Petition calls for Obama to be tried for ‘war crimes’ in The Hague

A petition accusing Barack Obama of war crimes and demanding he be prosecuted has been published on the White House website. It has already gained about 4,000 signatures.

“We demand conviction of a war criminal Barack Obama and trial in the International Criminal Court in [The] Hague. He is guilty of crimes not only against the USA citizens, but against the whole world,” the petition states.

The authors also note that “one of the most dreadful prisons in history Guantanamocontinues to function.”

The US added to the de-stabilization of the situation in the Middle East, too, the petition’s authors state.

“Libya was destroyed as a result of Obama’s aggression. In Syria, Obama’s agents train, fund and organize terrorist groups, deceitfully naming them ‘moderate opposition,’ who, among other things, bear a relation to Al-Qaeda, implicated in crimes against the American people.”

 

The mechanics of globalism – Migration as a weapon of war and ethno-engineering

BY CATHERINE SHAKDAM

Today, war refugees have become headlines onto themselves. Whether referred to as migrants or asylum seekers by a well-thinking media complex, the semantics of this new crisis nevertheless betrays a very globalist agenda – yet more engineering, yet more manipulation.

With war raging on in the Middle East, millions of people were forced to flee before the advances of terror. Trapped in a conflict which was not of their making, and hunted by armies which have sought only their enslavement and/or annihilation, communities have chosen exile over death, chased out of their lands by the brutality of war. In the face of such human tragedy, Europe opened its borders, inviting in, those who lost everything … or so we were told.

It is this ‘humanitarian’ narrative EU officials have volunteered to both their constituents and the media – this idea that Western nations hold a duty of care and protection over the millions displaced by war.

Indeed, Western powers are responsible. Actually no … their role far exceeds the responsibility since the Mid-East has burnt under their fire. Let us remember which powers in fact engineered and purposely exported destabilization to the MENA over the past decade. From Iraq, to Syria, Libya and Yemen, military pyres have lit up many skies, engulfing all in their wake.

I would argue that Western powers stand guilty of crimes against humanity; responsibility is not strong enough of a word to define what in fact they have inflicted onto several continents.

How many campaigns and interventions will Western capitals have to promote, sell, and invent for the public to recognize that WAR is indeed the driving ambition behind every, and all political agendas? Left, right or centre, most politicians have played to the same tune, only with a different beat.

Europe has opened itself up to human tragedy so that globalists could have at it. The real trick here would be to define this elusive “it”. What is it that the powers that be want with Europe? And more importantly how are refugees fitting in?

I personally refuse to believe that this “refugee crisis” we are seeing play out on our screens can be reduced to simple fear-mongering against Muslims. Yes, Muslims have become Europe’s appointed scapegoats for their faith was made to rhyme with terror, but racism and xenophobia are hardly more than the foot-soldiers of an agenda which speaks of global control, and global re-engineering.

Beyond the human trafficking, the drug connections and the despicable sexual exploitation lies a grand exploitation scheme, where society as a whole is being re-arranged, re-aligned and re-programmed to fit within one system of socio-political and economic governance – notwithstanding the imposition of secular atheism as the new supra-state religion.

A bit much you say? It sounds too outlandish or conspiracy-like for your taste buds you argue?

Consider this: EU officials, Angela Merkel right in the lead, made absolutely sure that war refugees would find their way to Europe’s green landscapes. Actually experts such as Scott Bennett, a former US special op. intelligence officer have long established that refugees were “made to come to Europe” through a clever game of geographical bottle-necking. Ever wondered why Europe’s staunchest allies in the ME refused to open up their borders to offer Jordan and Turkey some relief? Ever wondered why the likes of Saudi Arabia or Egypt for example were not called upon to share in the refugee load given they are geographically connected to this crisis, and could have socially absorbed newcomers since they all share ethno-religious markers?

According to a report by Amnesty International, the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council offered zero formal resettlement slots to Syrians by the end of 2014.

