Osama Bin Laden, Benghazi, and the KGB

[AUTHOR'S NOTE: Because of the timing of Michael Morell's book, my research shifted gears as my readers know from my last post, Someone is Lying About Benghazi. Therefore, even though I still intend to cover the topics I promised in this new publication, I am going to order it differently so as to fit better with how things happened this week. I am also publishing this in pieces because it is going to be long and I want just as much information public just as quickly as I can get it organized and typed.]

 

BENGHAZI

I am reminded of Jim Lovell's book, "Apollo 13". In describing the events leading up to the oxygen tank explosion, he explains that in most aircraft accidents it is usually not one catastrophic event that causes the disaster but rather a sequence of smaller, seemingly benign events that accumulate to create the requisite environment.

Such is the case with Benghazi. One can easily get caught up in the ongoing finger-pointing campaigns and try to find the one person to hang for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, but there is no one person. Rather, Benghazi was the culmination of many different factions converging to doom the compound and its occupants. So, while seemingly conflicting evidence is aggravating, it is understandable.

What I have a problem with is the blatant lies, and they are legion. As any lawyer can attest, when a witness lies it calls all of his/her testimony into question. When lie after lie after lie is told, the situation reaches the point where nothing can be believed. At this point, I am not even certain Kris Paronto was in Libya that night. Does anyone have a time-stamped photo of him at the annex?

As I was beginning my research into Seymour Hersh's article, the following interview came out with Mike Morell:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/11/exclusive-ex-cia-leader-morell-these-are-very-dangerous-times/

It just so happened that same day I had just met a man who was a Navy veteran and was in his company while I was listening to the interview. He was trying to talk to me about something, and I asked him to wait a minute because I needed to find out how to fire a mortar (I was going to do a search). After the requisite, "Why? Are you planning on shooting one?" he replied, "Well, I can tell you that". So, I asked him, and he explained mortars are fired pretty much like a sniper rifle. You put in the coordinates, and then fire. I asked how long this process would take, and he said not very long. I asked if it would require days of planning, and he said no. Then he elaborated, "In fact, those people (meaning Middle Eastern terrorists) fire them so much, they have had so much practice, that they can pretty much just point and shoot."

Oh, really?

My friend's explanation fits with what Michael Morell said, and calls other accounts into question. After all, the deadly accuracy of that first mortar proves this was a pre-planned event, right? (NOTE: While I am laying out my case, please do not misconstrue my analysis as being insensitive to the losses of Doherty and Woods. I have always been struck by the irony of their having travelled so far for so long only to be killed within the first minutes of the final attack.)

But, how does this fit with other explanations we have been given? General McInerney did not mince words when he said "we knew about Benghazi two weeks in advance". And Morell himself said CIA had been warning about the situation for months. Then there is the infamous video. Originally released in July, 2012, it was translated into Arabic and re-released in September, with a screening planned by Terry Jones on September 11 of all days. (Remember that Jones is the one who created an uproar after holding a Quran-burning at his church.)

The answer is, frankly, that Benghazi was a compilation of all of the above...coupled with something more nefarious. I have written repeatedly about Trey Gowdy's appearance on "Greta" last December, saying that he lied about Stevens' meeting with the Turk (he said they were likely just "friends"). I wrote an entire post on it, demonstrating how ludicrous that statement is:

http://ladonnarae1961.blogspot.com/2015/01/trey-gowdy-and-benghazi.html

However, Morell insists that we were not running guns through Benghazi, and I would love to believe him. In fact, I was impressed by his veracity in the interviews I have seen. He does not have the slick, polished veneer I see in John Brennan. I think Morell is genuine. Yet, there is that ship with arms in a Turkish port. What was going on in Benghazi?

* * * * *

Remember this report from a few months ago?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/?page=5

I have already written that I do not believe everything in it. The idea that Hillary Clinton gave General Ham a direct order is insane...not that she would think she had the authority to do such a thing but rather the idea that he would give such an order a millisecond of his consideration. I also find it to be hilarious that Obama supposedly abdicated his throne to his Secretary of State with a shrug of his shoulders and a “Don't look at me; this is Hillary's war”. Please.

But, the Pentagon warring with the State Department rings true to me. And we have seen of late how Congress will go around other branches of government when it finds a policy to be outlandish (observe their recent outreach to Israel). So, for the Pentagon and Congress to say, “This is crazy! Kill Qaddafi? Does she have any idea what will happen as a result?” sounds perfectly plausible.

Back to that ship. We know that after Libya's revolution the weapons we supplied to the “rebels” fell into the “wrong” hands. (Will we ever learn to stop arming “rebels”? HINT: JOHN MCCAIN?) There is no question that Russia and Iran are playing both sides in Syria and that ISIS is a Russian invention. For readers who find that statement to be outlandish, please see my recent post on KGB incitement of Middle Eastern terrorism:

http://ladonnarae1961.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-real-barack-obama-part-three.html

Hold that thought. Now, why was Hillary so opposed to increasing security at the compound? Every indication is she wanted to make that a permanent outpost; ostensibly the reason Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi that fateful night was to compile the paperwork necessary for her report on September 30^th. Clearly, she knew of the repeated security failures, and while I suppose she could make a wild attempt at plausible deniability (in fact, she has) the truth is there is no way she did not know about the repeated security requests and denials that occurred on her watch. Nevertheless, it just does not make good sense for someone to want a permanent diplomatic facility sans the security required to keep that facility safe. What was Hillary's problem?

