Declassified document shows Obama DID know he was creating ISIS

Declassified document proves Obama DID know he was creating ISIS

 

by Don Hank

A recent column appearing at zerohedge.com confirmed that a tweet by Donald Trump hinting that Obama knew he was creating a terror group when he sent arms to “rebels” in Syria was on the money.

 

QUOTE:

The tweet included a link to this story that appeared on Breitbart: an account of a 2012  intelligence report from the Defense Intelligence Agency predicting the rise of the Islamic State in Syria – and showing how US policy deliberately ignored and even succored it. Secured by Judicial Watch thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, the document says it’s very likely we’ll see the creation of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.” And this won’t just be a grassroots effort, but the result of a centrally coordinated plan: it will happen because “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” then engaged in a campaign to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar).”

 

The author reminds us that “Western countries” includes the US.

Whether Obama and Hillary are Muslims or not is hardly the issue here. They are an important part of the Saudi Rat Pack (SRP) and that is all we need to know. If there were any justice in our country, they would both hang for treason.

BTW, a lot of hullabaloo is made over the “evil Muslims,” and Christians are some of the most vociferous in condemning all Muslims for what the Saudi Rat Pack does. I agree that Islam is not the religion of peace and that Mo was basically a fraud.

However, I have interacted with Muslims lately and am getting a much more-nuanced impression of things.

Two anecdotal pieces of evidence:

I attended a local English-speaking church on Easter Sunday here in Panama, and after the service they offered free food in the church basement. We sat at a table with a guy who turned out to be Indonesian, a really nice, respectful guy who had taken part in the service. When he told us where he was from, I said aren’t you folks Muslims? He smiled and said they were. My family and I gathered that he was admitting that he was a Muslim, and for me that was no surprise. I had lived in Asia for over 3 years and had made friends and acquaintances there. I learned early that Southern Asians are open to various religions and can confess more than one religion. In fact, the Buddhists believe that there are 5 great religions and Christianity is one of them. They deeply respect Christianity. Sounds insane to most Westerners, but that is how they are.

So I told the young Indonesian Muslim church goer that I had understood that Indonesian Muslims are different from their Middle Eastern brothers. He was quick to let me know that his countrymen want nothing to do with the Saudi violence and intolerance. He was definitely sincerely incensed about this and about the fact that people might mistakenly think his countrymen might largely sympathize with radical Islam. He said there was only one small region in Indonesia where the Muslims were radical like the Saudis.

The next piece of evidence came in today. I was seated in a lounge area of a large department store waiting for my wife and daughter to finish spending their money and noticed a gent sitting beside me who was looking about as bored as me and we struck up a conversation. He turned out to be an Albanian, one of 2 diplomats opening an embassy in Panama, and he had lived in Kosovo. Many of you know that I have written a piece on Kosovo, mostly a translation about the horrors that Serbs face there. He did not deny that this had happened in the past but said that the Serbs had really abused the Albanians for years. He pointed out that over 100 years ago, Serbia had tried to illegally annex Albanian territory. I told him I didn’t think any of that justified mistreating Serbs in Kosovo, but I saw he was not to be persuaded, so I decided to change the subject a bit and told him I had heard that the Saudis had sent money to Kosovo after the war was over.

He said that Kosovars do not like Saudi interference and that he knew they were causing trouble in Kosovo.

I was shocked to hear that he and I could agree that the Saudis were behind much of the mischief in the Middle East. In fact, he was clearly disgusted by it. He insisted that no one wants terrorism (meaning Muslims) and he sounded sincere.

Clearly the Islamic world is not a monolith and we owe it to ourselves to learn from individuals like my Indonesian and Albanian friends.

I had noticed a while back that there are certain groups of people who want us to believe that Muslims are all cookie cutter copies of each other, and what I noticed about these folks is important, so please pay attention:

These folks who want us to hate ALL Muslims are by and large Neocons. Now why would the Neocons want Americans to simply hate all Muslims and not just terrorists and potential terrorists?

I cannot say for certain, but I suspect that this is because it is easier to convince Americans of the righteousness of a misguided military action by the Pentagon if the target audience of the war propaganda is a bunch of cattle who accept the notion that all Muslims are equally evil and represent an unnuanced homogeneous group. They could use this excuse to take out any leader, such as Ghadaffi, Mubarak, Saddam, and of course, Assad.

