Monday, August 25, 2014
Understanding the ISIS Threat and It's Connection with Globalization
Guest Post By Douglas J. Hagmann
The current threats posed by ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, to world stability in general and to the U.S. specifically are very real and extremely dangerous. However, the origins of the group and hence the threats are not to be believed “as advertised.”
We are being subjected to more lies from the White House to Foggy Bottom, along with many elected leaders who know the real story but insist upon pushing a false narrative. Collectively, they are bringing us to the brink of World War III through Syria, which I have long contended, while simultaneously opening our country to a large scale attack that could equal the September 11, 2001 attacks. Unlike 9/11, however, we know at least part of their strategy.
First, ISIS did not mysteriously or unexpectedly originate from vaporous pockets of Islamic terrorists in an area that is referred to as the Levant, or the geographical region roughly bounded by southern Turkey to the north, Egypt to the south, the Mediterranean to the west and Iraq to the East. No, ISIS was created through an intentional process of deliberate default by the U.S. and Western powers—including Israel, working in conjunction if not on behalf of the Saudis, Kuwait and Qatar. This unconventional alliance will be addressed later, but for now, it must be identified to understand the truly dangerous and evil confederation of complicity.
The formation of ISIS: Conception to birth
To understand the present, we must identify—and fully comprehend—the importance of certain pivotal events that brought us to this point. As the first decade of the 21st century, consumed by the Bush years of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was coming to a close, elements of Western and Saudi intelligence were deeply involved in orchestrating what is now known as the Arab Spring. As these plans were being laid, the process to select a new U.S. President was in progress. Specifically, the selection of the democratic nominee between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama was at issue.
Given the requirements needed to accomplish such an ambitious objective as reshaping the power structure of the entire Middle East, it is relevant to cite the “odd meeting” that occurred during the Biderberg Conference in Chantilly, Virginia attended by Obama and Clinton, almost a year to the day (or exactly one calendar year if you use the starting and end dates) before Obama’s infamously important Cairo speech. It was on June 5, 2008 that Obama and Clinton went out of their way to ditch the press and sneak off to the Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly where Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and other globalist leaders were meeting at the Bilderberg conference. Shortly thereafter, it was Obama who was selected as the democratic nominee and ultimately, the next leader of the United States. A wise selection, perhaps, considering the globalist plans as detailed herein.
Whatever happened at that secret meeting, Obama was ultimately named as the 44th President of the United States, and Hillary Clinton was appointed as his Secretary of State.
From the very outset of the Obama foreign policy agenda, the intent to reshape the power structure of the Middle East was telegraphed to the world, but few understood the far reaching and world changing implications of this policy. On June 4, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama delivered his “New Beginnings” speech at Cairo University as referenced above. Perhaps the new restructuring of power within the Middle East was discussed at the ranch of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, located outside Riyadh, where he spent the night on his way to Cairo. From that point forward, it became increasingly obvious that the Saudi agenda was pushing America’s foreign, strategic and even military agenda throughout the Middle East. Obama’s bow to the Saudi king was deep, all we saw was his bony posterior protuberance, which is a lesson in political, or globalist perspective.
Obama: A necessary Saudi asset
At the risk of appearing to digress, it is nonetheless important to revisit the controversy surrounding the legend of the man who is known as Barack Hussein Obama. We should recall the influence of the Saudis over Obama, from his college years to his presidential campaign. Was it not Saudi influence that paved his way into higher academia? During his campaign where he seemed to be cash poor, was there not controversy surrounding the contributions made to his campaign through anonymous internet donations, made possible through the campaigns failure to adhere to standard protections against fraudulent and illegal giving? Suddenly, Obama had funds to carry him through the election cycle, many thousands untraceable to their origin but seemingly originating from overseas and in particular, Saudi Arabia.
