Muslims Take Over London Tunnel — ISIS Communicating With Mexican Drug Cartels

Capture

Without fear of the British authorities, Muslims recently took over the Blackwell Tunnel in London, openly displaying jihadist sentiments and waving Al Qaeda and Islamic State Flags.

The Islamist protesters blocked the route through the tunnel temporarily trapping other motorists.

An interesting comment from the original YouTube video by user CharmingLordSausage reads:

As an Englishman, I have some bad news. My nation is dying. We are slowly losing control of our cities. Soon, the great Islamic uprisings will take place. Riots, purges, the first emirates. Entire counties will be lost. There will be no united English response because no one believes in the nation state anymore. Besides, the Left control the discourse. By 2050, an Islamic regime will be in full control of Parliament. By then, Muslims will be 40pc of the population. No amount of flag waving and marching can put off the inevitable. Enjoy what remains of your freedom. Your memories of your time in the sun will serve to warm you as we enter the new dark age.

Meanwhile back in the States, former CIA covert operations officer Mike Baker recently stated in an interview that he believes ISIS is communicating with Mexican drug cartels, who will basically go into business with anyone.

The whole world knows our southern border is completely wide open and Obama is doing nothing about it but giving a free ticket those who come across to various parts of the country. Obviously he’s giving a helping hand to his Muslim brothers.

It’s getting closer to showtime folks.

ISIS 7X BIGGER THAN WEST BELIEVES

Screen Shot 2014-11-16 at 2.00.42 PM

ISIS rules a third of Iraq and a third of Syria

Screen Shot 2014-11-16 at 2.02.39 PM

War with Isis: Islamic militants have army of 200,000, claims senior Kurdish leader

PATRICK COCKBURN Sunday 16 November 2014

The Islamic State (Isis) has recruited an army hundreds of thousands strong, far larger than previous estimates by the CIA, according to a senior Kurdish leader. He said the ability of Isis to attack on many widely separated fronts in Iraq and Syria at the same time shows that the number of militant fighters is at least 200,000, seven or eight times bigger than foreign in intelligence estimates of up to 31,500 men.

Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of the Kurdish President Massoud Barzani said in an exclusive interview with The Independent on Sunday that “I am talking about hundreds of thousands of fighters because they are able to mobilise Arab young men in the territory they have taken.”

He estimates that Isis rules a third of Iraq and a third of Syria with a population of between 10 and 12 million living in an area of 250,000 square kilometres, the same size as Great Britain. This gives the jihadis a large pool of potential recruits.

Proof that Isis has created a large field army at great speed is that it has been launching attacks against the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Iraqi army close to Baghdad at the same time as it is fighting in Syria. “They are fighting in Kobani,” said Mr Hussein. “In Kurdistan last month they were attacking in seven different places as well as in Ramadi [capital of Anbar province west of Baghdad] and Jalawla [an Arab-Kurdish town close to Iranian border]. It is impossible to talk of 20,000 men or so.”

The high figure for Isis’s combat strength is important because it underlines how difficult it will be eliminate Isis even with US air strikes. In September, the CIA produced an estimate of Isis numbers which calculated that the movement had between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters. The underestimate of the size of the force that Isis can deploy may explain why the US and other foreign governments have been repeatedly caught by surprise over the past five months as IS inflicted successive defeats on the Iraqi army, Syrian army, Syrian rebels and Kurdish peshmerga.

The US and its allies are beginning to take on board the obstacles to fulfilling President Obama’s pledge to degrade and destroy Isis. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, arrived in Baghdad on Friday in a surprise visit. He said he wanted “to get a sense from our side about how our contribution is going”. Earlier in the week, he told Congress that to defeat Isis an efficient army of 80,000 men would be necessary. Few in Iraq believe that the regular army is up to the task, despite winning a success last week by retaking the refinery town of Baiji and lifting the siege of the refinery, the largest in Iraq.

In a wide-ranging interview, Mr Hussein spelled out the new balance of power in Iraq in the wake of the Islamic militants’ summer offensive and the military re-engagement of the US. The Kurdistan Regional Government now faces Isis units along a 650-mile front line cutting across northern Iraq between Iran and Syria. Mr Hussein said that the US air intervention had enabled the Kurds to hold out when the unexpected Isis assault in August defeated the peshmerga and came close to capturing the Kurdish capital Irbil: “They were fighting with a strategy of fear that affected the morale of everybody, including the peshmerga.”

As well as terrifying its opponents by publicising its own atrocities, Isis had developed an effective cocktail of tactics that includes suicide bombers, mines, snipers and use of US equipment captured from the Iraqi army such as Humvees, artillery and tanks. To combat them, Mr Hussein says the Kurds need Apache helicopters and heavy weapons such as tanks and artillery.

The Kurdish leaders are now much more relaxed about Isis because they have a US guarantee of their security. The grim experience of the US in seeing the collapse of the government and army in Baghdad, which the Americans had fostered at vast expense, also works in favour of the Kurds.

Holding on: Kurdish chief of staff Fuad Hussein with John Kerry in June Holding on: Kurdish chief of staff Fuad Hussein with John Kerry in June AFP/Getty
Mr Hussein does not like to talk about it today, but the Kurdistan Regional Government got a nasty surprise in August when it asked the Turkish government for help in stopping Isis only to be told Ankara planned no immediate assistance. It was only then that the Kurds turned to Iran and the US, both of which immediately acted to prevent a complete victory by the Islamic militants. Iran sent some officers, military units and artillery while the US started air strikes on 8 August.

Mr Hussein speculates that the CIA and US intelligence agencies may only have been speaking about “core” fighters in claiming that the jihadis had at most 31,500 men under arms. But the fighting over the past five months has shown that Isis has become a formidable military force. “We are talking about a state that has a military and ideological basis,” said Mr Hussein, “so that means they want everyone to learn how to use a rifle, but they also want everybody to have training in their ideology, in other words brainwashing.”

A sign of the military professionalism of Isis is the speed with which they learned to use captured US tanks, artillery and other heavy equipment captured after the fall of Mosul on 10 June. The same thing happened in Syria where Isis captured Russian-made arms which it rapidly started using. The most likely explanation for this is that IS’s ranks contain many former Iraqi and Syrian soldiers whose skills Isis has identified. Mr Hussein says that the peshmerga has been impressed during the fighting by Isis’s training and discipline.