I strongly suspect this slyly implanted idea that all Muslims are evil is what is motivating many Americans to support US military engagements that, without the blanket hatred of all Muslims, would make no sense. Indeed, I have read opinions critical of Assad based on the fact that he is a Muslim and therefore is evil and not worthy of consideration. The people who expressed this opinion did not seem to care that if the US takes him out, he will be replaced by ISIS. To them there is no difference between ISIS and Assad. They are tragically wrong. Assad belongs to a subgroup of Shia Islam that is almost perfectly tolerant of other religions. Despite whatever sins he may be guilty of, he is the perfect choice for protection of minorities and has done an amazing job of creating a tolerant society in Syria. Only the made-in-USA terror groups like Al-Nusra and ISIS have changed this situation and turned groups against each other who once had learned to tolerate each other under the leadership of Assad.

I do not suspect that Trump will use hatred and suspicion of Muslims to such an untoward end. I think he was just shooting from the hip when he said we need to stop the immigration of Muslims until we can figure out what is going on.

But Hillary is another story.

Meanwhile my Albanian acquaintance was surprisingly open minded about Trump and said that Trump no doubt was not referring to all Muslims but only to people from terror-exporting countries. He said that if Trump became president Albanians would support him, but that likewise they would support Hillary if she won the presidency because her husband Bill had “helped” the Albanians in Kosovo. In other words, contrary to the doomsday warnings of both liberals and GOP higher-ups, Trump would not destroy the US’s rapport with all Muslim countries but may only sully the most radical ones, like Saudi Arabia, which is in fact the enemy of the American people and does not deserve to be coddled.

I also told him I thought Kosovo had become more unstable after the war and that NATO was just indiscriminately killing people.

Incredibly, while he disagreed on the first point, he seemed to agree that NATO was just having itself a rowdy shooting match in Kosovo!

Finally, he told me that Kosovo and Albania saved the lives of many Jews in those places. Here is that story confirmed by the Jewish Post http://www.jewishpost.com/news/Why-Albania-A-Nation-of-Muslims-Christians-Saved-Every-Jew.html.

The world is a big place and there are all sorts of nuances that we are best served to examine and try to understand. More-precise knowledge of groups of people can help both avoid unnecessary military intervention and/or make sure the groups targeted by the Pentagon and/or the State Department really are enemies and not in fact friends or potential friends of We the People. We really ought to have noticed by now that groups or nations that Washington declares to be enemies routinely turn out to be friends and vice-versa and that overly strident propaganda against anyone is generally an excuse for a needless war.

I am only just beginning to understand the Muslim world but God has allowed me to make just the kind of contacts that are helping me fill in the blanks.

 

Prime Minister Cameron trapped by his own words

Prime Minister Cameron trapped by his own words

by Don Hank

Late in February, David Cameron held a televised press conference (see video) reporting a number of severe sanctions by his government against the Gadaffi regime, which is considered illegitimate by all European nations and by NATO based on the “use of military force against its own people.”
Cameron said himself in a televised speech:

“We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people.” [my emphasis]

He ended his heroic speech by saying to Gadaffi:

“GO NOW.”

Such a brave freedom fighter, that David Cameron!

In reality, rebels reportedly committed atrocities and destroyed public property in Libya, things all rebels do. Should the Gadaffi government sit idly by and watch the country destroyed?
Apparently, European leaders unanimously think so.
It occurred to many thinking people at the time of Cameron’s straighforward speech that such violence might occur in Europe at some point.
Then what would Cameron do?
How could he defend his own people if he took his own advice to Gadaffi and applied it to the UK, refraining from the use of force to stop violence?
Well, now that rebels are doing to Britain just a fraction of what Libyan rebels are doing there, it seems as if the Cameron government is considering doing just what he spanked Gadaffi for doing under vastly more desperate circumstances. Indeed, there are no reports of widespread atrocities by rebels coming out of the UK – only reports of looting and burning.
Yet Cameron, since the mobs have taken over the streets, is sounding tough as usual:

“People should be in no doubt that we will do everything necessary to restore order to Britain’s streets and to make them safe for the law-abiding.”