I have it on good authority that to this day CIA does not trust Russia, so the idea that Benghazi was some sort of CIA operation to funnel guns to terrorists being supported by Russia defies logic. But, what if the State Department was busy trying to conduct another war and CIA was in fact spying upon their operation? Not very far-fetched if we remember what happened with Qaddafi. Had Hillary gone rogue again? Was she conducting an operation that CIA was monitoring, not so much because it was the State Department but because they knew the real agitator within Syria was the Russians? Because, the bottom line is, guns were traveling from Libya through Turkey into Syria. And the fact that CIA was in Syria as early as spring, 2012 was probably the worst-kept secret in CIA history. Why were they there? Were they arming the “rebels” without authorization? Or were they monitoring the movement of those guns? Was Benghazi in fact the culmination of yet another inter-agency war over Libya?

My readers need to learn how to speak Spy. Who is “we”? Mike Morell was adamant when he said to Bret Baier, “We” were not running guns into Syria. He even put his hands to his chest. It was very heart-felt. “We”, who? “We” the United States of America, or “we” CIA? See how this works? I find Morell to be very candid. The listener simply needs to understand the language.

See, I think there are still many good men and women at CIA who love America, although the current director is not one of them. I think that CIA works to protect this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and if that means spying on a “diplomatic outpost”, so be it. As to the rumors that Stevens was CIA, I am not sure where to put that. His love of the Libyan people was no secret. I do not know how far he would have gone to do what he thought would help them. I am aware of the argument he had on September 10, 2012 with a dinner companion about the Muslim Brotherhood, and the side he took in that debate disturbs me. But, I do not have enough information to be able to draw a sound conclusion.

As they say on the streets, “Let's not get it twisted”. My readers know how I feel about Hillary Clinton. But, this is about the truth, not politics, which brings me to the House Intelligence Committee. The display I saw out of the Republicans was ridiculous. The partisan lines were drawn, and because Morell is clearly a Clinton supporter anything he said was interpreted in that light. Note to Congress: This is supposed to be an investigation. Check your party affiliation at the door and investigate. The same goes for the House Select Committee, with specific reference to one congressman on the other side of the aisle, Elijah Cummings. If you cannot be objective, recuse yourself.

One other thing. Hillary Clinton might think she runs this country, but she does not. The reason I resist the calls to hang her for Benghazi is that there is one person who is ultimately responsible for anything that happens regarding America, and his name is Barack Hussein Obama.

Finally, we need to train our ears. Whenever we hear Iran mentioned, we need to think “Russia”. Iran is not acting unilaterally. It has the full support of Russia.

Which brings me to Osama bin Laden.

 

OSAMA BIN LADEN

May 1, 2011

Barack Obama made a special announcement from the White House that sent shock waves around the world. Osama bin Laden had been killed in a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Everyone in America cheered, including myself. It was far past time for the man responsible for September 11^th to meet “allah” and his seventy-two virgins. Revenge was sweet.

But, once the elation died, I began having serious questions. The President had made a point of declaring his intention of ending the “War on Terror”, in effect saying there was no war on terror. He campaigned on his desire to close our base at Guantanamo Bay. 2011 was not an election year, and it was a little early in the campaign season to pull a stunt that Americans were supposed to remember a year-and-a-half later. So, why did he suddenly get an irresistible urge to do the one “good” thing he has done in office?

Adding to my consternation was the ambush of Extortion 17, the families' subsequent demands for the “truth” about how those SEALs died, and the emergence of Robert O'Neill, Sniper Extraordinaire. Not only that, but I have long been convinced that several “coincidences” are not coincidences at all. I have addressed Camp Chapman before. Jennifer Matthews' death has always bothered me. She was so close to her goal, and then apparently sloppy so-called security at the base gets her killed. Who at CIA cleared this Jordanian blogger? And, what of the musical CIA Station Chiefs in Pakistan?:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/20/pakistan-outs-three-us-cia-station-chiefs-in-three-years/

It also has not escaped my notice that, not only was Ayman al-Zawahiri trained by the KGB, but almost before bin Laden was “buried” someone by the name of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi began to emerge, a man who is rumored in some circles to be a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliott. (Bear with me; my regular readers should already know why I am bringing that up; the rest of you please do not jump to conclusions before you finish reading this post.) More on this in a moment.

Some of my questions may have been answered by Seymour Hersh. In an article released last week that caused tremendous backlash for five minutes before other news stories shoved it aside, he gives a completely different account of what happened that night from what the Obama Administration has been telling us:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

According to the White House narrative, our military crossed over into Pakistani airspace, flew for almost an hour, and just as it was approaching the compound in Abbottabad learned that the Pakistani Air Force had dispatched planes to attack them. We supposedly radioed them with a threat, and they turned tail and ran back to base. Then we completed the mission without further confrontation. An hour is a very long time to fly undetected over enemy territory. Hersh says the Pakistanis knew of the raid in advance, and that bin Laden had been a prisoner of the ISI since 2006. In fact, the last video released by bin Laden was on October 31, 2004, so the timing fits. Hersh further claims that the Pakistanis were holding bin Laden as insurance against the Taliban.

