Could This Be The Reason Why Ambassador Stevens Was Murdered?


Could This Be The Reason Why Ambassador Stevens Was Murdered?

I just read an article about Hillary Clinton while she was a Secretary of State she was also the director of the French company Lafarge, which was handling the US’s secret mission in Syria that aimed to topple the government of President Assad.

According to Assange from Wikileaks Clinton took $100k cash from & was director of company that gave money to ISIS http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/29/paris-strikes-astonishing-partnership-secret-isis-sponsor-ties-hillary-clinton/ … docs: https://search.wikileaks.org/?

In her hacked emails there are plenty of proof that she has orchestrated everything from the shipping arms from Libya to Syria and also it confirms that Clinton dismissed the reluctance of Pentagon officials to overthrow Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, while they had also predicted the possible outcome of the war in Libya, that we are witnessing today.

So we come back to the Ambassador Stevens, he must have known that Hillary Clinton had partnered with “Lafarge” which was arming Isis and realised that everything eventually will come out (Libyan ship seized in Turkey with a full load of arms) and he (Stevens) will be the scapegoat charged and indicted for treason. When Stevens understood the whole concept I am sure he spoke with Hillary Clinton and the (then Advisor of Obama) now Head of the CIA John Bremman who was responsible for all blackops. Both were not very happy about that and especially that Stevens vowed to expose them… Just think about it for a minute… it makes sense.. Bremman being an expert in Blackops and Hillary being a conniving egotistical expert in murdering people and making it look like an accident.. Both were the perfect match in heaven so easy to get rid of one person who is spoiling their business in earning millions…. And how dare Stevens wants to expose them?

Yes you could chuck it to a conspiracy theory but is it? Just think go back in 2012 Petraeus was kicked out from the CIA so that he wouldn’t testify, Hillary and her staff although they testified at the senate but lied through their teeth, how do we know that through her hacked emails. I could go to more details but if you read on the pages of “Benghazigate” you will find all the information there. You don’t need to hack in the emails its in-front of you if you really want  to know the why and how.

Advertisements

Critical Update on Benghazi- CIA Confirms That Obama & Hillary are Traitors


Critical Update on Benghazi- CIA Confirms That Obama & Hillary are Traitors

This was released back in May of 2015, but I somehow missed it (no doubt because of my trial). But investigators have finally obtained secret reports from the Obama administration (by suing them in court) that prove that Obama, Hillary and all the talking heads from the top to the bottom outright lied to the American People. They knew the attacks were imminent 10 days before they happened. That means that moving our soldiers away from the embassy was treason and murder.

The CIA reports also show that the attacks were specifically in retaliation for the assassination of a terrorist leader and specifically in memorial of 9/11. There was absolutely no mention of any movie. Thus, the lies told about the movie were intentional.

This means that Obama and his entire administration, including General Dempsey lied to President Karzai of Afghanistan about the movie who then sent warning throughout his nation which spread throughout the Middle East- thus sending rage throughout the Muslim population. This led to more embassy attacks and riots. This also places the blame for the resulting fear, rage and uncertainty about whether other embassies would also be attacked directly on the intentional lies told by Obama, Hillary, Dempsey and others. This is treason that led to American deaths and violence in the Middle East. One must ask what motive they had.

One need not look any further than our own borders for the answer. The ensuing attacks and uncertainly of more attacks on U.S. embassies overseas led to the overturning of the decision to strike down the NDAA 2012 bill. “What is that?”, you might ask. NDAA 2012 is one of the most important pieces of legislature that has passed under Obama. Thanks to our state controlled media, most Americans don’t know anything about it.

It was passed on New Year’s Eve under the noses of the American People in the guise of a yearly funding bill for the military. However, it actually gives massive, unconstitutional authority to the president, without any approval of Congress and without oversight from any elected official, to use the entire might of the U.S. military against any American citizen on American soil. This bill was struck down as unconstitutional because it directly violates the Posse Comitatus Act, a critical part of American legislation, passed in 1878. It was due to be finalized exactly on Sept. 12, 2012 when the Benghazi nightmare ‘happened’ on Sept 11, 2012. (Remember, the Obama administration had been preparing for this since Jan 13, 2012 when the legal challenge was issued. They had time to plan this move.) Obama’s attorneys argued that domestic terrorists here at home might also react in rage and violence because of the movie and needed the right to use the U.S. military on domestic soil. Obama got a federal judge to STAY the finalization of the first federal judge’s order to strike NDAA 2012 as unconstitutional on Sept 13, 2012. It remains in legal limbo today which basically means that it is still legal. In other words, Benghazi ensured that Obama (and Hillary- because you know she will win) retains the power to arrest Christians, deny them all their constitutional rights and make them disappear forever without needing permission from anyone.)

Do you all understand the crimes committed in Benghazi and why it was done? NDAA 2012 is that important. Killing the ambassador and embassy workers was just a necessity to the media drama. Without the dead bodies, no one would pay enough attention and the bill injunction wouldn’t get stayed. People needed to really believe that terror could spread to U.S. shores. The violence caused by the movie rumor (most Muslims never saw the silly trailer- (no movie even existed) was also necessary to create the appropriate rage. Lying to President Karzai was a necessity, too, because you need a Muslim spreading the panic too. Oh, and getting the media to interview the pastor in Florida who burned the Koran was delightful, too. Just to add fuel to the fire- even though he had nothing to do with the infantile movie trailer. That was just to make even more Muslims as mad as possible- it was all one big lie. In hindsight, each one of these lies has only one thing in common- get as many Muslims as mad as possible in order to incite as much violence on American targets as possible. The goal: get a federal judge to stay the first federal judge’s injunction and keep it legal. Result of Benghazi: 4 Americans dead and NDAA 2012 is still alive. To Progressives: an acceptable loss for a powerful result.