Everything necessary? You mean, like what Gadaffi did in Libya?
Well, yes, as it turns out.
According to BBC News:

“…[Home Secretary Theresa] May declined to rule out a host of options, including the use of water cannon, military support for the police, or a curfew.” [my emphasis]

For many years, British activists have warned that Cameron – along with everyone else in government – is nothing but a quisling, or puppet of a foreign illegitimate government, namely, the EU, which was founded by a stealth movement that started in the 1920s and was never approved by the European people, only by their “leaders.” (Set aside a half hour for this must-see video on that subject).
Despite Cameron’s (and the EU’s) description of the Gadaffi (and Mubarak) government as illegitimate simply because a group of vociferous rebels opposed them, Cameron’s government and the EU he answers to meet that very same description, and in spades!
A growing number of disenfranchised UK citizens have been longing for the day when the UK is back in their own hands and their nation’s ties with the autocratic EU severed forever.
The general mood in England is that the rebels have gone far enough in ripping apart their nation, and there is talk of vigilante action if the Cameron government continues to make ineffectual speeches while refusing to get really tough with the rioters.
Yet, David Cameron has trapped himself with the above-cited tough words against Gadaffi. Deploying troops on UK streets would make his (and other Western leaders’ including Obama’s) stern warnings to the Libyan leader sound extremely hypocritical. In turn, the EU has trapped itself by importing – against the will of the people — millions of foreign immigrants who are not required in any way to integrate, to accept any aspect of the local culture or way of life, or to even work to support themselves. Crime has risen in proportion to the number of these new immigrants.
In view of the government’s ineffective response, whether or not Cameron eventually employs military force to quell the riots – and he may have no other choice — he need not be surprised if millions of British subjects say to him:

Mr. Cameron, GO NOW

and take your stinking EU with you!

Further reading:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12601851

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb1tUzsazZA

http://www.wat.tv/video/libya-skynews-rebel-atrocities-3wh3b_31wod_.html

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201108090402dowjonesdjonline000097&title=uk-ministerwill-consider-new-tacticsresources-to-end-riots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jZ6MpA-LtE

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/sweden-soaring-crime-rates-directly-related-to-rampant-muslim-immigration/

US media cover up Ivory Coast massacre details

US media cover up vital Ivory Coast massacre details: killers were Muslims loyal to UN-backed Quattara, electoral fraud likely.

by Don Hank

The Huffington Post recently ran a report on the slaughter of 1000 civilians near Duékoué in the Ivory Coast. I point this out only as a random example of the way Muslim-on-Christian violence is reported in the mainstream press. Quote:

“Nicholson, the Caritas spokesman, said the killings occurred over three days in a neighborhood controlled by fighters loyal to internationally recognized President Alassane Ouattara, though it was not clear who the perpetrators were.”

First, the gruesome photos and videos from that scene appearing on the internet show dead and wounded women without veils and, for the most part, without headscarves. In other words, not Muslims. Since Quattara’s loyalists are Muslim, while Gbagbo’s loyalists are Christian and other non-Muslims, it is obvious whose side did the killings, and reports in the French press (le Figaro) confirm this. It doesn’t seem to occur to American reporters to consult the French language press, which in fact states that the UN mission in Ivory Coast, Onuci, itself reports:

 “Most of the dead in Duekoue were killed by pro-Quattara fighters.” [my translation]

Note that:

The reporter does not mention that the fighters loyal to the “internationally recognized” president, who received help from the UN, are all Muslims, who, as pointed out at

Frontpagemag, represent almost 100% an immigrant population that only started to enter the country, mostly illegally, since around 1960.

No one mentions that the former president refused to step down because he claimed there was voter fraud, and that instead of investigating, Western leaders immediately recognized the newly “elected” Muslim president Quattara. Another French language report shows photographic evidence of massive electoral fraud, including apparently counterfeit signatures on the election results documents and numbers of votes far exceeding the number of registered voters.

No one mentions that this atrocity occurred under the watch of the UN and is therefore the responsibility of the UN, which did nothing to keep the peace in this area, while engaging the troops loyal to the Christian president.

Note that Jimmy Carter didn’t rush in to count the votes once fraud was declared.

But this kind of non-reporting has been going on for decades and is the norm, not the exception. You may recall when those “young people” rioted in the outskirts of Paris and the media carried the story for weeks as the ghetto burned, and yet most reports did not mention that all of these rioting young people were Muslims.