“They will fight until death, and are dangerous because they are so well-trained,” said Mr Hussein. “For instance, they have the best snipers, but to be a good sniper you need not only training on how to shoot, but discipline in staying put for up to five hours so you can hit your target.”

There is supporting evidence for Mr Hussein’s high estimate for Isis numbers. A study by the National Security Adviser’s office in Baghdad before the Isis offensive showed that, when 100 jihadis entered a district, they would soon recruit between five and 10 times their original number. There are reports of many young men volunteering to fight for Isis when they were in the full flood of success in the summer. This enthusiasm may have ebbed since the US started air strikes and the Isis run of victories ended with their failure to capture Kobani in northern Syria despite a long siege.

In an impoverished region with few jobs, Isis pay of $400 (£250) a month is also attractive. Moreover, Mr Hussein says that in the places they have conquered Isis is remodelling society in its own image, aiming to educate people into accepting Isis ideology.

A fighter jet takes off from a US war ship A fighter jet takes off from a US war ship Reuters
The Kurds have recovered their military self-confidence in the knowledge that they are backed by the US and Iran. The peshmerga have taken back some towns lost in August, notably Zumar close to the Syrian border, but not Tal Afar and Sinjar where 8,500 Yazidis are still besieged on their mountain top. But there are limits to how far the Kurds are willing to advance even if they succeed in doing so. Mr Hussein says that the Kurds can help an Iraqi army, supposing a non-sectarian one is created, but “the Kurds cannot liberate the Sunni Arab areas”.

This is the great problem facing a counter offensive against Isis by Baghdad or the Kurds: it will be seen by the five or six million Sunni Arabs in Iraq as directed against their whole community. Hitherto, the US has been hoping to repeat its success between 2006 and 2008 in turning many Sunni against al-Qaeda in Iraq. Mr Hussein ticks off the reasons why repeating this will be very difficult: the Americans then had 150,000 soldiers in Iraq to back up anti-al-Qaeda tribal leaders. Isis will savagely punish anybody who opposes it. “We have seen what happened in Anbar to the Albu Nimr tribe [that rose up against Isis]. They stood bravely against the terrorist but 500 were killed. It was a disaster.”

Overall, Mr Hussein says he does not see any convincing sign of resistance from the Sunni Arabs. Many of them may be unhappy, particularly in Mosul, but this is not translating into effective opposition. Nor is it clear what outside force could organise resistance. The Iraqi army might be acceptable in Sunni areas but only if it is reconstituted so that is not dominated by the Shia.

At the moment, the Kurds see little sign of its presence. They have been asking for regular troops to defend the Mosul Dam on the Euphrates so they can use up to 3,000 peshmerga stationed there, but no Iraqi troops have turned up. “Those who are now defending Baghdad are the army of the [Shia] parties. To re-establish a professional army needs time.”

Mr Hussein did not say so, but it may be too late to establish a competent cross-confessional regular army in Iraq. The counter-offensive by Baghdad is led by the three main Shia militias which have almost the same ideological fervour and sectarian hatred as Isis. Any advance on the battlefield leads to the population deemed loyal to the losing side taking flight so the whole of northern Iraq has become a land of refugees.

The How and Why Behind Obama’s Mysterious Rise to the Presidency

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 3.26.57 PM

November 12, 2014 by Dave Hodges

How does a man get elected President after serving less than one full term as a U.S. Senator? Does being a community activist/antagonist qualify one for the highest office in the land? Were the Soviet defectors correct in that Obama is the manifestation of a multi-generational plot to bring America to her knees? It is easy to comprehend how and why Putin would want to destroy America. But is Obama is his accomplice in this mission which could imperil all of us?
Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 3.29.52 PM

Former FBI Weatherman Task Force supervisor, Max Noel, noted that the FBI utilized a CARL test when it conducted background checks on various suspects. The acronym CARL stands for Character, Associates, Reputation, and Loyalty is used to assess candidates fitness to hold the highest office in the country. On each of these four points of power, Obama fails and fails miserably. Like many FBI law enforcement agents and officials, Noel was alarmed by the fact that someone like Barack Obama could capture the presidency. For some unexplained reason, Obama was never vetted before he became a candidate for the presidency by the FBI. This is an unacceptable result of our national security system and is wholly suggestive of internal plot to allow the installation of a blatantly communist advocate into the highest political position in America.

Soviet Defectors Warn of Deception and the Emergence of a Manchurian Candidate

Did you really think Alger Hiss would be the last communist traitor to serve in a high level US governmental position?

Through the testimony of high-ranking Soviet defectors, it can clearly be established that the Russians have been engaged in a multi-generational plot to destroy the United States from within and from without. Domestically, the Russian communists are in the midst of completing a coup d’état, with the help their communist stooge, Barack Obama. In the following paragraphs, the verbatim statements of high ranking Soviet defectors are offered as proof of these claims. The first three defectors tell how the Soviets are setting the table for America’s demise. Stunningly, the fourth defector warns our country of a Manchurian candidate type of leadership whose job it will be to hand over a weakened America to the Russians (see Part Two).

Today, many people have been in a position to now vet the President after Obama’s first six years in office and observed his “fundamental transformation of America“. This particular series will continue to connect the dots of the secretive and nefarious communist background of Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama Moves To Obscure His Background

With the general warning by Russian defectors that a traitor was waiting in the wings, it is time to reveal the true nature of the Manchurian candidate who sits in the Oval office through a brief examination of his family members with CIA affiliations along with their exposure to the MKULTRA mind control experiments being conducted at the University of Hawaii.

With the stroke of his executive order pen, President Obama quickly moved to seal off his records from public view after his election. However, he was too late to completely hide his background as researchers, such as Wayne Madsen, have found significant information to demonstrate that what Obama has omitted, is that his rare rise to power can only be explained by his family’s CIA roots.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama is the culmination of what the Soviet defectors have been warning America about for decades in that Obama’s ascendency to the Presidency was part of a documented long-term strategic plan to recruit selected candidates into intelligence, while guiding these individuals and their families into high-ranking intelligence community positions before executing the meteoric rise to power by one of their own. For example, George H. W. Bush was a former CIA director, and CIA member going back to the 1950’s and thanks to Wayne Madsen, we now know that Obama’s family was CIA and not just CIA, but a CIA mind controlled family.