After the Peshawar attack, I had the opportunity to have some lively discussions with Pakistanis on Twitter, many of whom are great fans of the TTP. Why? Because they believe the TTP protects them from the Taliban. The average Pakistani does not view the TTP as being terrorists, despite their being designated as a terrorist organization. I found it to be mind-boggling that the same people who had just slaughtered 132 children were being hailed as heroes. The motive behind the Peshawar attack was revenge against the army for its attack on the TTP several months earlier, and Pakistanis were defending the TTP! So, we are back to “good” terrorists and “bad” terrorists. I guess that warped way of thinking is not exclusive to America.

Nevertheless, if that is the prevalent thinking in Pakistan, it makes sense that the ISI might want to hold bin Laden in order to keep the Taliban at bay. So, while I cannot independently verify Hersh's assertion, it at least has the ring of truth.

As to the courier, I always wondered about that, because the accounts I heard from the bin Laden Task Force were that bin Laden was extremely paranoid. Paranoid to the point that not only were cell phones shut off, but batteries and sim cards were removed to ensure movements could not be tracked. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. Anything is possible, but the idea that Pakistan would cooperate with America in dealing with bin Laden only to have America betray them rings true. We have a long history of doing precisely that (remember bin Laden's doctor)?

The fact that Obama was “cautious” rings 100% true. History has proven our President does not do anything without a guarantee he will not be exposed politically. It also makes sense that, in order to guarantee no casualties in taking out bin Laden, the IC (intelligence community) would try to “get the Pakistanis on board”.

From everything I have read over several decades about intelligence operations in the Middle East, Hersh's account of the political situation involving Saudi Arabia, the subterfuge in our relationship with Pakistan, and the duplicity involved in Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban is spot-on. (I realize many readers went numb attempting to follow Hersh's description; I often tell people that whenever I study the Middle East I first remove my brain. The western mind does not follow the mentality of Middle Easterners naturally. It takes work.)

So, bin Laden is killed, Obama is a hero, and SEAL Team Six is exposed. The Pentagon could not have been very happy about that. I also doubt anyone was thrilled with Obama's, “the longest 45 minutes of my life” remark. Who was shooting at him? Good grief. Anyway, as I stated in a previous post, the SEALs stayed true to their oath and did not take personal credit for who took the kill shot. Until Robert O'Neill. Back to him in a moment.

I cannot speak to the financial situation Hersh describes in his article, although I know money talks in the Middle East just like everywhere else, only more loudly. There, the guy who pays $1 more is the one who wins the payee's “loyalty”, so again I find Hersh to be credible.

But, what of the events that occurred after that night, and the initial glory-seeking on the part of the Obama Administration? What of Extortion 17? What is the deal with Robert O'Neill violating the SEAL creed? Why do the SEALs who are still alive from that mission say he is lying? Why was bin Laden really killed (opportunity and Pakistan's motives aside)? Who was really behind it? And did these events pave the way for the future “Caliph Ibrahim”?

I will address that tomorrow when I publish the KGB portion of this post.

 

 

KGB

 

Why would Russia be involved in the Middle East? Most people would immediately reply, “oil”, but that makes no sense. Russia has more than enough oil to last a very long time. Why would Russia support terrorism? Most people would immediately reply that I am crazy, that Putin has made it very clear he will not tolerate terrorism on Russian soil. Yet, the evidence indicates otherwise.

What is happening in Russia while all eyes are focused on ISIS? Does anyone know? Many are vaguely aware of problems in Ukraine, and of the annexation of Crimea. Other than that, what has Vladimir been up to? Here is just a small sample: Russian planes have been running “First Strike” practice maneuvers in Europe and North America, invading American, Canadian, and British airspace on numerous occasions. Putin has threatened Great Britain, Denmark, and the Baltics with a nuclear attack. Russian submarines have been spotted in German waters. And then there is the Russian spy ship that went on “liberty” in Cuba in April, 2014. That ship remains docked at this very moment. Wow. My father joined the wrong Navy. In his entire career, he never had a “liberty” that lasted over a year. Russia must be very kind to her sailors. Or, is something else going on?

Does Russia sponsor terrorism? My readers are probably aware of a book called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. That book is a best seller in the Middle East. Most Arabs are very familiar with it, and many can pull out a copy upon request. “Protocols” purports to be the minutes of a meeting of Zionists where they discussed their plans for world domination, and includes the blood libel that Jews use the blood of Christian boys to make matvot for Passover. That libel has gotten countless Jews massacred. “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was written by the KGB:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/protocols.shtml

Also see:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348191/EXCLUSIVE-KGB-operation-seeded-Muslim-countries-anti-American-anti-Jewish-propaganda-1970s-laying-groundwork-Islamist-terrorism-U-S-Israeli-targets.html

“The Protocols” was designed to blame the Jews for the Bolshevik Revolution (where have we seen this same scapegoating of the Jews in recent history? See “Mein Kampf”), and was responsible for horrible massacres of the Jews. The “success” of this book gave the Russians the idea to expand its influence, so it has since been distributed throughout the Middle East. As I have outlined previously, the KGB was responsible for Yasser Arafat, Ayatollah Khomeini, Mahmoud Abbas, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, among others, and let us not forget that Stalin originally allied himself with Hitler (and thus the Muslim Brotherhood) during World War II until Hitler became too greedy. The KGB's hand in terrorism goes back almost 100 years, so it should come as no surprise that Russia remains in “the game” to this day.