When Christians get violent, the same press makes no bones about bruiting this fact to the world.

This kind of reporting has blinded the Western grassroots to the clear-cut link between Islam and violence, and the result is, in part, as follows :

Almost all of the Assyrian Christians, who survived 2 millennia in Iraq living side by side with the Muslim population, and even survived Saddam Hussein, who protected them, succumbed to the Bush administration’s war, waged purportedly to avenge ourselves of the actions of terrorists all hailing from Saudi Arabia, not a one from Iraq.  The mainstream media, normally critical of presidents deemed conservative, gave Bush a break by ignoring the banishment of these Christians. Most of the survivors now live in Sweden.

The Coptic Christians, who survived for two millennia in Egypt, living side by side with the Muslim population, and also survived decades of Mubarek’s reign, are now either fleeing or living in terror. The first thing the “democratic” military leaders did after taking over the reins from Mubarek was to enter a peaceful monastery and shoot 5 civilians, including a Coptic priest.

The mainstream media ignored this fact. It came to my attention via an email from a Coptic activist contact. I later confirmed it through several Middle East Christian sources, including newsletters, which were ignored in the media.

Huffington Post report on Ivory Coast massacre:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/02/ivory-coast-massacre-1000-killed-duekoue_n_844000.html

Figaro report on the massacre (French)

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2011/04/03/01003-20110403ARTFIG00092-le-camp-ouattara-vise-par-des-accusations-de-massacres.php

Ivory Coast massacre video, no veils, almost no headscarves

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/ivory-coast-graphic-video-of-the-recent-muslim-slaughter-of-1000-christians/

Ivory Coast Muslims imported, now dominate

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/11/lessons-from-the-ivory-coast/

Egypt violence far from over:

http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in-national/egyptian-violence-far-from-over

The far-left connection to the Near-East rebellion

The far-left connection to the near-east rebellion

by Don Hank

It is now well known that Obama pals and Marxists Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Jody Evans were instrumental in instigating the rebellion in Egypt:

Without this far-left intervention and the blessings of the White House there may well have been no rebellion in Egypt, and a stable (though imperfect) regime would still be in place, friendly to the US and tolerant of Israel.

Since then the rebellion has spread to Libya, and this too is arguably part of the Egyptian-Islamic / Western leftist-inspired revolution. Indeed there are reportedly at least 100 Egyptian operatives there, as well as US and British commandos.

A reader objected to my latest column critical of the Coalition’s Operation Odyssey Dawn, and this is my response to his objections.

You are free to support with heart, mind, propaganda and even finances whomever you please, but excuse me if I decline to be part of a rebellion instigated by the far left and strongly supported by friends of Islamic terror who deny Israel’s right to exist. Excuse me if I see gross hypocrisy in supporting an all-out attack on a Middle East dictator who has long been cooperative with the West, while turning a blind eye to more egregious dictatorships like China (where a Noble prize winner is now in jail for speaking his mind) and North Korea (where dissidents and their families are routinely jailed and it is a crime to own a radio with unlimited tuning).  You say I want to soft-pedal on Ghadaffi. Yet you are perfectly content to soft pedal on the undemocratic rogue regimes of China and North Korea that also kill their own people at times (eg, Tiananmen Square).

Where were the noble contenders for democracy when China was holding Liu Xiaobao? Oh, that’s right, democracy champion Barack Obama was fêting him at the White House. Further, China is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which decided to attack Ghadaffi because he was behaving like a Chinese dictator. As for North Korea, we have sent them free food for years, and China, our “ally,” runs interference for that country. Apparently, the Koreans don’t need democracy.

But isn’t Iran also a dictatorship that suppresses democracy? Should we be soft pedaling on Iran? Well, judging by the silent consent of Western leaders, Iran is perfectly democratic. There was an uprising there during the one in Egypt, but Obama didn’t think it would be appropriate to demand that Ahmadinejad step down. After all, that dictator, who has reportedly been executing people at the rate of one every 9 hours, is anti-Israel.  No need to get rid of him.  He’s on “our” side.  A few years back, the US Energy Department even subsidized 2 Russian institutes that helped build parts of reactors for Iran.