“The missing linkage in this tragic drama is the role of Arab countries, specifically the Gulf countries,” Fadi al-Qadi, a regional human rights expert in Jordan told Time in an interview last September. “These states have invested money, supported political parties and factions, funded with guns, weapons et cetera, and engaged in a larger political discourse around the crisis,” he added.

Europe has been set up. There is no way around it. The real questions we ought to ask is why, and to fit whose agenda. I personally believe globalization to be the culprit. Europe I would argue has been transformed into a giant social Petri dish.
Globalists are re-arranging society, hoping that the overlapping of various ethnicities, traditions and faiths will justify for greater state oversight: i.e. social diktat. We are quite cleverly being programmed for a social, military and economic takeover.

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent comments on Muslim women’s alleged “submissiveness” and their role in driving radicalization forward plays into this narrative that all our identities need blending into one “harmonious” lump.

Let’s be clear here, the powers that are looking onto us as if we were corporate assets and products– and we all know how much corporations love individualism.

If we agree to step out of the xenophobic bubble officials stuck us into, we will realize that this new migration wave will actually serve capitalists’ agendas.  No mistakes were made; there was no lack of foresight, only manipulation.

As migrant-related violence will breed social outrage and prompt calls for actions on the part of our governments, state institutions will be able to manifest those civil liberties, thinning they would not have otherwise been able to roll out. And then of course there is the little matter of cheap labor and human exploitation: those made destitute will have little say when it comes to their future working conditions … further eroding at those rights we all take for granting.

I’ll let you chew on that for a while.

There they go again: US mulls anti-ISIS operations in ‘liberated’ Libya

Washington is exploring options for intervening in Libya, citing reports of Islamic State extremists operating in the country that was plunged into chaos in 2011 by a NATO intervention. US troops have already visited the country, the Pentagon admitted.

READ MORE: ‘Rule of law crushed’ in Libya as rival governments vie for power, ISIS spreads – HRW

The US is “closely monitoring” the situation in Libya, and it is “too soon to say exactly where things will evolve,” Defense Department spokesman Peter Cook told reporters Wednesday, acknowledging for the first time that US military personnel were recently present in the north African country.

“There have been some US forces in Libya, trying to establish contact with forces on the ground” to get a clear idea of what the situation, and evaluate who might be “worthy of US support” in the impending struggle against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) extremists, Cook said.

Earlier this week, General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US wanted to “take decisive military action” against IS in Libya, in order to “put a fire wall” between them and other terror groups operating in Africa. The decision on the plan, which would involve NATO allies like the UK, France and Italy, will be made in “weeks,” Dunford said, according to the official military newspaper Stars and Stripes.

Capture

Supporters of any new military intervention in Libya will most likely find arguments in the two reports published Wednesday. Almost 400,000 people have been displaced by the ongoing civil war in the country, said Human Rights Watch, accusing both factions of war crimes.

Meanwhile, the Soufan Group – a consulting company formed by a former US official who investigated the 9/11 attacks – said that Libya could become a preferred destination of terrorists due to its porous borders, ungoverned hinterlands and vast oil reserves.

Both IS and Al-Qaeda are “utilizing Libya as a safe haven from which to launch operations against neighboring countries,” the group’s report argued. “A failed state in Libya could be disastrous for North Africa and Europe as well as the broader international community.”

US warplanes are already operating over Libya, with the Pentagon admitting in December 2015 that an air raid in November killed a suspected IS commander known as Abu Nabil in the city of Derna. It was the first US airstrike against the terror group outside of Syria or Iraq.

In December 2015, British officials floated plans to deploy a 6,000-strong NATO force in support of the “unity government” proposed by the UN. However, the latest plan to create a compromise cabinet was rejected 89-15 by the internationally recognized parliament in Tobruk.

The US and France spearheaded the NATO intervention to “liberate” Libya in 2011, aiding the rebels fighting against the government of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who had run the country since 1969. After Gaddafi’s death, rebel factions began fighting over the spoils.