Getting back to my questions from earlier: Why was bin Laden really killed? Who was the “walk-in” Seymour Hersh says gave him up? Obviously, what I am about to assert cannot be proven at this time, but I have formed an educated opinion. Who was the number two in charge of al-Qaeda? Ayman al-Zawahiri. So, with bin Laden dead, who took control of al-Qaeda? The KGB. (I will continue to use this more familiar name although its “official” title is the FSB; my readers are aware of my assertion that the FSB and the KGB are one and the same.) Bin Laden's death also set the stage for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to begin his reign of terror, which he commenced the following month. While we have no information as to whether or not he was ever anywhere near Moscow or had any Russian contact whatsoever, I find the rumor that he is a Mossad agent named Simon Elliott to be fascinating:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdwksvcSzLE

So, back to Benghazi. What about the guns that we now know for a fact were being moved from Libya to Syria through Turkey? See, I do not think we were the only ones in Libya arming the “rebels” to overthrow Qaddafi. In fact, given Russia's track record, I would be shocked if they were not running weapons out of Libya into Syria. Which points the finger for Benghazi directly at the same party who was responsible for 9/11 but who no one will name:

RUSSIA.

There is much more to say on the subject of the KGB. In fact, they will factor in to my next topic: Iraq, and whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

Someone is Lying About #Benghazi

Yesterday, I hit the ceiling. In reviewing Mike Morell's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee something caught my attention. He mentioned "two military officers" who "volunteered" to accompany CIA to Benghazi that night from Tripoli. He said they were on the roof with Doherty and Woods at the time of the mortar attack, and that they removed the bodies and evacuated the wounded while under fire.

In "13 Hours", Kris Paronto said Delta Force operators, who were inside Building C at the time of the mortar attack, climbed to the roof after-the-fact, tossing the bodies indiscriminately to the ground, causing injury to the corpses in the process.

These must be the same two men.

The problem is, they could not have been in the two places at once.

Someone is lying.

Is Paronto suffering from survivor's guilt because he was on Building A rather than Building D when the mortar hit? Is he trashing Delta Force to make himself look better?

Is Delta Force lying to cover the fact that they missed the action?

Is Morell lying as part of some CIA cover story?

I do not know.

But, I know this.

Someone is lying.

Both stories cannot be true.

Perhaps if we find out who is lying, then we can find out why, and maybe we can begin to unravel this mess and get to the truth.

I invite my readers' input in the "comments" section.

 

NOTE: I will publish the post I advertised over the weekend. I wanted to get this out first.

 

LINK TO MORELL'S TESTIMONY: http://www.c-span.org/video/?318648-1/benghazi-obama-administration

The Real Barack Obama Part Ten - Solution

Complaining solves nothing, so now that I have outlined so many of the problems currently facing America, what do we do about it? Many people have told me it is time for a revolution. They cite the Declaration of Independence, and figuratively wave the American flag in the air while reminding me of the sacrifices of our Founders with starry-eyed accounts of people dying for us.

I do not need to hear these stories. My father was career Navy, and I am a veteran of the Air Force. I am well-aware of the history of this country, and of the sacrifices people have made so that we can be free. I am also well-aware of the Declaration of Independence. Yet, whenever I have been approached on this subject, I have consistently balked. Why? Cowardice?

No. What constrains me is visions of blood flowing throughout America. Revolutions are bloody. We read accounts of the wars America has fought and it all sounds very romantic. We tend to forget about the blood. If there is absolutely no other alternative, then I will answer the call-to-arms. But, I maintain hope that there is another way.

It is true that our Constitution has failed us. Our checks-and-balances have failed to contain the tyrant who currently occupies our Oval Office. Corrupt congressmen have been contained by said tyrant through blackmail and other threats. Evidence indicates similar measures have been used to keep the Supreme Court from doing its job. So, how do we regain control of the United States of America?

I made a suggestion over a year ago that had everyone balking. I compared America to another country and said we should follow its example. People reacted with horror. So, imagine my surprise when I discovered that two very well-known United States generals are calling for the exact same remedy. There is actually a list of other retired officers who are ready to see it happen, some of whom are actively advocating for it, and others who have said they will join in once it begins.

Here are Generals Thomas McInerney and Paul Vallely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQAJXzeHvUI

Yes. I am saying we need to follow Egypt's example and have this administration forcibly removed. I do not believe we have time to wait for January of 2017, and that is supposing there is even an election in 2016. I am not so sure. It sounds like Conspiracy City, but I really would not put it past Obama to invoke martial law. He is certainly setting the stage for it with the civil unrest he is actively creating. And I am reminded of the scare we had in December of 2000. Do my readers remember the election debacle? I really thought Al Gore was going to have to be removed from the Naval Observatory at gunpoint, and Al Gore was nothing compared to Barack Hussein Obama.

Before everyone faints, let me hasten to add there needs to be a strict game plan for such a coup. A very swift and orderly special election is critical. America cannot have the military controlling the White House for long. But, I do not see any other option for taking this country back without the bloody revolution some are envisioning. I would prefer to keep this as controlled as possible. But, make no mistake. Drastic action is called for, and I believe a coup is the best course to take.

Those of us who have worn the uniform, and those who wear it currently, need to remember that our oath is first to the Constitution of the United States, and not to the Commander-in-Chief. Our Constitution has been and is being subverted, and this situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is time for us to live up to our oaths, and defend our Constitution against this domestic enemy:

The Obama Administration.