So if the true motives of the Fabian leaders for the attack on Libya are not the noble ones they enunciate, what is the motivation? The Left never starts anything that will not likely further their cause of world domination or that will have the outcome expected and intended by the public. That explains Obama’s role in opposing a regime that in recent years has been forthcoming toward Western interests, while ignoring regimes antagonistic to our interests. Sarkozy has an additional motive: he is up for re-election soon and needs a good war at his back.

It is more than obvious that replacing regimes that support the US and Israel with our enemies (like the street mobs of Egypt — dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood; and of Libya — strongly allied with terror) will help the Left, as led by Obama and socialist Europe, to undermine Western culture and values.

The Fabian Socialists (of which Tony Blair is a member) were founded in the 1880s for the express purpose of spreading socialism and eliminating Christianity by stealth.

They believed that they could get away with anything as long as they pretended to be supporting worthy-sounding causes, and it is going swimmingly (Tony even has a religious foundation aimed at uniting all religions — that goes nicely with the Christian teaching: I [Jesus] am the way). They have managed to pretty much take over the West. You see, it wasn’t only Tony Blair. The entire power structure, top to bottom, is infested with globalist New World Order operatives, and “conservative” parties are in no way exempt. David Cameron used stealth to get elected, in keeping with the West’s trademark Fabian tactics. As head of the Conservative Party, he promised that, if elected, he would allow a referendum as to whether the UK should stay in the EU. Even though everyone now knows that was a lie, many see Dave acting like a “conservative” now, helping with a war effort in the tradition of “conservative” GW Bush (reminder: Blair’s staunchest ally). Yet starting wars whose predicted outcome is to undermine Christianity and our relations with the Middle East and endanger Israel is not necessarily a conservative thing to do, though it can certainly be deemed within the scope of Fabian stealth activities. It is hard to believe that any true conservative could support this cheap and transparent stealth tactic of starting wars for the apparent purpose of strengthening our enemies and weakening our friends. In fact, judging by the popularity of my last column on this topic (which has been reposted at several sites) and also the next-to-last (which shocked even me with the boldness of its conclusions), I seriously doubt any true conservatives do fall for this.

There is no excuse for Europeans to believe in the sincerity of the Western coalition. The Western powers that now support the attack on Ghadaffi, replete as it is with abundant collateral civilian casualties, are essentially the same leaders who insist on importing millions of hostile Muslims to Europe who refuse to assimilate and who not infrequently kill Westerners (like the people who bombed Madrid and London, like the killer of Theo van Gogh, and like so many other Islamic terrorists and violent criminals who had enjoyed Western hospitality or claimed the West as their home) or deliberately configure the Southern US border as a welcome mat for terrorists (eg, some of the 911 attackers) or promote rabidly anti-US soldiers to high ranks (eg, the Fort Hood shooter).

Democracy sounds like a worthy cause and the vast hordes of politically unsophisticated (whose study of history – or even current events — is next to non-existent) and the spiritually blind are liable to fall for this ruse.

However, the rest of us generally realize that if democracy were really a cause worth the shedding of blood, then Iran, for example, would be a nation marked by justice and protection of the weak — now that Carter has gotten rid of the cruel dictatorial Shah and paved the way for democracy there.

But the dirty open secret of democracy (as distinct from the republican form of government our founders founded) is that it neither protects the weak nor promotes justice. Invariably, it eventually winds up protecting the majority or a very powerful group of oligarchs, just as it did in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, N Korea, and just as it is now doing increasingly in the Americas and Europe.

And as for Christianity, by supporting the Coalition, we are contributing mightily – knowingly or unwittingly — to the demise of Judeo-Christianity in the world.

By supporting the Iraq war, we indirectly eliminated the Assyrian Christians in Iraq by toppling a dictatorship that protected them, and are now witnessing the genocide of  the Egyptian Copts, who were at least allowed to exist under Mubarak. Within a week after Mubarak stepped down, at Obama’s behest, the democratic activist military that replaced him attacked a monastery and shot a monk and six church workers, and they’re just getting warmed up.

Behold democracy, a foul fruit with a noble-sounding name.

Remember these fruits of past Western adventures in the Middle East when the conflagration starts in earnest in North Africa and the torrent of crocodile tears from the instigators and participants from our own democracy movement starts to drown the West.

In the end, we all believe what we choose to – whether out of dangerously naïve or false altruism or because we are sympathetic to the far-left Fabian New World Order.