Obama is the Soviet messiah as he will eventually become known as the Second Coming of Stalin. He has been prophesied by Soviet defectors Lunev, Golitsyn, Suvorov and Bezmenov, and now he is here to fulfill his mission.

Phase I of Obama’s Grooming for Treason: The Obama Family’s CIA Background

Question: What do Barack Obama and the “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski have in common?

Answer: Both Kaczynski and Obama had significant exposure to the MK-ULTRA experiments; Kaczynski at Harvard and Obama at the University of Hawaii and the Ford Foundation much earlier. Outrageous?

The following paragraph represents quoted excerpts from Wayne Madsen’s exceptional investigation into the Obama family CIA background:

“President Obama’s own work in 1983 for Business International Corporation, a CIA front that conducted seminars with the world’s most powerful leaders and used journalists as agents abroad, dovetails with CIA espionage activities conducted by his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham in 1960’s post-coup Indonesia on behalf of a number of CIA front operations, including the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Ford Foundation. Dunham met and married Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s stepfather, at the East-West Center in 1965. Soetoro was recalled to Indonesia in 1965 to serve as a senior army officer and assist General Suharto and the CIA in the bloody overthrow of President Sukarno…. Soetoro worked for the elitist Ford Foundation, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Bank Rakyat (the majority government-owned People’s Bank of Indonesia), and the CIA-linked USAID while she lived in Indonesia and later, Pakistan….. Barack Obama, on the other hand, cleverly masked his own CIA connections as well as those of his mother, father, step-father, and grandmother (there is very little known about Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham.“

Madsen painstakingly and conclusively demonstrated that virtually all of Obama’s relatives were CIA operatives. Madsen has found even more CIA connections to Obama’s first employer. Madsen further went on to describe how Obama’s family was clearly exposed and was intimately connected to MK-ULTRA’s mind control program at the University of Hawaii. Info Wars also carried Madsen’s expose and it is available here.

It’s a Small World, After All

President Obama’s family and former Ex-Goldman Sachs executive, Ex-Treasury Secretary and World Bank leader,Tim Geithner and his family have been joined together at the hip for decades. Tim Geithner’s father worked for the CIA in the Rockefeller funded Ford Foundation in Asia. Geitner’s father was in charge of micro-finance for the Ford Foundation for all of Asia. From Wayne Madsen’s work, we know that President Obama’s mother was in charge of micro-finance in Indonesia. The Hollywood producers could not make this plot up. Geithner’s father was Obama’s mother’s boss. It is likely that Geithner’s father tagged Obama as a potential presidential, CIA, Ford Foundation, well-groomed Manchurian candidate.

Additional information comes from the discovery that the two universities that Obama attended, Harvard and Columbia, were prime CIA recruiting grounds. The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations continued to fund Columbia’s Soviet studies programs through the early 1980s, where Obama was a student. And would anyone care to guess what Obama was studying?

Trilateral Commission co-founder, former National Security Adviser to Carter and Obama’s former professor and now political handler.

Obama was enrolled in a Soviet studies program taught by Zbigniew Brzezinski. And to those who are new to NWO conspiracies, one might wonder who is Brzezinski? Brzezinski was the former National Security Adviser under President Carter. But more importantly, he was also the co-founder of one of the most influential globalist organizations in all of history, the Trilateral Commission. If you know your New World Order history, you have chills going up and down your spine as you read these words. We should be mindful that Brzezinski, in his book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1970), that he laid out the NWO conspiracy to control all nation states and usher in a totalitarian world government.

There are two chilling quotes by Brzezinski in his aforementioned book that come directly to bear on Obama and his meteoric rise to power:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era

“In the technetronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era

In the second quote, Brzezinski is clearly calling for the installation of CIA/MKULTRA mind control leaders. Today would, his former understudy, Obama, be a President with an undeniable “magnetic and attractive personality exploiting the latest communications techniques designed to manipulate emotions and control reason.”

Comrade Obama’s ascension to the presidency has been a long time in the making. Interestingly, Barack Obama’s past associates especially the communist terrorists which funded his Harvard legal education and ultimately launched his political career as an Illinois state senator, namely, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, have been in lockstep with Obama his entire adult life. However, Dohrn and Ayers were not the first to indoctrinate Obama with the Marxist communist philosophy. For that information, we have to begin with Frank Marshall Davis.

Obama’s real father, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist Party and a former Soviet Agent who was under FBI investigation for a total of 19 years. In 1948, Davis moved from Chicago to Hawaii leaving behind a colleague named Vernon Jarrett, father-in-law of Senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Yes, the Jarrett’s are communists as well. Both Jarrett and Davis wrote for a left wing newspaper called the Chicago Defender in which they espoused a communist takeover of the United States Government. In 1971, Davis, according to Joel Gilbert, reunited with his then nine-year-old son, Barack Obama, and schooled him in the ways of being a good communist for the next nine years.

The Final Stages of Training the Manchurian Candidate

Adding more fuel to this communist fire, it is interesting to note that both Senior White House Advisers, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett were both also “Red Diaper Babies, in which they were the sons and daughters of well-to-do parents who desired communism and lived out their dreams through their children’s revolutionary activities. Other notable red-diaper babies also include such notables as Rahm Emanuel and Eric Holder. Jarrett’s situation is particularly interesting in that her family and the Ayers family have been multi-generational friends which also included a marriage between the two families. Much of the Obama administration is a nest of well-established communists and this should serve to gravely concern every American citizen.

Following the nine years of mentoring and parenting by Frank Davis, Obama made some very important communist connections which ultimately led to him obtaining an impressive college education financed by some very familiar communist activists, namely, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. You remember Bill and Bernardine, don’t you?

The Prairie Fire book was co-authored by Dohrn and Ayers, and, quite unbelievably, it was dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert Kennedy’s assassin. A former FBI informant, while appearing on The Common Sense Show, Larry Grathwohl, revealed that he testified in a court of law that Ayers and Dohrn had direct involvement in a terrorist plot which killed San Francisco police sergeant, Brian V. McDonnell, by a bomb made and planted by these Weathermen Underground terrorists. How are Bernadine Dohrn and husband Bill Ayers not in prison? The only logical explanation is that Ayers and Dohrn are and were CIA assets whose mission consisted of guiding the young communist, Barack Obama, and his legal education and later, launching his political career. If Dohrn was not a CIA asset, then how can anyone explain how she teaches at a prominent university with her felony background, conviction and the time she briefly served in prison?