Let’s also recall that the controversy surrounding the background and Constitutional eligibility of Obama remains at issue. The long form Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) still lacks the proper authentication to pass for legitimate documentation, and the person responsible for its origination was mysteriously the only fatality of nine occupants of a small plane that made a water landing off the coast of Hawaii last year. That’s quite a coincidence.
The truth, at least from my vantage point as a veteran investigator experienced in background investigations of top executives to hold their positions in Fortune 500 companies, the man known as Barack Hussein Obama has failed to furnish any authenticated proof of his Constitutional eligibility to hold office. Contrary to the corporate media, this issue has never been resolved in any court. This raises not merely a point of law, but the subject of allegiance. Look at the world today and ask yourself whether the commissions or omissions of Obama have benefitted the United States. If not, who or what nation appears to be the primary beneficiary of his agenda?
Much like the secret meeting in Chantilly where it would appear that critical decisions were made outside of the public’s purview and in violation of the Logan Act, it appears that there is a hidden power structure behind this particular man, and a concurrent shield of protection by the media to avoid any meaningful probes of his background. To mention any such things, however, is to be shunned, ostracized, and vilified.
ISIS in gestation
It strains credulity that the most powerful intelligence apparatus in the world didn’t see the formation of ISIS coming. The closer one looks, the more that can be seen in the creation of this nebulous entity that is unrestricted by borders, which is a very important and significant characteristic of this threat. ISIS was created by design, with the full knowledge of those in power.
As the world watched the transformation of power in the Middle East through what is referred to as the Arab Spring, American intelligence assets landed on the shores of Libya. The landing contingent included U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was previously involved in diplomatic relations with Syria. Shortly thereafter and with the help of U.S. and other Western and Saudi intelligence assets, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, a now pliant and co-operating ally against terrorists, became the next victim of this U.S.-Saudi led agenda. Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted the news with shameful and unstatesman-like giddiness. In Libya, with Gaddafi removed and his son imprisoned, the U.S., with the aid of the British, French, Saudis, Qataris and others, established the largest CIA logistics center in Benghazi to ship arms and fighters across North Africa to Syria via Turkey.
While Michael Reagan was perhaps the first to write about this illegal covert arms operation in his column Building on a kernel of truth, I have authored more than four dozen reports on the role of Benghazi and the road to World War III. It is Benghazi where the truth must win out to prevent us from entering our death race to Damascus, or the beginning of World War III. To date, everyone has been misdirected, or intentionally directed to the “red herring” of diplomatic security as the proximate cause of the death of four Americans in Benghazi. It is nothing of the sort. The attack at Benghazi was an attack by proxy to stop the flow of arms and fighters on a mission to oust Assad and destabilize Syria, which is Russia’s red line in the sand.
Regarding Benghazi, the Select Committee on Benghazi, led by Trey Gowdy, will begin in about a month. We shall see whether this committee will be effective in ferreting out the truth, or be muzzled like the other queries before it. I expect that we will hear one of two things; either the committee will succumb to the official narrative that Benghazi was “a failure of security,” or less likely, provide the refreshing truth that it was a covert yet broadly orchestrated mission involving interwoven groups running arms and fighters across North Africa with sights set on Syria. The latter would then identify the true beneficiaries of this globalist agenda—the Saudis—and their captive agent in the Oval Office. This will not be permitted to happen, in my view, considering the “gang of eight” who knew the agenda far in advance.
As Benghazi blew up in the faces of Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the larger plot to oust Assad had to take different forms. Yet, the American public had awakened, even if for a few moments, and said “no” and “hell no” to yet another offensive or war in the Middle East. This pushback, however, did not stop the Obama-Saudi alliance from additional attempts to engage us in a conflict. We were treated to false flag events that included a chemical weapons attack purportedly conducted at the hands of Assad. Other attempts were made to engage us, yet our collective stomachs were full of the bile of this Renegade-in-Chief’s agenda.