In either case, we reap the consequences.

Obama is already reaping some of his, both at home and abroad.

The terrorists fighting Qadaffi (he’s too moderate for them):

http://emperors-clothes.com/libya.htm

Further reading by a readers and friends:

http://www.ravenhill.org/prophet.htm

Strengthening the enemies

Read the article and then take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

 

Strengthening the enemies

 Olavo de Carvalho

Discounting the brief interruption in the Reagan era, American foreign policy since the end of World War II can be summarized by two rules which the State Department has followed with exemplary faithfulness and consistency:

1. Trade allied dictators for enemy dictators.

2.  In so doing, trade authoritarian governments for totalitarian governments a thousand times more corrupt.

Sometimes in a direct, brutal, and overt way, sometimes in an indirect, subtle, and underhanded way, and sometimes helping those against whom they had fought until the day before, the United States replaced Chiang Kai-Shek with Mao Zedong, Fulgencio Batista with Fidel Castro, Shah Reza Pahlevi with Ayatollah Khomeini, Ngo Dinh Diem with Ho Chi Minh, and General Lon Nol with Pol Pot. In human terms, the cost of all this tinkering was no less than 80 million deaths. Because of specific differences beyond the scope of this paper I am not including in the list the fact that Americans managed to get rid of Adolf Hitler at the cost of a hundred fold increase in Josef Stalin’s power and half a century of Cold War that cost them dearly.

Now the United States is replacing an ally, Hosni Mubarak, with the superlatively hostile Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all anti-American movements in the Islamic world.

In all of these cases, the government thrown overboard was on the right, while its triumphant successor was on the left. The leftists’ international outcry against Washington’s support for right-wing dictatorships is, quite obviously a disinformation engineering job calculated to obscure the stark fact that, in terms of dictators, the communists and pro-communists have been by far the biggest recipients of American aid. Some right-wing tyrants may have been “lackeys” of the United States, as the threadbare communist rhetoric proclaims, but the left-wing ones are not lackeys: they are their protégés. If the former have to work hard to repay the aid, the latter are given everything and asked for nothing in return.

Anthony Sutton, the English economist who for decades studied the generous and never-repaid flow of American money to communist countries, summarized the subject by saying that the United States always strove to get “the best enemy money could buy.”

In one of these calamitous operations, the beneficiary himself proved somewhat shocked by the generosity bestowed on him. When Americans overthrew Ngo Din Diem, Ho Chi Minh remarked: “I cannot believe Americans are that stupid.” Diem was, after all, according to North Vietnam’s Politbureau, “the greatest force of anti-communist resistance” in the region.

In all cases, without exception, the official pretext was the promotion of democracy.

The only amazing thing in this whole sequence of events is the slowness of the population—and the deliberate refusal of the media—to realize the obstinate and patent consistency of the official anti-Americanism installed in the upper echelons of Washington. The contrast between historical reality and its public image could not be sharper. The majority of the American electorate continue to believe in the legend that its country is an imperialist power committed to valiantly defending national interests and halting the advance of communists, Islamists, and all potential enemies of America, when in fact these enemies could not survive a single day without the assistance they receive from Washington.

As early as the 1950s, an investigative committee of the House of Representatives proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the massive support that communist governments, parties, and movements had been receiving from major billion-dollar foundations—the same ones that through the Council on Foreign Relations and similar institutions have played a major role in the selection and approval of candidates for any public office in the federal upper echelons of the US. In recent decades, the volume of contributions to universal anti-Americanism has increased mightily, turning what was once the leading nation in the world into a walled-in, hated, and cowed country, fearing to take any serious initiative against its aggressors, even within its own territory. Today there are more Chinese and Russian spies in the United States than during the Cold War, while organizations that support Islamic terrorism are allowed to operate freely, and any attempt to denounce them is repelled as an intolerable sign of extremism.

American intervention in the Egyptian crisis does not deviate from the long-established course. From the outset, both the Obama administration and George Soros—one of the chief sponsors of the current president’s career—have had friendly contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and have encouraged it to unleash a rebellion against an ally of the US government.

