a May 17, 2011, column, we tried to explain McCain’s appearances on Al Jazeera: “The only explanation that makes any sense is that Al Jazeera constitutes another channel that can give—and has given—McCain favorable publicity. The Arizona Senator has a reputation as a favorite of the press who is always anxious to get in front of a TV camera. In this regard, Al Jazeera simply constitutes another outlet, albeit an unsavory one, that he can use to promote himself. He may, however, find that it will turn on him—and the West—after Gaddafi is overthrown and the Muslim Brotherhood takes power.”

It didn’t turn on him. Rather, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed terrorists turned on Ambassador Stevens and other Americans. McCain would go on to accuse the Obama Administration of covering up what really happened, ignoring his own role in the crisis.

McCain has since called the revolution against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt a “coup” and wants termination of U.S. aid to the interim anti-terrorist regime.

Meantime, Al Jazeera America (AJAM) launched on August 20 with a clip of McCain saying, “What Al Jazeera has done is to achieve what I think all of us want to achieve—and that is to make a contribution.” He was actually talking about AJAM’s predecessor, Al Jazeera English.

McCain apparently still believes in Al Jazeera, despite the fact that the channel funded by Qatar has been booted out of Egypt and denounced for inciting violence and terrorism. That’s only a “contribution” to chaos.

It’s time for the media to count up the number of times that McCain has contributed to the chaos in the Middle East that he now decries.

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 

American Exceptionalism: An Empirical Fact

founders 300x201 American Exceptionalism: An Empirical Fact

With a firm grasp of history, Ronald Reagan declared, “Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people. We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.”

That view contrasts sharply with our 44th President’s perspective, when he said at the NATO Summit in Strasbourg, France in 2009, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

Contrary to what some erroneously assume, American exceptionalism is not some obtuse reference to Americans being any better than anyone else in the world. It doesn’t mean that our products are somehow superior, or that we’re any more erudite than the inhabitants of any other country. It simply means that, as a nation, America was exceptional in how it was founded and the precepts upon which it was based are unique and unparalleled in all of human history. That is historical fact, and American exceptionalism defined.

It is unique and exceptional that this nation was established according to declared inalienable individual rights of life, liberty, and property, or the pursuit of happiness. In an era when monarchs, rulers, oligarchs, autocrats and aristocrats governed according to their whims and disposition having derived their right to rule based on caste or bloodline, a motley collection of men steeped in classical-liberal principles led to a revolution and established a nation dedicated to individual freedom.

Those precepts were the foundation to the Declaration of Independence, which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There is nothing more exceptional in human history than those two sentences and the nation that resulted from their utterance: a nation that derived its “just” powers from the “consent of the governed.”

A decade later, a structural document creating the governmental framework based on the tenets articulated in the Declaration of Independence, was ratified by the colonies. That document, our Constitution, stated specifically what our national government would do specifically, and whatever powers were not specified or enumerated, were “reserved to the states respectively or to the people.”

That concept of limited governmental power and maximum individual freedom is the embodiment of American exceptionalism and is the reason for our holiday this past week.  Independence Day affords us a time to reflect on the historical significance of our nation being so founded, intentionally constructed in such a way as to prevent tyrants, despots, and bureaucrats from usurping the authority and power of the people. While we may seem so far removed from those ideals today, poignant reflection on the historicity of the day should stir something deep within our souls for a return to such precepts.

Those who don the nation’s uniform take an oath of fealty to the Constitution, and vow that they will defend it against all foes, foreign and domestic. I often reflect how all of us, as citizens, should take a similar oath. For if we did, the abuses of power, usurped and purloined from the citizens, would be so much less likely to occur as we observe on a nearly daily basis in news emanating from our seats of government.

In our reflection of the historical significance of the day, may we catch a glimpse of the fervor that filled the hearts and souls of those earliest of patriots. They were so willing to give all that they had, including their very lives, for the freedom for which they yearned, and which they passed on as a legacy of liberty to each successive generation. Yet collectively, we allow that very liberty to be frittered away on a daily basis by ostensibly well-intentioned politicians who, through new legislation, laws, and Acts, limit individual freedom and liberty, and engorge government with ever increasing power to harass, subjugate, and enslave us. With each such law, we become less citizens of a republic based on freedom, and increasingly subjects to an omnipotent and omniscient government.