By the spring of 2014, Libya was effectively divided into the historical provinces of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, with the desert hinterlands lapsing into anarchy. Tripolitania was taken over by Libya Dawn, a coalition of Islamist groups such as Muslim Brotherhood and Ansar al-Sharia, backed by Turkey and Qatar. The most powerful force in Cyrenaica are the leftovers of the Libyan army, led by General Khalifa Belqasim Haftar, who spent two decades in the US before returning to claim power in 2011. Haftar is backed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Capture

The increase in US rhetoric about intervening in Libya again has alarmed critics of the original intervention, such as Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept.

“Just as there was no al Qaeda or ISIS to attack in Iraq until the US bombed its government, there was no ISIS in Libya until NATO bombed it,” Greenwald wrote on Wednesday.

 

‘Several dozen’ Clinton emails had data beyond top secret – watchdog

Several dozen emails from Hilary Clinton’s private server appear to have contained classified information at an even higher level than previously thought, according to a letter from the Intelligence Community Inspector General.

In the unclassified letter to the chairmen of the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees, sent on January 14, Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III responded to a congressional inquiry regarding former US Secretary of State Clinton’s emails.

As it follows from the note, first obtained and then shared by Fox News, the inspector general cited the findings of a review process, which revealed “several dozen emails containing classified information, determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET/SAP levels.”

The acronym SAP stands for Special Access Program, a protocol established to control access and sharing of intelligence marked even more stringent than “top secret.”

“According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources,” McCullough III wrote in his letter, referring to “sworn declarations” he requested from the IC internal elements involved in the probe.

Strictly, only “need-to-know,” cleared employees have access to such documents. Until this recent revelation, only two of Clinton’s emails obtained from her homebrew server had been officially labeled as “top secret,” an issue that made an already tough situation with her presidential run even tougher.

Capture

While the emails were reportedly found on her server, it is unclear from the letter whether Clinton herself was personally sending or receiving them.

The inspector general said the intelligence office is “coordinating with” the State Department “to determine how these documents should be properly treated in the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] litigation.”

Clinton’s private email set-up first surfaced in March 2015, leading to heavy criticism. The FBI launched an investigation to find out who at the State Department sent the information to Clinton’s private email account.

Capture

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the US State Department started releasing Clinton’s emails monthly in May 2015. The former Secretary of State submitted about 55,000 emails. The most recent release was made on January, while the last batch of her emails is due to be made public January 29.

The State Department confirmed earlier that 125 of the emails contained “confidential” information, but said they were “not marked ‘classified’ at the time the emails were sent.”

Clinton’s server did not encrypt emails, a fact that let critics raise concerns that hackers may have obtained classified information from her correspondence. The Clinton campaign maintains there were no breaches in security.

It is unclear so far how the new development may affect Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and her campaign.

Capture

According to a November poll by McClatchy-Marist, 68 percent of Americans agreed that Clinton did“something unethical, but not illegal” Twenty-eight percent believed Clinton did something illegal and 27 percent said Clinton did nothing wrong.

Capture

 

Folks, I left the movie ’13 Hours’ last night with one PRIMARY emotion…

Capture

Written by Allen West on January 16, 2016

It’s Friday night, 2230 hours Central Time (OK, 10:30 p.m.) here in Dallas, Texas and I just got home from watching the movie, “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.” The movie is, without a doubt, a true testimony to courage, honor, valor and that which defines the Warrior ethos. At a time when we’re subjected to watching U.S. Sailors kneeling with their hands over their heads in a position of surrender, this movie is necessary. It is amazing, my oldest daughter Aubrey and I went over some of the movie’s reviews and some were inane, others absolutely absurd. This is a film every American should see because it depicts a trait to our American spirit — bravery.

I remember some of the reviews and reactions to the film, “American Sniper,” and there was a famous response from a person who hadn’t even seen the film, one Howard Dean. I can’t think of any reason for an American to attack this film, from any perspective. OK, someone might take an artistic shot at director Michael Bay — sure, but it would emanate from pure jealousy. There was nothing “over the top,” and it truly reflected the tension of the 21st Century battlefield, close quarters combat. The audience is right there in the action and it’s gripping. The actors found a way to fully take on their respective characters and gave a real portrayal of the intensity of combat, night combat, with all its uncertainty and moments of humor.