Grathwohl also revealed on The Common Sense Show that he asked Ayers, in a meeting of about 25 well-to do Weatherman, most with advanced degrees from Ivy League Universities, what the Weathermen planned to do when they achieved their goal of a communist take over the government. Grathwohl stated that Ayers paused for a moment and then said that it was likely that about 50 million Americans will have to be re-educated in concentration camps located in the American Southwest and that about 25 million would have to be eliminated, meaning that they would have to be murdered. Bill and Bernardine’s Weather Underground had the support of Cuba, East German intelligence and the North Vietnamese. I believe that Obama could end up being the fulfillment of the Ayers “re-education prediction, and with the power granted to Obama by the NDAA, that he will fulfill Ayers’ promise to Grathwohl to murder 25 million Americans who cannot be “re-educated”.

During the Vietnam war era, Ayers championed black civil rights and he and Dohrn further chastised white society for their treatment of blacks. Grathwohl also revealed that Ayers wanted to support the beginning of a race war by killing whites, from supposed black villains, and then blaming whites in order to begin a race war. How eerily similar does this sound to the Charles Manson Family and their Helter Skelter plans to execute that very same objective? While Grathwohl was infiltrating the Weathermen, Ayers ordered FBI infiltrator, Grathwohl, to blow up a Detroit police substation to which Grathwohl said that a nearby restaurant, where many blacks ate would suffer many casualties. Ayers replied that some have to die for a revolution to proceed.

Ayers and Dohrn raised a foster son, Chesa Boudin, who worked for the late Hugo Chavez, communist dictator in charge of Venezuela. Chesa Boudin was the child of Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, members of a Weather Underground spin-off group who went to prison for an armored car robbery that resulted in the murders of two police officers and a security guard. Dohrn served seven months for her role in the robbery and this is the reason that she is ineligible to become bar certified as an attorney. Is anyone else uncomfortable with the fact that obama and ayersAyers and Dohrn were the ones primarily responsible for educating Obama with the communist funds and then subsequently launched his political career from their living room? Well, it is true, please read on.

Allen Hulton, a 39 year veteran of the postal service, provided a sworn affidavit to Maricopa County, AZ. Sheriff investigators, led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in an effort toward determining whether or not former FOREIGN college student, Barack Obama, was eligible to be placed on Arizona’s 2012 election ballot. After reviewing Hulton’s affidavit, it is apparent that Ayers and Dohrn were in fact the de facto adoptive parents to this foreign student destined to become the first illegitimate President of the United States. As a result, Obama was treated to the finest Ivy League education that communist backed money could buy as Hulton maintains that the Ayers’ repeatedly told him that they were financing the education of a promising young black FOREIGN student at Harvard. Hulton also testified that he met Obama while at the Ayer’s home and he asked Obama what he was going to do with all his education, to which Obama politely answered:

“I am going to become the President”. Readers should take note that this is an affidavit, and as such, is formally considered to be evidence, not conjecture or hearsay. There can be no other conclusion that the communist terrorist, Bill Ayers, and his father, the former head of Con Edison, Tom Ayers, began grooming Obama to become America’s first communist President. Bill Ayers and President Obama’s relationship continues into the present time as it is on record that Ayers visited the White House in August of 2009.

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 3.31.51 PM
I think it is likely that the Weatherman Underground was a CIA created false flag operation simply designed to assist the communist inspired group with the ability to undermine the country and that Obama represents the Weatherman’s finest achievement. The Weathermen were nothing more than mere Soviet collaborators that Soviet defectors had previously us warned about.

We also know that Obama’s communist affiliations continued well into his adulthood because of the good work of Joel Gilbert who discovered that Obama was active with a Weathermen Underground support group known as The May 19th Communist Organization, in New York. Perhaps, this is why Ayers was visiting the White House in 2009.

The Communists Openly Declare Victory Upon Obama’s Election

Frank Chapman, a communist activist and a member of the communist front group known as the World Peace Council. Chapman clearly used the term “mole” to describe Obama. He said Obama’s political climb and subsequent success in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries was “a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle.” Chapman further stated that, “Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through. The Communist Party USA backs Obama to the hilt.” It is clear that Obama is their man!

Conclusion

Because of the psychological principal, cognitive dissonance, no amount of direct or circumstantial proof would convince some people that the highest political position in the country has been compromised by a communist plot spanning several decades. The term cognitive dissonance refers to a person who received information so shocking, so upsetting, that they cannot adequately process that information and then instead deny the validity of the proof that anyone else could see. If you are one of the cognitive dissonance types, please allow me to ask you a few questions.

Obama and former NBA player, Clark Kellogg, play pig in an obvious staged victory for the President. When was the last time you played basketball while wearing business clothes?

Who was Obama’s basketball coach in high school? The President has some degree of basketball skills as he defeated former NBA player and sports broadcaster, Clark Kellogg, in a game of pig (how appropriate) in front of a national TV audience. Who was Obama’s history teacher in high school? Why don’t we see interviews with his former professors, teachers, coaches, childhood friends and his first girl friend? Who in the hell is he?

There are no visible answers to these questions are there? But still the cognitive dissonance crowd still persists with their abject denials. To them, I say let’s judge a man by his actions, not his words. Have Obama’s actions served to help or hurt America? Do his Presidential actions match up with his communist background? It is an easy, perhaps, groundless accusation that Obama is truly the manifestation of what Soviet defectors warned us about when they stated that America’s leadership would become compromised and lead America down the path of destruction.

Ask yourself America, how could we collectively allow a person with Obama’s very limited political background into the White House? More importantly, how could Obama’s questionable background escape public scrutiny? And the most important question lies in understanding the the answer to this question, “Can anyone clearly demonstrate his intention to bring America down by his own actions?” The answer to this question is unquestionably YES, and this will be covered in Part Four of this series! When we put Obama’s misdeeds side-by-side, it will become easy to see how Obama is deliberately trying to dismantle America prior to entering martial law followed by World War III.

Former CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Claims Existence of Obama Enemies’ List

Screen Shot 2014-11-04 at 12.28.00 PM

by Paul Bond

“I kind of assume I’m on a list. I don’t think I’m the only one”

Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist who became the story when she quit CBS News after two decades amid allegations that the network refused to run some of her stories that were critical of President Barack Obama. Ahead of the Tuesday release of her book Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, she spoke to The Hollywood Reporter about her struggles with CBS executives and her assertion that her computers were hacked, possibly by Obama operatives.