The likelihood that the Brotherhood, once in power, will establish a democratic, pluralistic system is so remote and contrived as was the chance that Josef Stalin might have done the same thing once he succeeded Lenin. The regime which will possibly come after Mubarak’s removal has already shown its true colors even before coming to power, by promoting the slaughter of Christians and the burning of churches. Both the American government and the entire journalistic class are well aware of this, but they refrain from drawing the most obvious and compelling conclusions from these facts. Instead they continue to present the conflict as a struggle between Egyptian idealist democrats and the evil dictator Mubarak.

For many decades the American mainstream media —starting with The New York Times and CNN—have radically abdicated their journalistic duties and become a mere instrument of social engineering. Their current mission is not to spread information, but to meticulously control its flow so as to encourage behaviors desired by the globalist establishment and to discourage inconvenient questions.

Within the American national environment, the effectiveness of this control is quite relative, because the big media in the United States are not as big as their counterpart in Brazil, and there is a vast number of independent publications and radio stations that reach at least 50 percent of the population, showing the American people all of what the global elite would like to completely black out behind a lead shield.

It so happens, however, that the non-aligned media have strictly national circulation. They do not reach other countries. In particular, they are completely unknown in Brazil. Thus, the official view, which fails to subdue the American electorate, ultimately spreads freely throughout the world, and is construed as a kind of universal consensus.

Though limited, the credibility of the official view still seems excessive to me, since this view is daily challenged by facts which never shake in the slightest the faith of the devotees. A brief historical study will suffice to show that the principles and criteria of judgment which now guide the American mainstream media are literally the same as those that Soviet propagandists tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the American population between the 1940’s and the 1950’s. The change was profound and overwhelming. In a few decades, at least half of the American population has grown to hate what it once loved and to accuse its own country of a thousand crimes committed by external and internal enemies, and yet these Americans have no idea that they were induced into this by the action of an omnipresent and hostile foreign force. Just as communist infiltration in the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was far greater than Joe McCarthy himself then imagined (read Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press, 2009), and just as the communist cultural war effort ended up dominating almost the entire education system in the United States to the extent that it merged with the local atmosphere and passed itself off as a spontaneous home-grown movement, the penetration of Islamic agents into all of the upper echelons of Washington was so quick and efficient an action that I can’t describe it here. One must read the book of P. David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside The Secret Underworld That’s conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books, 2009), to understand how these things happen before the blind and foolish eyes of so many people.

In vain will the reader search the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, or the comments by CNN or MSNBC for any mention of the fact that Obama is acting, in Egypt, in favor of the largest anti-American organization in the universe. In the United States there is no official censorship, and that information, with sufficient evidence, reaches us from thousands of channels. But it does not reach the believers in the mainstream media, and above all, it does not leave American shores.

Even if the government that emerges out of Mubarak’s downfall is a coalition government, the Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play the predominant role in it, and this is the surest guarantee that the country will move towards a regime which will be at once dictatorial, murderous to Christians, and openly hostile to the state of Israel.

The Obama administration is fostering not only another anti-American dictatorship, but a war.

Olavo de Carvalho taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is the founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Translator: Alessandro Cota

Translation reviewer: Don Hank

Take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

Danger ahead — Part I

Diário do Comércio, Olavo de Carvalho

Murdered by fanatical countrymen, Anwar El-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin paid the ultimate price for peace, but the shelf life of the product they purchased is rapidly expiring. Hosni Mubarak’s downfall removes from the scenario one of the few obstacles that have delayed the establishment of the grand Islamic strategic unity designed to establish the Universal Islamic Caliphate, and in so doing, to wipe Israel off the map. A few factors, which the enlightened minds of the usual international commentators cannot even remotely discern, contribute to the rise in danger level of this moment to the nth degree:

The Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological matrix of the revolutionary forces in the Islamic world, may not have given the initial impetus to the rebellion in Egypt, but it is surely the only political organization prepared to take advantage of the chaos and rule the country after Mubarak’s exit. The U.S. government is well aware of this and welcomes the rise of the Brotherhood, proving once again that Barack Hussein Obama has been deliberately working in favor of the enemies of the West. The soothing evasive responses by the State Department in recent days are so contradictory that they amount to a confession of falsehood: first, the Department of State swore that the Brotherhood would remain on the sidelines; then, when it became impossible to continue believing this, it assured us that the Muslim organization had changed, that it had become peaceable and meek as a lamb. Commentators hostile to the government noted that, in turning against Mubarak, Obama was following the example of Jimmy Carter, who, under the same pretext of promoting democracy, helped overthrow an allied government and ended up turning Iran into one of the most fearsome enemies of the United States, a dictatorship a thousand times more repressive than that of the former Shah. The difference, I believe, is that Carter seems to have acted out of sheer stupidity, while it is quite evident that Obama, whose career was sponsored by a Saudi pro-terrorist prince, and whose ties with the radical left are the most compromising you can imagine, is pursuing a rational plan designed to weaken the position of his country in the international context while systematically demolishing the economy at home.