As time marched on, we bore witness to the selection and installation of John O. Brennan as head of the CIA, an interesting choice considering his former involvement not just with the CIA, but with Obama and in particular, the Saudis. It is important to note his reported role in the passport office break-in in 2008, and his possible role with the video that supposedly sparked riots throughout the Middle East, leading to the attacks of 9/11/12. We also saw Hillary Rodham Clinton extricate herself from Foggy Bottom, a political move as she must insulate herself from the continued controversy of a foreign policy contrary to U.S. interests, especially if she intends to seek the 2016 democratic presidential nomination.
Clinton’s natural replacement was none other than John Kerry, whose personal and professional history is conducive to the globalist agenda. It is at this point where we see the actual birth of ISIS.
The birth of ISIS
During John Kerry’s Middle East foreign policy tour during the 2013 Christmas and 2014 New Year, we heard Kerry state that the United States will not intervene in Iraq, which at this time is falling like a rock to jihadist terror groups. It was at this time that ISIS was birthed from conception to reality by Obama’s “hands-off” approach and Kerry’s implementation of the same. The U.S. essentially left our military hardware, Toyota Tundras and Humvees, keys still in the ignition, arms and other assets and walked away upon orders from the Renegade-in-Chief.
This action permitted the formation of a rag-tag group of hardline terrorists to suddenly become fully armed and hardened, now birthed with the necessary firepower to wipe out any Iraqi military and police presence, the presence we trained, equipped and promised to back-up, yet unceremoniously reneged on our promise. This allowed ISIS members to give the Iraqi military and police one of two choices: leave or die. Many chose the former, but unfortunately many others were caught in the latter, looking for the assistance promised by the U.S. They are no longer looking.
Now equipped with some of the best hardware American taxpayer money could buy, ISIS began to grow and overtake the region, perhaps somewhere on the eighth hole of one of Obama’s perpetual golf games. Was it incompetence? It would appear doubtful based on the evidence to date.
ISIS as a threat
Understand that the ouster of Assad against the wishes of Putin remains a primary objective of this globalist crowd of U.S. and foreign leaders. We’ve opened up a new front via the creation of ISIS to get to Assad and Syria, a move fully understood by Putin. Meanwhile, the globalist leaders, including the IMF which was first on the ground in Ukraine, also opened up the Ukrainian front against Russia and Putin, to keep him occupied while the U.S.-Saudi globalist alliance is busy in the Middle East. We are watching a global chess game for power at multiple levels, and these seemingly disparate events are linked by a globalist agenda.
The globalist leaders seem to be making their boldest moves yet to bring about the conditions necessary to unite the world against a nebulous terror threat known as ISIS. The open southern borders have provided unfettered access into the United States by ISIS members, or at least the perception of infiltration, as we prepare for the next 9/11 event. While we’ve seen so many “false flag” scenarios in our lifetime, from the Gulf of Tonkin to more recent domestic events, we can be certain of one thing: an event on par with, or exceeding that of 9/11, is needed to get the attention of the American public. It is the only thing that will serve to galvanize the public into acceptance of a new front, a new war, a new offensive, or the method to get us to rally behind the agenda we have so far rejected. This is the reason that the situation today is so precarious. Simply stated, false flags and the cry for the need of additional foreign entanglements aren’t working anymore.
Is ISIS a threat to us? Indeed it is, but one made in the basement laboratories of the globalists and the lawless leaders of our own government, and those of our allies.
The end-game objective is to create a threat so dangerous and nebulous that we must come together in a globalist fashion. Most Americans would not relinquish their national sovereignty to a one world government structure—not now, not yet. They would not consider a one world, or “new world” order under the present conditions. The attacks of September 11, 2001 softened us up to accept a Third Reich formation of “homeland security” and caused many otherwise rational Americans to accept a fatal blow to our civil liberties. Think about what the next attack of an equal or greater magnitude will accomplish. Oh, by the way, does anyone recall a recent report of a few missing nuclear weapons?
May God be with us all.