The survival of America, as well as the State of Israel, depends upon the courage of our military men and women.

Will they/we answer the call?

The Real Barack Obama Part Nine - War with Israel

I am back to my favorite subject, but for a very different reason. First, let me introduce my readers to a young, unpolished Binyamin Netanyahu. Enjoy the following short interview with him from 1978. You will notice his lack of physical awareness (Joel C. Rosenberg had not yet gotten his hands on the future Prime Minister), but his leadership skills and self-control were evident even at the young age of twenty-eight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIpXpRnV-oY

I hope my readers took note of the "Palestinian" with whom Mr. Netanyahu was dealing, especially the look on the man's face. It was strikingly similar to the following exchange that took place in Washington, D.C. not too long ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAlJ6erL-HY

The media called the look on Barack Obama's face a "death stare". I called it contemptible. Even then, early on in his presidency, POTUS could not hide his hatred of Prime Minister Netanyahu. How people continued to swear he supported Israel I will never know. If there was any question in my mind it was answered during the Prime Minister's 2009 visit to the Oval Office. It was not just the "President's" lack of a poker face in front of the camera. It was his stomping off and leaving a head of state alone for over an hour to go eat dinner with his wife and children and sulk because he did not like what Prime Minister Netanyahu had to say about the "Palestinians". I had never heard of a world leader leaving an honored guest on ice so he could go throw a temper tantrum. Even more shocking was Obama forcing the Israeli Prime Minister to leave through the back door...which brought slave days to my mind for some reason. Absolutely despicable.

Then things appeared to calm down. For a while, relations seemed to at least be civil between the White House and Jerusalem. There were even brief moments where a slight friendship appeared to be forming. (Note the word "appeared".) Of course, having studied Prime Minister Netanyahu as long as I have, I suspected what I was seeing was not actually what was happening, and it was not long before my suspicions were confirmed. I have covered some of this in previous posts, so let me fast-forward to 2014, specifically the Gaza War.

For all of the clamoring of the Useful Idiots in America (some of whom are in the Jewish community, ironically), Obama never supported Israel and always hated Prime Minister Netanyahu. Never was that so apparent as when the war broke out. The first time I heard this administration utter the word "restraint" I thought I would come unglued. I expected to hear it from the United Nations; that was a given. But, America is supposed to be Israel's ally. Did we show "restraint" after 9/11? That was FOUR missiles. FOUR. In just the nine years Gaza had been exclusively "Palestinian", TEN THOUSAND rockets had been fired at Israel. TEN. THOUSAND. As John Gibson (formerly of Fox News) said after that fateful Tuesday morning when similar calls were made to us, "Restraint my rhymes-with-bass"! I would have levelled Gaza. To me, my unofficial mentor was too easy on Gaza. My response would not have been so subdued.

And, of course, there was John Kerry in all of his glory. "Helluva pinpoint operation. We've gotta get over there, tonight!" Really, Jack? And what in hell did you plan to do upon arrival? Take over the IDF? Remove the Prime Minister from office? Who in hell do the people in this administration think they are?

Then things boiled over. Iran came back to the forefront, and the battle I described in a previous post came roaring back like a freight train. By this time, the gloves were off on both sides. Prime Minister Netanyahu was uncharacteristically antagonistic towards Barack Obama, and I know why. A few posts ago, I mentioned I had detected a shift in his tone. I did not understand it at the time, but now I do. He sensed a coming rise in anti-Semitism, and if my readers recall the events of the past year they will see he was right. Besides the war, there was Paris, the knife attacks in Israel, car attacks, the horror at Har Nof (also addressed in a previous post). His father was an historian, and the Prime Minister's sixth sense is very finely tuned. With Barack Obama no longer having to worry about politics, he stopped any pretense of caring about Israel, and with his open hostility came Prime Minister Netanyahu's response: "Forget you".

So, as Israel watched helplessly while John Kerry negotiated with their lives, John Boehner did something I frankly did not think he would have guts enough to do: He invited the Prime Minister to speak to Congress about Iran, and his invitation was accepted almost immediately. With that move, the war between America and Israel began. The media went berserk, the political pundits came out swinging, and the politicians threw down their gauntlets. But, the reaction was not limited to America. Suddenly, this was about Israel's upcoming election. Suddenly, Prime Minister Netanyahu had committed political suicide. Suddenly, his days were numbered. Iran was hardly even mentioned until the Prime Minister gave his speech. The ballyhoo was remarkable.

There was one funny anecdote. The media stressed that Prime Minister Netanyahu was writing his own speech in longhand, and that this demonstrated the importance he was placing upon his need to "hit it out of the park" in March. Hilarious! Of course he was writing his own speech. He is a control freak! (I say that with much love.) I know the grueling ordeal he put John Kerry through while they were trying to hammer out a deal with the "Palestinians". Hours and hours every night by video conference going over every single word ad nauseam. Yes, he was writing his own speech! But, then again, I always laugh at media assessments of the Prime Minister. They get it wrong 99% of the time.

Anyway, the speech came and went. Immediately the spotlight turned to Israel's election. Would the Prime Minister survive his gambit? (Cue hushed crowds.) Then, I began hearing disturbing reports about Obama's interference in that election. I was aghast, and very concerned despite my great trust in the Prime Minister's abilities. Would Obama's hatred win this time? I really was biting my nails on that one.