But what you leave the movie with is an incredible sense of pride knowing we produce such a high caliber of person in this country. We see so much that causes us to believe our greatest days may be coming to an end. Watching “13 Hours” renews your belief in our nation’s exceptionalism. The modern-day security contractor has been vehemently demonized, but this shows the oath of service to our U.S. Constitution and dedication to duty doesn’t end.

I want to see the person who could watch this movie and come away with a negative reaction. These Shadow Warriors operate in dark spaces many of us don’t even know exist — funny, it seems that’s what happened at the CIA Annex in Benghazi. However, when danger came and threatened the lives of Americans, those men were willing to go into hell with a gas can — and they did.

Tragically, four Americans lost their lives in those 13 hours; just know that it absolutely could’ve been worse. Those men made a stand, it was an Alamo moment that could’ve had the same result.

Strikingly, you realize in seeing “13 Hours” that the entire episode was being broadcast by a drone above, an unarmed drone. You realize that for some odd reason, Americans were in contact for 13 hours, and never did the Stars and Stripes come to the rescue.

I will never forget sitting there in a House Armed Services Committee hearing, with the SecDef and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, being told there was nothing that could’ve been done. Let me explain what that statement says. The greatest nation in the world, with what we are constantly told — and I believe — the greatest military in the world… did not and could not do anything. That is unacceptable.

There will be political criticism of this film. Why? Because for some, their love of a person is greater than their love of country and all we stand for in America. And just as in the book, the politicians involved are not named; that’s not the focus. But you must ask yourself, what were they doing for those 13 hours?

This movie is not fiction, it’s not political hyperbole. If you think so, well, go up and say so, face-to-face to the men who were there — now THAT would be courageous. Every American should find see this movie. The only reason why you wouldn’t want to see this movie is because you prefer not to see truth. You prefer to live in your own world of false narratives. If you don’t want to see this movie, it’s because you embrace the belief, “what difference at this point does it make?”

I’m proud of those men and what they did for those 13 hours. I was honored to have been blessed to shake their hands. I left the movie “13 Hours” not angry but sad — sad for the people who believe a deserter serves with honor and distinction. I’m sad for those who can’t embrace the level of heroism and valor displayed in the movie “13 Hours,” who criticize — and worse — abandoned those men. The reason being an abject jealousy of not being able to “Man Up.”

This was a powerful movie experience!

Declassified Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency

Capture

By Jay Syrmopoulos on January 14, 2016

Washington, D.C. –  In spite of French-led U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 creating a no-fly zone over Libya with the express intent of protecting civilians, one of the over 3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve, contain damning evidence of Western nations using NATO as a tool to topple Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. The NATO overthrow was not for the protection of the people, but instead it was to thwart Gaddafi’s attempt to create a gold-backed African currency to compete with the Western central banking monopoly.

The emails indicate the French-led NATO military initiative in Libya was also driven by a desire to gain access to a greater share of Libyan oil production, and to undermine a long term plan by Gaddafi to supplant France as the dominant power in the Francophone Africa region.

The April 2011 email, sent to the Secretary of State Hillary by unofficial adviser and longtime Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold,” reveals predatory Western intentions.

The Foreign Policy Journal reports:

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.

The email makes clear that intelligence sources indicate the impetus behind the French attack on Libya was a calculated move to consolidate greater power, using NATO as a tool for imperialist conquest, not a humanitarian intervention as the public was falsely led to believe.

According to the email:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

The email provides a peek behind the curtain to reveal how foreign policy is often carried out in practice. While reported in the media that the Western backed Libyan military intervention is necessary to save human lives, the real driving factor behind the intervention was shown to be the fact that Gaddafi planned to create a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency, which would lessen French influence and power in the region.

The evidence indicates that when French intelligence became aware of the Libyan initiative to create a currency to compete with the Western central banking system, the decision to subvert the plan through military means began, ultimately including the NATO alliance.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/#qXQRq2DrpIw5KJLs.99