To celebrate our Independence Day in the proper spirit of the nation born 237 years ago, let us recommit to those principles for which our forebears struggled that we might enjoy the fruits thereof. Let us not allow their sacrifices to have been in vain, but let us take up the torch of Lady Liberty, with the fire of freedom burning within our souls, and recommit to those founding doctrines that made America unique and exceptional in all of human history. America became great because of them, and our future is brighter if we but return to them.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net

Photo Credit: Site.gov/SC

Whistleblower Exclusive: Benghazi Cover-up Proxy Battle With War With Iran

The immediate concern for the Obama administration after the attack in Benghazi was to cover up the connection with Iran and Syria to Ansar al Sharia and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), according to my Benghazi whistleblower source. The attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, was not a terrorist attack; it was a nation-state attack, an escalation of war, and an opening of a new front in the tit for tat conflict with Iran (and by extension their proxy partner Russia) that is now being fought in Syria.

For anyone who thinks that Americans will be told that Benghazi was a nation-state attack by ex-CIA chief David Petraeus in the near future, they are in for a disappointment. He is part of the problem and has been for years. He sold his soul for shiny medals and financial perks and circuses long ago—and as his record shows, he will roll over again and again. Recall how Petraeus fell into lock-step rank-and-file with President Obama and Hillary Clinton when he joined them in falsely misleading America before the 2012 elections by blaming an “out-of-control demonstration prompted by a Youtube video” for the Benghazi attack. He’s as dirty as they are.

In addition, tell me please: how can a man who sends troops to war, on multiple deployments, with duffle bags full of medications, under suicidal and unwinnable polices like catch and release and COIN, while watching the military suicide numbers soar (22 a day or one every 65 minutes) have a conscience or any sense of right and wrong? To be fair, that question includes the morally bankrupt Congress, particularly the long serving members who have allowed these policies that are destroying America’s military to continue unabated for years through the Bush and Obama administrations. As I previously reported, Petraeus is getting off easy for simply apologizing about sex. Take the scales off your eyes, and stop idolizing this gravely flawed, evil man with blood on his hands—the “celebrated General,” as some media types call him. By their fruits you shall know them. Indeed, we know that David Petraeus and his fruits are rotten to the core—unless Petraeus finds his soul, finds a conscience, and makes a deal in exchange for criminal leniency, he will keep toeing the line.

Moreover, freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is correct. You can’t trust the Republicans either. As I reported, the Republican Committee in their Benghazi Interim report already rolled over when they shockingly confirmed the administration’s dishonest story that no one was denied help during the Benghazi attack. As their report states: “No U.S. government element refused or denied requests for emergency assistance during the crisis (page 15),” which as previously reported was a lie (and here’s why.) The Republicans have yet to explain why they were wrong when they backed up the Obama-Clinton regime’s latest falsehood, and thus far have refused to answer my queries. Everyone makes mistakes, but at least have the decency to admit it and explain what happened.

Therefore, it is up to us, you and I, and all the brave whistleblowers and journalists who at great risk must reveal the truth of Benghazi. “What difference does it make?” declared Hillary Clinton during the Foreign Relations Committee hearings—a big one because the truth of Benghazi affects not only America’s future but the entire world.

Here we go.

Let’s break it down. Remember the pictures of the three suspects that the FBI released in relation to the Benghazi attack on May 1? One of my sources with direct information on Benghazi informed me that of those three terrorists, the one on the right is a Yemeni national who was part of the jihadist group Ansar al Sharia. Ansar Al Sharia, according to Saudi intelligence, is backed, funded, and directed by Iran. They are enemies of the Saudis and are trained by Iran’s Quods forces.

FBIWantedBenghazijpg Whistleblower Exclusive: Benghazi cover up proxy battle with war with IranPhoto credit FBI

Normally, if the FBI is trying to track down bad guys who are possibly involved in something like a terrorist attack that killed Americans, the FBI offers some sort of reward for any information that will lead to their arrest. Notice how that did not happen with the men in Benghazi? Where’s the incentive for anyone to cooperate? As my source explained, “The game was given away when they gave that picture out. They did the same thing with the Boston Marathon bombers—played dumb, even though we now know they knew who these guys were all along. They are doing the same thing with the Benghazi guys. Saudi intelligence and Western intelligence agencies are very aware of who they are.”

It was these Iranian-backed men in the FBI photos, Ansar al Sharia, who went to Benghazi to build up a militia and radicalized some locals. As my source explained, “when you have an Iranian funded group sent into Benghazi to radicalize the locals that means you are in a proxy battle with the war in Iran.” Why? That’s a two part answer.

First, do you think Iran was happy when seven Iranian Red Crescent workers were kidnapped by gunmen in Benghazi on July 31, 2012? Recall how these Red Crescent workers (equivalent to the Red Cross) were still held captive during the Benghazi attack, were released less than a month after, and were flown out of the Benghazi Benina International Airport. These weren’t your typical aid workers handing out food and supplies. According to my source, they were taken off the streets because they were probing the gunrunning operation into Syria when someone picked them up.