Thankfully, God prevailed, and Prime Minister Netanyahu was re-elected. Immediately after that, the Obama administration officially declared war upon Israel. I will leave out the first week post-election as I have already written about it. Here is where things stand now: Obama avoids any contact with the Prime Minister unless he is forced to speak with him for some reason. Josh Earnest and Denis McDonough are "demanding" that Israel end its "occupation" of "Palestine". Everyone in the administration, both named and "unnamed", are "demanding" an end to Israeli "settlements". Ambassador Samantha Power (now there is an oxymoron) has announced we will no longer support Israel the way we have in the past in front of the United Nations, a move that I know has given her much joy. And of course, there is the ever-present "demand" for a "two-state solution" involving the "pre-1967 borders" (which, for the last time, is the 1949 Armistice Line!) that is completely indefensible!

There is only one conclusion any sane person can reach. Barack Hussein Obama is hell-bent on Israel's destruction, and he will do anything and everything in his power to achieve that objective before he leaves office.

There is also only one way to stop this man from destroying both Israel and America, and I will cover that in the concluding post of this series.

 

 

Irrefutable Proof of KGB in America - Spotlight Freddie Gray

I have had many "Eureka!" moments throughout this journey and will likely have many more, but hopefully none will be as life-altering as the one I have been having of late. It has only gotten worse as I have continued to dig for information. People have said they think I have lost my mind on this one, but I have not, and I will make the case just as clearly as possible in this post. When finished, my readers will either understand what is happening, or they simply refuse to or are incapable of seeing the world as it is.

This all started because I made a passing comment to someone on Twitter. While fuming about Iran, I made the statement that I knew I would find Russia somewhere at the bottom of it all. Oh, how prophetic I was, but I had absolutely no idea what I was saying. My Twitter friend replied that he wondered if the Soviet Union had ever really gone away, and as usual my curiosity was piqued. The resultant searches have yielded articles, interviews, and books I had never heard of before but all of which are readily available if a researcher knows what to type into his or her search engine. It is mind-boggling that such explosive intelligence is at our fingertips yet we remain blind and ignorant to it all. Well, no more.

Let us review the real history of the KGB, the one which Yuri Bezmenov laughably refers to when speaking of hidden cameras and microphones, which is only about 15% of what they do. As he said, that is great for movies, but the real power is in the other 85%: cultural subversion. It begins with Russia's loss of the Russo-Japanese War, which is when the Russians forged the anti-Semitic book "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to spark hatred against the Jews whom they blamed for their loss. From the start, the KGB recognized the power of anti-Semitic forces and how they can be used for Russia's purposes.

(I must point out that I made a huge mistake in assessing information I acquired a couple of years ago. In a previous post, I made reference to a document Israel smuggled out of Jordan in 2005 showing that the Muslim Brotherhood was interested in forging an alliance with the Russians against the "Zionists and Zionist America". While I knew that agreement had been made, I erroneously thought it was done in order for Russia to keep Muslim terrorists out of their back yard, so to speak. I could not fathom why else they would care about Israel. What a difference a few years make! I am about to outline exactly how much Russia does care about Israel, and the real motivations for that alliance.)

The resultant pogroms were only the beginning. The Russians understood there is power in numbers, and as I read in one report, in their minds how much more efficient was it to use over a billion people to their mere 50 million? I covered their role in World War II in a previous post, so I will fast-forward to the 1960's. Yasser Arafat was trained by the KGB:

 http://pamelageller.com/2007/08/how-the-kgb-cre.html/

His apprentice, the future president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, was trained by the KGB:

 http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=29207

The KGB admits to its role in several key terrorist attacks against Israel during those years, including El Al hijackings and several bombings. In short, the KGB was/is behind the PLO:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM6fmpef_Ig

And then there is Iran. That dastardly foe of ours, our decades-old nemesis ever since the CIA overthrew the Shah and allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to come to power. Wait. What was that? The Ayatollah was trained by whom? The KGB?:

 http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/ex-spy-chief-how-kgb-created-islamic-jihad/

So, who really did install Khomeini, resulting in our embassy being overrun and our hostages being held for 444 days? Hint: It was not CIA. In fact, now that my readers have a foundation I suggest whenever they hear "Iran" they automatically think "KGB". That puts the past 36 years in a new light, does it not?

I wrote the following Thursday evening before the autopsy report broke, and before the charges were brought against six police officers in Baltimore:

"I mentioned sleight-of-hand in a previous post, saying that what you think you see is not necessarily what you actually saw. I recently gained a new follower after discussing the Walter Scott case with him. He was convinced it was a clear-cut case of murder. Was it? Was Walter Scott a clear-cut case of murder? When my readers have answered that question for themselves, please watch the following video from that encounter:

http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/explosive-revelation-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts-in-chest-and-legs/#
"WHOOPS! What happened to that clear-cut case of murder? Suddenly, it is not so clear cut. In fact, it appears the poor black man who was mowed down by the rogue white cop had stolen the police officer's TASER and shot him with it!

"We are being played, America. The KGB has us wrapped around its little finger and we are all dancing like puppets. All of this racial nonsense is being incited, and the narrative is being written to induce predictable results in the populace. Our country is being destroyed before our very eyes, and unless we wake up to what is happening there will not be a country left much longer. People keep telling me to work hard on the 2016 campaign and get good people into office. I am not convinced we will make it past 2015 at this rate. The forces are too strong, the people are too willing to be subverted, and unless something puts this process into check we will not have an election to worry about.