THR reached out for a response from CBS News, but the organization declined to comment.

Who did you tell at CBS that your computers were hacked?

The first person I spoke to was Washington bureau chief Chris Isham.

Did he believe you?

He appeared to.

Did CBS care? Did they do anything about it?

God, you know, there’s a lot of people there. He seemed to care. He hired a separate computer forensics firm to look at the computers. They, too, agreed that there had been highly sophisticated remote intrusion of my computers. They decided to dig deeper and embark upon a process that spanned a number of months, during which time the situation with the Associated Press and the government spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen was disclosed, as well as Edward Snowden’s NSA information.

Did they ever find out who hacked your computers and spied on you?

I don’t believe their computer forensics team concluded who spied on me.

Did they ask anybody in the Obama administration if they were the culprits?

Not to my knowledge. Executives discussed with me that they assumed that was the case. And we discussed how to proceed with that information and what we could do about it.

So what did you do about it?

It seemed to fall off the radar after the forensics report was delivered to CBS. And so I hired a — I have a legal and forensics team that began work.

Did they conclude anything yet?

Yes. Her work is still very much active, but they have told me they have evidence of highly sophisticated remote intrusions into my personal and work computers by someone using software proprietary to a government agency.

CBS executives suspect that the government hacked your computer, and CBS computers, but there’s been no accountability? CBS just dropped the matter?

As far as I know, although what they told me was they wanted to heavily pursue it and find out who was responsible. I discovered on my own they have a computer security specialist working for CBS … But nobody ever questioned me, came to my house, checked the security of my system, asked me for more information, or followed up with me.

Do you believe that people working for the president of the United States hacked your computer and spied on you?

The way you phrase the question makes me want to couch it a little bit. I have been told by two computer forensics experts that a highly sophisticated entity using abilities outside non-government resources, using software proprietary either to the DIA, CIA, FBI or NSA made repeat remote intrusions into both my computers over a period of time. And we have evidence of a government computer connection into my computer system.

And why do you think they would target you as opposed to more partisan voices, like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck?

The question carries the assumption that they haven’t targeted others. I kind of assume I’m on a list. I don’t think I’m the only one, along with James Rosen and the Associated Press, that garnered special attention. There’s probably a list of people.

So an enemies list, like in the Nixon administration?

I’ve been told there is such a list, yes.

And who do you suspect is on that list?

Well, there’s an internal email that indicated reporters who were working with leakers in government agencies or perceived as enemies of the White House are being targeted. So I think that’s probably accurate — anybody that they perceive as harmful to their agenda or working with leakers and whistle-blowers, which I did a lot of.

Do you have sources who told you the names on that list? Is Rush Limbaugh on that list, for example?

Another reporter told me — I can’t remember who — that they thought he was on some sort of target list, but I don’t know that to be the case. I have someone who told me the existence of a list but not the names on it.

You’re being accused of being a partisan right-winger. Have you reported negative stories about conservatives?

Most of my reporting has not been political in nature. Some of the stories that were politicized, I don’t consider political stories, but they were made out to be by people who obviously didn’t want them reported, and I would put Fast and Furious and Benghazi in that category. But other stories include the one I won an investigative Emmy Award for last year, which was a series of stories from the time I went undercover to investigate freshmen Republican fundraising. I also did a story that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow complimented in a seven-minute long segment, exposing Congressman Steven Buyer, a Republican from Indiana, and his possible and allegedly fraudulent charity, which was followed shortly thereafter by his resignation from Congress.

Did your colleagues give you grief about your negative stories on Obama?

Not my reporter colleagues.

But you have said your bosses kind of shut down a lot of your reporting?

Some of them did. It was very complicated. All of them encouraged my reporting initially, and then as time went on some of them encouraged it and some of them discouraged it.

Who were the ones discouraging it?

Nobody ever discouraged it to my face, they just would not run the stories or would have other stories they wanted to put on every time the stories were offered. That was CBS News with Scott Pelley and his executive producer Pat Shevlin primarily, but there may have been others.

You’ve said they did this because of liberal bias?

I’m not sure I’ve ever said that. But I think there was a complex list of reasons why a lot of stories did and didn’t make it on the air the last couple of years. But in a general sense, I noticed a tendency to avoid stories that would draw pushback form people they didn’t want to have pushback from, whether it’s corporations, advertisers or politicians.

Has CBS ever cared about pushback from politicians before, or only under this administration?

I don’t know how these same people would have acted under a different administration. They came in shortly after the Obama administration.

Do you think CBS was unlikely to run negative stories about President George W. Bush for fear of pushback?

They might have been just as likely to be fearful of stories that drew controversy or pushback from corporate entities, charities, politicians, whatever the special interest might be.

Since when has CBS ever been afraid to air controversial political stories? It ran those memos claiming Bush was trying to avoid the Vietnam War. That wasn’t controversial?

CBS is hundreds of people and they’ve changed over the years. It’s not a monolithic organization that has one viewpoint, and that’s why for everything you try to put into a box there are exceptions. For example, they assigned me to cover Benghazi, that wasn’t my idea. And they were very enthusiastic about the story for a period of time. Why they changed on that, I tried to figure out many times and I can’t say, I can only say what my experiences were.

You must have a theory as to why, right?

They simply didn’t want stories on any controversies, whether that involved corporations, advertisers, charities or other special interests. They were not impossible to get on the air, but very difficult. So we just concluded that there was not the same appetite as there had been in the past.

You’re acting like it was a monetary decision on the part of CBS, like it didn’t want to risk its advertising. But these were government stories we’re talking about.

No, I’m trying to explain to you it wasn’t just government stories, although that’s what the media tended to focus on.

Okay, then, name the corporations that wanted to kill your stories.

I don’t think any corporations killed my stories. I said CBS had a tendency, in the last couple years especially, to appear to want to avoid controversies or stories that they felt would get pushback from certain corporations and politicians and special interests and charities.

Can you tell me the names of these corporations, charities and politicians?

I hate to tick them off because I feel like the story should be told in some context for legal reasons, but I think that you can pull some ideas from the book.

Does CBS go after liberal policies that are failing with as much gusto as they do conservative policies that are failing?

Well, whether something’s failing is a matter of somebody’s opinion. But I would say, as Lisa Myers has observed, as USA Today has observed, the media in general has been less enthusiastic about government accountability under the Obama administration. And I concur with those observations.