Next, it’s been well documented that the Saudis have been heavily involved in everything in Benghazi and Libya in general, the Muslim Brotherhood in the region, as well as supplying arms to the rebels in Syria to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—with US assistance despite the line drawn by Russia.

Who else was in Benghazi? A faction of AQIM Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb backed by Syria. Syria, like Iran, was in Benghazi. What was going on in Syria? There was gunrunning and arms smuggling from Libya through Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan into Syria as well as bringing in fighters to engage in a war with Syrian President Assad—the backdoor to Iran.

Meanwhile, shortly after the Benghazi attacks, reports of secret meetings with Obama’s chief advisor, Valerie Jarrett, with representatives of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Qatar regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program that had been going on before the Benghazi attack began to widely surface. The Obama administration wanted to announce a breakthrough agreement in Iran’s nuclear standoff— a diplomatic victory to ensure his reelection. While the Obama administration denied these reports, my source confirmed they are true. “The Iranians played them.”

Because the attack in Benghazi was a nation-state attack, with the 2012 elections coming up, the Obama-Clinton regime did not want American voters to know that, thanks to their under-handed policies of gunrunning into Syria to overthrow Assad with the Saudis, America was in a proxy war with Iran (and by extension their proxy partner Russia.) Do you think American voters would have re-elected President Obama had they known that America is about to be pulled into another major conflict?

Nine months later, the administration still doesn’t want the public to know the truth about Benghazi, which is why (as the Associated Press reported last week) despite the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) identifying five men who might be responsible for the attack, no arrests have been made. “The men remain at large while the FBI gathers evidence”—the same FBI that the Obama-Clinton regime denied access to Benghazi for almost a month after the attack— the perfect way to thwart evidence collection and skew official conclusions as previously reported and documented here.

This is also why President Obama, last week during his speech at Ft. McNair’s National Defense University in Washington, called the attack in Benghazi a “localized” threat. Obviously, he doesn’t want you to see the bigger picture (that is literally unfolding in the Middle East before your eyes as you read this) that his administration is responsible for, the so-called Arab Spring.

What is happening is that America is in the final stages of the run up to the next major military conflict coming up in the Middle East. But unlike Iraq and Afghanistan or the smaller operations in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, Syria won’t implode; it will explode and spread throughout the region in an epic, bloody, deadly Sunni-Shiite conflict. Christians, people of all faiths, and non-believers will be persecuted if not outright slaughtered. Think Islamic Caliphate time.

The security and existence of Israel will also be in jeopardy. As Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz recently warned, Israel must prepare for a three-front war, presumably having to defend themselves from Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. Already, sectarian violence is flaring up in Lebanon and Syria. On top of Iran’s nuclear program, Israel will have to defend herself from Syria’s massive weapons arsenal that includes “advanced anti-aircraft missiles, anti-ship missiles and surface- to-air missiles. Syria also has large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, advanced artillery as well as the other components of a large conventional military force,” reports Caroline Glick. In addition, Israel could also become the target of the weapons that went missing from Libya and Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s vast weapons arsenal that the Obama-Clinton funded rebels looted from Gaddafi’s warehouses that includes the most advanced Russian surface-to air missiles (SA-24s that are easily launched from a person’s shoulder or a truck bed that can take down low-flying military and commercial aircraft.)

I repeat. massive bloodbath ahead; genocide and ethnic cleansing draws near if Obama’s underhanded policies are not stopped. As Time Magazine reported from Libya, this magnified nightmare awaits the troops:

“Stockpiles of old Soviet artillery shells and land mines gave Iraqis enough car bombs, roadside bombs and suicide vests to run an eight-year insurgency that has killed thousands of Americans and many tens of thousands of Iraqis. “If you just take one of these, you have a car bomb,” [Tom Bouckaert of Human Right’s Watchduring an interview in Libya] says, pointing to a box containing 130-mm antitank shells. There are hundreds more stacked in the same room.

A nearby sandy lot holds thousands more antipersonnel and antitank mines, with trip-wire triggers to rig booby traps already available nearby. Hundreds of such stockpiles have been located across Libya. Human Rights Watch found some 60 weapons warehouses in the eastern city of Ajdabiyah alone, all of them looted. “The storage facilities we found in Iraq were minuscule compared to what we’re finding here,” says Bouckaert (emphasis mine).”

One can’t help but ask: what did the Obama-Clinton regime think would happen when they funded al Qaeda rebels to topple Gaddafi? Either they are dangerously stupid, or this is what they wanted to happen considering they have been gearing up for the next stop (Syria) for well over a year now. As previously reported, the State Department will not provide an inventory or location of the weapons recovered in Libya as part of the MANPAD weapons recovery program that Hillary Clinton funded using $40 million in taxpayer money.

Are you awake yet? Is it becoming clear now? I repeat: according to my source, Benghazi was a nation-state attack—not simply a terrorist attack. There has been a U.S. proxy war with Iran since Benghazi. It is heating up by the day.