"Case-In-Point:

"Freddie Gray. Never mind waiting for the facts to come out, which are looking more and more like the police will be exonerated yet again. Baltimore, Maryland has a Useful Idiot for a mayor. A black guy died. Useful Idiots exploded. What did she say? “Give them room to destroy.” Do you see how subversion works? Where is the morality in that? Where is the justice in that? Would anyone rooted in a religion say such a thing? “Someone died, we assume 'The Man' did it, so let rioters destroy property belonging to innocent civilians and business owners. They need to vent somehow. The insurance will pick up the cost. (And we will not even think about the possibility that someone might be hurt or killed in the melee.)” Subversion at its finest.

"We must reverse course. Immediately."

So, let us recap in light of the very latest news. I have law enforcement experience. In fact, I spent years undercover. While I was on my latest rampage Friday, someone posted the following information which puts Freddie Gray into an entirely new light:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/01/friend-of-baltimore-officer-that-drove-freddie-gray-reveals-what-he-thinks-caused-grays-injuries/

Say WHAT? I remember seeing a report that Freddie Gray had been arrested sixteen times. Sources tell me those were narcotics arrests. Sixteen narcotics arrests. No prison time? In White America? He was not dying in solitary confinement underneath a prison somewhere? How can that be?

Unless he was either a paid informant or an undercover police officer.

I have a very good sleuth on this case, and I will know soon. Meanwhile, this is more than enough to call everything in Baltimore into question. Especially when you see the venom emanating from the "objective" black prosecutor who took maybe twelve hours to throw the entire book of regulations at six police officers. This is a witch hunt, folks. Get back at "da Man" time. This is a race war. I went off the deep end, I realize that. I am still attempting (in vain) to put myself into check. If "black America" wants a race war so badly, I am ready. Obama, you win. Let's play. Just remember one thing. If you wish to play the race card rather than the Islam card, YOU LOSE. Blacks are 15% of this population. We win. Hands down. So, where would you like to go from here? I'm game.

Now that I have that off of my chest, I will complete the final two installments of my series on Obama over this weekend.



The Real Barack Obama Part Eight - "My good friend, 'Bibi'"

My readers are about to learn what sent me on my tirade, but before I get to John Kerry and Prime Minister Netanyahu I must first cover some other matters. 2012 saw other major headlines. Obviously, there was Obama's reelection. But, Mohammed Morsi's "democratic" election in Egypt created a situation that culminated in a military coup. Immediately after taking power, Morsi suspended Egypt's constitution and the Muslim Brotherhood began running amuck. The voters had been duped, and the election was almost certainly rigged. Nevertheless, Barack Obama could not contain his glee at this "democratic" process. He, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and others openly catered to the new dictator. The scene was appalling and inexplicable unless viewed through the lens of questioning Obama's loyalties.

2013 was a banner year for headlines. We saw the Boston Marathon Bombing, Mandela's death, the terrorist attack at Kenya's Westgate Mall, Edward Snowden (whom Vladimir Putin used to slap America in the face), and Putin's Op Ed piece to the New York Times (another slap). I will come back to some of these stories.

But first, I want to explain what caused me to declare war on the Obama administration. There were two (actually, three) other events that sent me on a tear. The first was the chemical attack in Syria, the response to which was an unparalleled debacle. I will not assign blame to either side for that attack as there is evidence this was a false flag. I will simply stick to the Obama administration's narrative that this was the Assad regime. We watched three weeks of saber-rattling, complete with John Kerry pounding podiums while red in the face, sounding oddly presidential, swearing retaliation for this violation of Obama's "red line". In stark contrast, Obama seemed rather subdued and would only say that he was considering his options. At first he denied having drawn a "red line", but when faced with that blasted technological marvel called "video tape" was forced to admit to it.

Finally, two things happened almost simultaneously. Obama gave a speech announcing his decision as to whether or not to attack Syria. This was after we had moved four ships into the Mediterranean, announcing their names, weaponry, range, battle plan, length of the first wave of assaults, how long we would pause to assess the damage, and what we would do to complete the mission. The information was dumbfounding. Obama released everything but the Social Security numbers of the members of the crew! Unprecedented! In the first thirty seconds of that speech, I was stunned to hear Obama say he had decided to attack. I thought for sure he was going to wiggle out of it somehow. As my jaw dropped to the floor, I realized I had reacted too soon because then he announced that he had decided to take it before Congress for their decision. Classic Obama.

Secondly, John Kerry was at an overseas question-and-answer press conference when a British reporter asked him if there was anything Assad could do to avoid America's seemingly imminent attack on Syria. Here he appeared to have a slip-of-the-tongue (I am not so sure). Kerry said that Assad could turn over all of his chemical weapons, and added that he had "one week".

Cue Vladimir Putin.

He charged in and saved the day. Wasn't that nice of him? Meanwhile, we cost Israel I-do-not-know-how-much money moving their Iron Dome battery around in preparation for the inevitable retaliatory strike on their country which would have resulted from our attack on Syria. And I did not even bother to find out how much money the Pentagon spent building up for an assault that I do not believe was ever going to occur. Yet another farce from the Obama administration.