The agricultural policy of the Obama administration seems to have been calculated to foment rebellion. Egypt, a desert country, depends primarily on American wheat, the price of which has risen 70 percent in the last months even as the dollardecreased in value, creating an untenable situation for the Egyptian people. Months earlier, economic analysts warned that the whole thing was about to explode (see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/ 2011/01/31/107813/egypts-unrest-may-have-roots-in.html ).

In other Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Jordan, and Yemen similar rebellions are gradually taking shape, and they are always directed to the same goal: to eliminate pro-Western governments and expand the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, an ally of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. The state of panic that has spread among these governments can be assessed by the fact that, in recent months, they have imported more wheat than ever before, making the life of Egyptians even harder. [End of Part I. To be continued].

Translator: Alessandro Cota, Reviewer: Don Hank

Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is also the founder of the Inter-American Institute. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Mitt joins Obama, Carter in calling radical Islamic mob “democratic”

by Don Hank

Mitt Romney has broken with conservative opinion in his statement on the Egyptian crisis, coming down on the side of the mob of angry Islamists and Barack Obama (see linked article):

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Romney-Mubarak-Should-Go/2011/02/01/id/384619?s=al&promo_code=B965-1

Obama, who has in fact demanded Mubarak’s immediate withdrawal, saying it “must begin now” (http://www.cnbc.com/id/41377934), is following in the footsteps of President Jimmy Carter, who — you may recall — righteously demanded, back in the 70s, that the Shah of Iran be deposed because he was not democratic enough. The assumption was that whoever replaced the Shah would, of course, be democratic.

So once the Iranian radical clerics saw that the Shah would get no more support from the US, they moved in for the kill, long knives drawn. The Shah’s overthrow paved the way for the eminently authoritarian Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly took the US embassy personnel captive, as a way to say “thanks” to Jimmy Carter for all the support.

That went so well that, several years later, the democratic Khomeini’s successors eventually chose radical Islamist Akhmadinejad, who hates Western style democracy, as the leader of Iran. Democratic uprisings are now put down with an iron hand in Iran, but after all, that’s no longer important. The US democrats got what they wanted – elimination of a true American ally in the Middle East and his replacement with a man who hates America and Israel.

So now, Mitt Romney is in turn following Obama’s – and, let’s not forget,  Hillary’s — lead in denouncing Mubarak in Egypt because, after 40 years of serving as an invaluable go-between for Israel and the rest of the Middle East, why, it turns out he, like the Shah, is not democratic, never has been. Hillary was quick to scold Mubarak for not letting the Islamic radicals have their fun and organize his overthrow via the internet.

Discussion in the media generally portrays the Egyptian mob as the good guys, just as the media – and Carter – portrayed the Khomeini’s supporters during the 1978 upheaval in Iran.

But the persecution of Christians (as well as of Jews and Baha’is) was stepped up once the Khomeini was in power and Christians were forced out of their homeland. The media have forgotten that just a few weeks ago, a Coptic Christian church was burned by some of this same mob that now demands Mubarak’s overthrow.

The parallels are significant and if the lessons are clear they are clearly not learned.

If this Egyptian mob behaves the way the Iranian mob did in 1978 and the majority of Christians are driven from their homeland, remember the names:

Obama

Romney

Hillary

as being solidly behind the overthrow of a leader who played the lead role in stabilizing the region.

And then ask yourself if Mitt is your man in 2012. (But don’t forget to save a copy of the above-linked article, since Mitt has a habit of flip-flopping on everything as the wind changes directions or as he moves from one audience to another. One of his favorite lines is “I never said that.”)

Here is a brief profile for those not familiar with Mitt and his MO:

http://laiglesforum.com/mitt-romney-the-gops-bridge-to-oblivion/773.htm