Being allowed to use our military against American citizens here at home is key to overthrowing our nation’s constitution and turning this nation into a dictatorship– or whatever else a powerful group of individual wants. Add media control, internet control, quasi-digitized money and a powerful Progressive morality/loss of Christian values to the general population and you have a very ripe situation for the plucking.

All the proof is right there in black and white in the CIA reports. And yet, where are the Congressional hearings for the president, Hillary, Dempsey, Susan Rice, etc? Each and everyone of them are guilty of treason. The news did a story, but why did it die such a quiet death? Because the media is controlled and Americans are asleep. It is so sad. We deserve what we are getting. That is all I can say.

*****There is a video that you can see from this link: http://myfreshnews.com/critical-update-benghazi-cia-confirms-obama-hillary-traitors

Hillary’s War: Pentagon Opposed Hillary Clinton on Regime Change in Libya


Hillary’s War: Pentagon Opposed Hillary Clinton on Regime Change in Libya

By: Daniel Greenfield

Even Obama was less eager for war than Hillary.

 

hillary-clinton-what-difference-does-it-make-benghazi-dead-americans-911

As Libya continues melting down, the Washington Times’ Kelly Riddell has an important story on just how conflicted the situation was. This war a tug of war between Hillary Clinton, who wanted to bomb Libya, and the Pentagon which didn’t.

Mrs. Clinton’s main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation to use force.

“You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts,” an American intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department was controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials.

So the Pentagon went rogue over Hillary’s War.

The Pentagon liaison indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it.”…

While Mrs. Clinton urged the Pentagon to cease its communications with the Gadhafi regime, the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs remained in contact for months afterward…

As the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs kept his contacts going, one U.S. general made an attempt to negotiate directly with his Libyan military counterparts, according to interviews conducted by The Times with officials directly familiar with the overture.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. African Command, sought to set up a 72-hour truce with the regime, according to an intermediary called in to help.

That more than Benghazi may explain Ham’s abrupt exit. He had been proven right, but Hillary was the heir to the throne.

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who was acting as a business consultant in Libya at the time, said he was approached by senior Libyan military leaders to propose the truce. He took the plan to Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, the U.S. AFRICOM point of contact for Libya. Col. Linvill passed the proposal to Gen. Ham, who agreed to participate.

“The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was honored,” Mr. Kubic said, describing the offers.

“[Gadhafi] came back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition government, but he had two conditions,” Mr. Kubic said. “First was to insure there was a military force left over after he left Libya capable to go after al Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time, everybody thought that was reasonable.”

But not the State Department.

Gen. Ham was ordered to stand down two days after the negotiation began, Mr. Kubic said. The orders were given at the behest of the State Department, according to those familiar with the plan in the Pentagon. Gen. Ham declined to comment when questioned by The Times.

It’s ironic considering how the media liked to play up Saddam’s truce offers, but this doesn’t get reported. The Pentagon wanted to avoid a war, but Hillary was howling for one.

Even Obama was less eager for war than Hillary.

In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya “its all Secretary Clinton’s matter” and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed.

More like he didn’t care. So he let Hillary have her war.

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says in his book “Worthy Fights” that the goal of the Libyan conflict was for regime change. Mr. Panetta wrote that at the end of his first week as secretary of defense in July 2011, he visited Iraq and Afghanistan “for both substance and symbolism.”

“In Afghanistan I misstated our position on how fast we’d be bringing troops home, and I said what everyone in Washington knew, but we couldn’t officially acknowledge: That our goal in Libya was regime change.”

That’s what I’ve written all along, but the Secretary of Defense admitting that the American public was lied to over an illegal war just isn’t interesting when Obama is in power.

CIA Director Admits: US Foreign Policy Causes Terrorism


CIA Director Admits: US Foreign Policy Causes Terrorism

1019863554

John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, acknowledged that US foreign policy may sometimes cause terrorism.
Brennan, who has served as CIA chief since March 2013, offered the following admission during an appearance on “Face the Nation”:

“I think the president has tried to make sure that we’re able to push the envelope when we can to protect this country. But we have to recognize that sometimes our engagement and direct involvement will stimulate and spur additional threats to our national security interests.”

But as John Schwarz of the Intercept points out, that statement by Brennan contrasts comments he made five years ago – as the White House counterterrorism adviser – in an interview with the late reporter Helen Thomas about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man who tried to blow up a US flight over Detroit:

Thomas: And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why.

Brennan: Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents …

Thomas: Why?

Brennan: I think this is a – this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.

At his sentencing hearing the following year, Abdulmutallab explained his motivations:

“I [attempted] to attack the United States in retaliation for US support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children and noncombatants.”

In fact, the government’s own sentencing memorandum for Abdulmutallab cites this statement, and points out that trying “to retaliate against government conduct” is part of the legal definition of terrorism.

According to Schwarz, of the Intercept:

“So Brennan well understands that our foreign policy causes attacks against Americans. And our legal code specifies that attempting to retaliate against US actions is what makes you a terrorist. Nonetheless, this obvious reality is almost never said out loud by government officials.”

That certainly was not laid out by former President George W. Bush who, while addressing Congress after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said the country had been targeted by “enemies of freedom.”

Al Qaeda leaders, he said, “hate … our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”