The second event I took extremely personally. There were two things occurring simultaneously, so I will combine them into one. My regular readers know how much I love Prime Minister Netanyahu. I have called him my "unofficial mentor" many, many times, and newer readers can go back in my writings to see why. In September, amidst the ongoing Syria "crisis", the first P5+1 round was occurring regarding Iran's nuclear program. John Kerry visited Prime Minister Netanyahu, and they had a quaint little press conference in which Kerry called the Prime Minister his "good friend, 'Bibi'". It was all so very heart-warming.

Then Kerry sped off to visit Mahmoud Abbas, where he decried Israeli "settlements" as "illegitimate", threatened the Prime Minister with a "third intifada", jetted off to Geneva where he stabbed his "good friend, 'Bibi'" in the back so many times I lost count, and then took to every podium he could find and announced to the world that he was doing what was "in the best interests of Israel"! Slicha, Jack, but who elected you Prime Minister of Israel?! I was so angry I could not see straight. What continued to build my rage was Prime Minister Netanyahu's reaction. He was apoplectic. I had never, in thirty-five years, seen him like that, actually calling John Kerry out by name in multiple press conferences denouncing in no uncertain terms what was occurring in Geneva. I was beside myself.

And things got far worse in 2014.

The Real Barack Obama Part Seven - Back to Benghazi

What I am about to say is going to be extremely controversial, but I have given it much thought and I must point this out. I realize most people have not studied subversion techniques, nor are they familiar with intelligence services other than what they have seen in movies. CIA holds training programs in which they use sleight-of-hand techniques, and it is not for the entertainment value. They do it to point out that what you think you see is not what you really see. I will confine this to Benghazi since that is the topic of this post, but the principle applies to everything that is going on in the Obama administration.

I have had extensive conversations with one person who was reportedly at Benghazi that fateful night. I say “reportedly” because I was not there. Now, realize that it is easy to get caught up in hero-worship. “Oh, he was there. What a hero!” John McCain has ridden that wave for fifty years. So, we do not question. Well, I am suspicious by nature, so I do question, and I do not like what I got from him. He seems to be disgruntled with how the investigation is going and would like to see the “truth” come out. When I asked him why he does not tell what he knows, his answer was “My credibility is shot right now”. I asked him what he thought needed to happen, and he said, “Someone needs to come forward”. Um, OK.

Well, I did some investigating, and there is a $250,000 price tag on violating a non-disclosure agreement. That is a huge incentive to remain silent. The problem is, he is not being silent. He is writing books, consulting on a movie, and holding rallies. So, why was he not at the so-called “Whistle-Blowers Hearing”?

Here is something else that disturbs me. He refuses to name John Brennan. He refuses to acknowledge him when I bring him up in conversation. He does, however, vilify Hillary Clinton even though until I told him he had no idea who issued the “stand-down” order, which is odd, because when I found out something very disturbing about the change in security at our Jerusalem embassy, he had no problem calling a “contact” at the State Department to verify the stories I was reading. He could not have called a “contact” to answer the question he has asked repeatedly on television and radio?

(FYI the disturbing information is that we have hired Hamas to "guard" Ambassador Shapiro:

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189924#.VT8_j5t0zIV 

So, I suppose we can all just sit back and wait for Benghazi the Sequel.)

Getting back to sleight-of-hand, let me cover the red herring of Hillary Clinton, and she is a red herring. Everyone loves to hate her, so she is a convenient target. I hate her myself, but some of the stories I have heard about her are positively laughable, and although I did my homework, as a United States Air Force veteran, I did not need to research whether or not she ever had the authority to give General Ham a direct order. She did not.

Here is the latest story that broke a couple of months ago, ultimately leading to Senator Menendez' current legal situation:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/?page=5

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/29/report-pentagon-officials-opened-secret-talks-with-qaddafi-regime-to-slow/

Let me be absolutely clear. I believe there was and is a war going on between the Pentagon, State, and the White House. I do not believe Obama abdicated his throne to Hillary. And I know the State Department is nowhere in AFRICOM's chain-of-command. General Ham answered to one man on the planet, and his name is Barack Obama. If Hillary had the brass to attempt to issue a direct order to that four-star general, I would love to have eavesdropped on that conversation! Ludicrous.

Also, there is nothing in “13 Hours” (other than some anecdotal stories) that differs one whit from what Fox News reported in November, 2012, two years before that book came out:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/03/exclusive-security-officials-on-ground-in-libya-challenge-cia-account/

Here is my assessment:

WHAT WE ARE HEARING IS A CIA FRONT STORY.

Some, part, or all of it may be true. There is no way to know at this point. But that book raises more questions than answers.

One last point. General McInerney said “We knew about Benghazi two weeks in advance”. He did not say, “We knew it might happen”. He said, “We knew”. Which begs the question, why was Ambassador Stevens anywhere near Libya? Paperwork? Was the arms deal that important? Or was it the election coming up on the twelfth? Maybe he was there to smooth over ruffled feathers? (More on that in my next Benghazi installment.) In any event, that is a startling statement.

While I will do a brief recap of lesser events of 2012 in my next post, we are finally where I have been waiting to go. 2013 was the year Barack Obama let his mask slip, and the year I went on the war path. 2014 was the year he dropped it completely, revealing The Real Barack Obama.

Stay tuned.

 

NOTE: For the first three parts of my series on Benghazi, please see January postings.