Why is that the case?

In my view, trying to avoid the pushback, and the fallout, and the headaches that come with doing stories on whatever the topic may be that the powers-that-be don’t like.

So, in journalism today, it works to bully the reporters and they’ll lay off? ‘Speak truth to power’ — that saying from the 1960’s — that doesn’t apply to journalism anymore?

Reporters want to, as you say, ‘speak truth to power,’ but it’s harder to get those types of stories past the gatekeepers.

So what good is CBS News if it’s just going to bow down to the bullies who tell them to shut up?

Those were your words, but I think they do a great job on some controversies and investigations. 60 Minutes still does some great work. So I’m not saying there aren’t very good journalists and work being done, but on the whole, as many other journalists have observed recently and publicly, the media is not as good at holding the powers that be accountable, for whatever reason.

And that reason has nothing to do with political bias?

It’s a complex set of factors involving politics, relationships with corporations and advertisers and, at times, just the idea that they’d rather not have the headache of doing a story that they have to defend.

You seem to be going way out of your way not to label the media biased. But in your book you talk about how one of your bosses insisted on labeling conservative analysts but not labeling the liberal ones, and if they really didn’t like an analyst, they’d label him or her ‘right-wing.’ So if that’s not bias, what is it?

I didn’t say that nobody is ever biased. I’m not trying to be cagey. It’s not one factor at play … I never told CBS when I wanted to leave that I thought anybody was liberally biased. I never argued that point. People kind of drew that conclusion because it served a certain narrative on both sides. It served the narrative of conservatives who were happy to feel like someone was spilling the family secret and it served the narrative of liberals who didn’t like some of my reporting and thought it could be explained away if I were a right-wing conservative. So everybody sort of adopted that line and that’s something that I never said.

So whose rule was it at CBS that analysts who were conservative be labeled as such and analysts who are liberal not be labeled?

I’m not going to name her. And it was some time ago, but she did say after I brought it up, she’d think about it, and she agreed that what I brought up was a good point and she changed — at least with me — what she’d been doing.

And who at CBS got mad at you for going on Laura Ingraham’s radio show because Ingraham is right wing?

I don’t want to say her name, either.

It sounds like you criticize Obama officials by name but you won’t say names when you’re criticizing CBS. Why the double standard?

I said a lot of names in the book, and I have my reasons why … I described it in the book as I wished to describe it.

Did anybody at CBS get mad when reporters went on liberal outlets, like MSNBC?

I can only speak for myself. I saw other reporters go on conservative and liberal outlets and I never heard that they received blowback. So I don’t know if it was just me. But in my experience, they did tell me to not go on the Laura Ingraham Show.

Just the Laura Ingraham Show or all conservative shows?

That’s a good question. At the time it was, ‘just don’t ever go on her show again.’ And then they denied other interview requests on both liberal and conservative outlets after that — a lot, but not all the time.

Are there any celebrities mentioned in your book?

Sheryl Crow and Sinbad. I traveled with them on a trip to Bosnia with Hillary Clinton. They were entertaining the troops. But First Lady Hillary Clinton and her daughter were on a work trip and I was there covering it. I mention them briefly in light of the fact that I did the story that exposed that Mrs. Clinton’s account that we’d been fired at by snipers was not true. I mentioned that Sinbad and Sheryl Crow were on the plane with us.

Was there any pushback on your Hillary-Bosnia report?

No. That sort of highlights the changes that had occurred because that was a different executive producer who, as far as I know, is actually friendly with the Clintons but nonetheless was very gung-ho on the story because he was like most journalists — able to get outside of his own friendships and belief systems and just be a newsman.

Who at CBS did you tender your resignation to?

The first time I tried to leave, a year before I left, I had my agent call CBS president David Rhodes.

What was your interaction with David Rhodes like?

Well, for most of my tenure at CBS he was very supportive. We met privately a lot about how he wanted my stories to get exposure.

When did that change?

As I tried to leave, there were some tense times. But it ended up cordial.

Why did you want to leave?

The bottom line is, the last couple of years it was clear for me that there was nothing meaningful left for me to do at CBS, and I just wanted to move on. They had plenty of talented reporters but, for what I did, investigative and original reporting, there was no appetite for that.

What are your politics personally?

I don’t talk about my politics, but I would say I’m like a lot of Americans. I’m mixed. I can honestly see two valid sides of a debate. That’s not to say I don’t have positions and thoughts on things, of course I do, but I don’t let those things get in the way of my work.

The primary issues in your book are Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the alleged green energy scandals and Obamacare. Which of those four needs further reporting?

Wow. There’s a great deal of reporting to be done on all of them. I can’t pick one. At CBS, I would have continued on all of them, if I was able to.

It sounds like you’ve been telling me that journalists at CBS who don’t toe a certain line have something to fear there. Is that the case at other networks, too?

I’m not sure we have anything to fear, it’s just that if you want to keep working there, you may not be doing what you want to do. In my case it was not being willing to do what they wanted me to do, or disagreeing with it so much that I just would rather move on. I don’t think reporters are fearful, per se, but I think they will tell you at the other networks that it’s getting more difficult to get original and hard-nosed stories on, especially if they don’t fit with the narrative that the gatekeepers in New York are trying to portray.

You were accused by some at CBS of agenda-driven news stories against Obama. Has anyone at CBS ever accused a reporter of agenda-driven stories against Sarah Palin, or George W Bush, or anyone prominent on the right?

When I did stories that clearly were not positive toward Republicans, I was never accused of being a crazy liberal or having an agenda. That only happened when I did stories that were perceived as being negative toward Democrats.

Did your executive producer, Patricia Shevlin, accuse you of not being supportive enough of green energy because of your stories about taxpayer money given to Solyndra before it went bankrupt?

She never told me that — that was her answer to another executive who raised the question: ‘Shouldn’t we be doing these stories on evening news?’

Why is that anecdote about Shevlin significant?

She is a well-known liberal ideologue who let that get in the way of her decisions and judgment. Whether people will say that to you or not, that was the consensus. That was discussed sometimes daily at CBS.

You also said somebody hacked your TV. How would you know? Why would someone want to hack someone’s TV?

I didn’t say that. What I said was the anomalies that were occurring in my house all seemed to be associated with my FIOS line … I think that the work that they were doing to get into my computer system may have interfered with the other systems in the house.

The progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America is leading the charge against you, it seems.

Media Matters has acknowledged targeting me, yes. Not with a computer intrusion, just with trying to discredit the stories I did as much as possible.

Do you think they were paid to do so?

They said they weren’t, but the question has certainly crossed my mind.

Do you know of any occasions where Media Matters was given money earmarked to targeting somebody?

David Folkenflik of NPR told me they were paid to target Rush Limbaugh. He may have misspoken on that, because someone told me it may have been Glenn Beck. He gave me two instances in which they were paid to target. He also said that they were paid to target Fox News. I’m not sure if that’s correct. It was just another reporter relaying that information to me.

(David Folkenflik did not respond to a request for comment. Media Matters president Bradley Beychok told THR: “Media Matters has never taken a dime to target Sharyl Attkisson.”).

Do you think Media Matters has libeled you?

That’s a good question. I haven’t had a legal review of what they’ve said. I actually read little to zero of what they write. They have definitely said many, many, false things. But I’m not sure it qualifies as libel under the law.

They’re a media watchdog. They tell the truth about what the media is reporting, right?

I don’t think they have an obligation to, no. Anyone can say they’re a media watchdog and then give their opinions … most people understand it’s a propaganda blog. They are very close to the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests.

What does the press think of Media Matters?

Like anybody that reaches out to us, we may take under consideration an idea that they propose. But I never get asked about their conservative counterparts, such as Media Research Center or Accuracy in Media. In my experience, no one ever takes their criticism as if it is something legitimate to be answered, but when Media Matters says something, many people in the media almost treat them as a neutral journalism organization.

Is that biased?

That probably is the result of an unintentional bias.

As we’re talking, I got an email from Media Matters that says a video you released of your computer being hacked is probably just a stuck backspace key.

It’s what I would call a video anecdote, something that happened along the way. It has nothing to do with the forensic evidence and the analysis. It’s just something interesting, a punctuation mark of things that were happening. And, certainly, I expect Media Matters to say that the backspace key was held down.

What story were you working on when your backspace key started operating by itself?

I was preparing questions for my interview with Ambassador Thomas Pickering about Benghazi and the Accountability Review Board.

So of all the stories you did that were seen as negative against Obama, Benghazi was the one that really irritated them?

I think green energy got under their skin first, and the remote intrusions into my computer pre-dated Benghazi.

From what you told me thus far, it sounds like you’re accusing CBS of cowardice more than liberal bias. Is that correct?

I haven’t used that word, ever. CBS is hundreds of people. It’s not a monolithic organization. That’s the hard part about trying to make a statement or draw conclusions. I would use the word ‘fearful,’ rather than ‘cowardice.’ Some people in the decision-making process, not necessarily reporters at the ground level, but some of those deciding what goes on television have become very fearful of the sponsors and would just prefer to avoid conflict and controversy, which means you’re not going to do a lot of original investigative reporting.

You mentioned your former boss David Rhodes. His brother is Ben Rhodes, a security adviser to the president. Is there at least an appearance of a conflict of interest there when he’s telling you to lay off Benghazi while his brother works for the president?

David didn’t tell me to lay off Benghazi, and I don’t really have an opinion of his relationship with his brother, and how that might have affected things.

Did anyone tell you to lay off Benghazi, or did they just stop using your stories on TV?

They started not using my stories. I don’t know what goes on in the decision-making process, but in general the shows’ producers and managing editors and so on would be the ones that decide what goes on the broadcasts and what doesn’t. I certainly had people joining me at CBS and pushing for stories to get on television that didn’t get on. And they were stopped, as far as I was concerned, somewhere in New York.

What reasons did they give you for not airing your stories?

They would just say — and they didn’t talk to me personally, this was to senior producers — they would just say things like, ‘There is no time on the show for it tonight;’ ‘That’s a great story but maybe we’ll get to it tomorrow;’ ‘Not today, but tell us when there are other developments, we’ll consider it again.’

Why would the administration blame the murders in Benghazi on a YouTube video if that was untrue?

Some of the information the administration is withholding from public release involves a meeting or meetings that occurred in which this was presumably discussed. So, we can only wonder, but the body of evidence that’s come out in the two years since would lead a reasonable person to conclude they wanted to steer the public’s direction away from the idea that this was definitely an act of terror, technically on U.S. soil if it was U.S. property overseas. It occurred on the president’s watch, very close to an election, at a time when he had claimed Al Qaeda was on the run.

But that reason sounds fairly pathetic and unworthy of such a huge lie. Doesn’t it?

From whose viewpoint? I mean, it’s apparently important enough for them to deflect opinion, and I’m not sure if that is indeed why they did it, that’s just the best reason most of us can come up with, looking at the evidence that has come out since. Maybe there is a better reason why they did it, I don’t know. I have a feeling we won’t ever have the full story.

What news network do you think you’ll land with next?

I certainly haven’t decided I’ll ever work at another network or even necessarily work full-time again. When I decided to leave CBS, the discussion I had with my husband was, I have to be prepared to walk out and not work anywhere ever again, and we were fine with that.

Have you had offers?

Yes, but I don’t want to discuss them.

Media Matters and others say that you’re pushing a media-is-biased narrative to curry favor with conservatives.

Anyone who knows much of anything about me knows that I don’t curry favor with people. Period.

Being targeted, allegedly, by the Obama administration, and your stories allegedly being shunned at CBS — were those ultimately good things for you?

I don’t think those were pleasant things, but where I sit today I would say, ‘fine, I’m exactly where I ought to be.’ And I will tell you, before all this stuff happened, I did hope to, and thought I would, work the rest of my career at CBS doing as much as I had been doing over most of the last 20 years. It didn’t work out that way, but I’m not sorrowful over it … I think there is a cultural change in journalism that’s going on — a turn away from the kind of reporting that just holds the powers-that-be accountable. It’s not just a CBS thing.

The major news networks are just afraid of the powerful all of a sudden?

Well, when you put it that way, it makes it sound silly, and that’s what I’ve written about in the book. I don’t think there was a sudden switch.

Nobody was saying that the media was afraid of George W. Bush, now all of a sudden they are afraid of Barack Obama?

There were times when people said that — inside CBS, after Rather-Gate.

Were there some depressing days for you at CBS toward the end?