Look, events are confirming my source’s accuracy. Iranian soldiers and Hezbollah are fighting for Assad in Syria—even the State department had to recently, finally admit this.

Ding! Ding! Russian soldiers and the Syrian Army are fighting the Syrian rebels.

Cannibalism alert! A Syrian rebel, Al Hamad, a Sunni, with a sectarian hatred of Alawite Muslims (that would include Shiites and all other “infidels”), cuts out the heart and lung of a Syrian soldier and eats it.

Now do you understand why Russian President Vladimir Putin recently kept Secretary of State John Kerry waiting for three hours? You know the world is upside down when Putin rightfully distrusts the truth-challenged Kerry, who already betrayed his own country and the troops during Vietnam. Moreover, Putin has been warning for over a year of the “catastrophic” consequences that would befall if the West and Arab nations persist with their military intervention in Syria, which will lead to war with Iran. Obviously, Putin does not want the Muslim Brotherhood on his doorstep either. Would you? Incidentally, the FBI denied my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on John Kerry prior to his Secretary of State confirmation. As previously reported, Kerry participated in the Benghazi cover-up as well.

Still not awake or retreating into denial? Think about this. Could the Saudis, without the U.S./NATO intervention, have overthrown Assad by arming the Syrian rebels alone to install the Muslim Brotherhood and expand their reach? No; if the Saudis could have accomplished that, Assad would have been gone months if not over a year ago. The Saudis need U.S./NATO intervention. Do not be deceived. As reported here, the same applied for Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Col. Muammar Gaddafi in Libya—two leaders who had banned the Muslim Brotherhood in their countries. Are you awake yet?

Remember, when the Benghazi nation-state attack that killed four Americans happened, America was in the final weeks of the 2012 presidential election cycle. A proxy war with Iran could not be known to the public. It was unacceptable for Americans to know that at any time, troops could be sent into Syria, which will explode into Iran. This is the reason why the Obama-Clinton regime pulled out this obscure Youtube video as the chief culprit to blame for the attack in Benghazi— a YouTube video that doesn’t appear anywhere in their infamous “Talking points” that were repeatedly edited to deceive Americans. The Youtube video was intended to distract the public’s attention on what is really going on in the Middle East. It worked. Indeed, under a heavy fog of deception, Obama was reelected.

Hillary Clinton and the cover-up

If you don’t address the Iranian and Syrian connection to the nation-state attack in Benghazi, you can’t get to the Clintons. Hillary’s starring role is definitely in the Benghazi cover-up because nine months later, it still has not been “officially” confirmed whether Ambassador Christopher Stevens was wearing his State Department hat or his CIA hat at the time he was murdered. What is undeniable is that Hillary was one of the first top administration officials to publicly and falsely blame the Youtube video. She, with President Obama, appeared in a paid advertisement costing $70,000 to disavow the Youtube video that aired in Pakistan. She lied to Tyrone Woods’ father about the death of his son. Her State Department self-investigation, the Advisory Review Board (ARB), blamed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and a lack of funding for the Benghazi attack to conceal the truth. Hillary’s friends, Admiral Mike Mullen and Tom Pickering, who headed the ARB, didn’t bother to interview the Turkish Counsel General (who Ambassador Stevens last saw before he was killed)—neither have the Republicans thus far. Pickering finally admitted on NBC’s Meet the Press what I and others, like Doug Hagmann, have been reporting for months: that the ARB was a rigged travesty. As Pickering put it, “The Accountability Review Board was there to look at the question of security. We did not examine talking points after the fact. It was not in our remit (emphasis mine).” Indeed, a lot was not in Pickering’s remit.

The next time someone, be it in the media, President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, or members of Congress like the insufferable Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.S.), say the U.S. needs to overthrow Syrian President Assad for humanitarian purposes, ask them what they think will happen next. Are they really so stupid to actually believe that freedom, democracy, unicorns, peace, and lollipops will take over Syria after Assad is removed; or will another vacuum be created for the Muslim Brotherhood to fill? A vacuum that will be filled by massive bloodshed, ethnic cleansing, and genocide that could set the entire region on fire with American and NATO troops being dragged in to serve the interests of someone else who is using America’s military might to create the United States of Islam. You already can see it happening in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.

Wake up, America. Wake up the useful idiots now. The Obama administration has picked a fight with Iran and Russia in Syria that could trigger World War III. It intensified with the Obama-Clinton regime’s gunrunning out of Libya into Syria. As the WSJ reported, Hillary’s State Department provided the “diplomatic cover” in Benghazi. Do not be deceived. Benghazi was a nation-state attack.

By their fruits, you shall know them.

You have been warned.