I was very disheartened when my producer and I would have great stories, and in some cases, whistleblowers we convinced to go out on a limb and tell their story, only to then have to go back to them and say nobody’s interested. So, we’ve had to do that more times in the past few years than I’ve had to do in the previous 30.

An Obama spokesman called you “unreasonable.” Are you?

I’m probably one of the most reasonable reporters out there. But their definition of unreasonable is when they answer a question, if it doesn’t make sense or if it contradicts other facts, I don’t just accept it and go away. What have I not asked you about yet that you deem important?

What haven’t I asked you about that you think is important to mention?

A couple people have told me that CBS News has started a whisper campaign to say that I’m paranoid, crazy, and a liar?

Are you paranoid?

I’d like to think not. It’s just a good word they use to discredit and “controversialize” reporters and stories they don’t like.

Assuming this whisper campaign against you is true, who is orchestrating it?

I was told that Chris Isham, the bureau chief in Washington, was a part of it.

Al-Qaeda reportedly seizes US anti-tank rockets after defeating rival Syrian rebels

Screen Shot 2014-11-03 at 4.00.43 PM

Jihadists with the Al-Qaeda affiliate known as the Al-Nusra Front took control of several villages in Syria’s Idlib province over the weekend and reportedly seized weapons from Western-backed moderate rebel groups.

Upwards of 80 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles reportedly were captured by Al-Qaed-linked fighters in Syria after Western-supported opposition groups were overrun or defected to Al-Nusra Front

The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Sunday that Al-Nusra fighters were successful with weekend advances that earned them control of the town of Khan Al-Sobol, as well as “most of the towns and villages of Al-Zaweyi Mountain in the countryside of Idlib,” citing unnamed sources described by the Observatory as reliable and trusted.

In addition to seizing the town of Khan Al-Sobol, the Al-Qaeda linked extremist group has also allegedly taken control over M’arshorin, M’sran, Dadikh, KafarBatikh and Kafruma, per the Observatory’s reporting, “where the Islamic battalions and Hazm are located.”

According to an article published late Sunday by the Washington Post, rebel commanders, activists and analysts in Syria corroborated reports that moderate rebels “either surrendered or defected” to Al-Nusra over the weekend upon the group’s advance, with area residents adding to the paper that the defeated groups handed over their weapons. This could be a serious blow to the Obama administration’s effort to create a significant opposition force capable of fighting the so-called Islamic State and Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces. The US planned to arm and train at least 5,000 fighters from CIA-vetted moderate groups; however, the latest setback may complicate American efforts.

Screen Shot 2014-11-03 at 4.02.28 PM

According to the Post, some Syrians are unwilling to join Western-backed opposition groups. “When American airstrikes targeted Al-Nusra, people felt solidarity with them because Nusra are fighting the regime, and the strikes are helping the regime,” Raed Al-Fares, an activist leader in Kafr Nabel, in Idlib, told the Post. “Now people think that whoever in the Free Syrian Army gets support from the U.S.A. is an agent of the regime.”

A day earlier on Saturday, the Observatory reported that militants belonging to the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, have traveled individually into Idlib province recently to assist with the Al-Nusra Front’s fight against the Syrian Revolutionaries Front, or SRF — an anti-government battalion that has reportedly received support from the United State and other western nations opposed to the Assad regime.

Al-Raqqah Magazine, an online media group that routinely posts updates about the Islamic State and Al-Nusra, said on Twitter early Monday that a trove of military goods including 10 tanks and more than 80 anti-tank, or TOW, missiles, were taken from the SRF.

Screen Shot 2014-11-03 at 4.03.42 PM

The International Business Times reported that Al-Raqqah’s claims could not be independently verified, however, and AFP and Al-Jazeera both said it wasn’t clear where the allegedly seized weapons had originated from. Al-Jazeera and the Post both acknowledged, however, that the Hazm movement is indeed among the anti-Assad groups that has been handed US-made weapons in the past, including anti-tank missiles, which could now be in the hands of Al-Nusra and Islamic State fighters despite a multi-nation effort to eradicate the former organization amidst an intensifying campaign of violence in Iraq and Syria.

“Hussam Omar, a spokesman for Harakat Hazm, refused to confirm whether American weaponry had been captured by the Al-Qaeda affiliate because, he said, negotiations with Jabhat al-Nusra are underway,” Liz Sly wrote for the Post. Hazm, Sly reported, has received “small arms and ammunition alongside non-lethal aid in the form of vehicles, food and uniforms from the United States and its European and Persian Gulf Arab allies grouped as the Friends of Syria alliance.”

If either Al-Nusra or the so-called Islamic State has indeed successfully seized American-provided weapons, then it wouldn’t be the first time in recent weeks that efforts to equip moderate rebels intent on eliminating those groups have backfired for the US. Last month, Pentagon spokesman Army Colonel Steve Warren said a bundle of weapons the military had air dropped in the region “probably fell into enemy hands.” That same week, the Islamic State published a video showcasing what they called “some of the military equipment that was dropped by American forces.”

FORMER CBS REPORTER RELEASES VIDEO SHOWING FEDS HACKED COMPUTER

Journalist mysteriously stalked by unknown entity

Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has released shocking video allegedly showing a government entity deleting volumes of text from her computer screen as she worked to break news on the Benghazi investigation.

Video shot by the veteran investigative journalist in 2012 depicts how panels of text from her work were mysteriously highlighted and deleted by an unknown entity, suggesting her computer was hacked and she was under some form of surveillance.

In addition to showing how her cursor moved without any keyboard interaction, Attkisson also demonstrated how her word processor would not let her “save” her work.

“Earlier this week, she cited a renowned security expert who examined her computer and concluded that ‘a sophisticated entity…used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency’ to monitor her: ‘either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency,’ reports Mediaite.

Attkisson recently released a book entitled Stonewalled in which she breaks down “how she has been electronically surveilled while digging deep into the Obama Administration and its scandals,” according to Amazon, including “groundbreaking stories on the Fast and Furious gunwalking program, Obama’s green energy boondoggle, the unanswered questions about Benghazi, and the disastrous rollout of Obamacare,” Attkisson’s site states.

Given the fact that the Obama administration has charged more journalists with espionage than all other presidents combined since the passage of the 1917 Espionage Act, the attack on Attkisson’s First Amendment is unsurprising in today’s political climate.

The sophisticated digital intrusion is an excellent example of how a war is being waged on investigative journalists, and also shows how NSA malware planted in to computer systems can be leveraged by hackers.