The Reason Why Obama Hasn’t Been Helping Nigeria Fight Boko Haram Will Make You Sick

MichelleObamaBringBackOurGirls

According to Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan, more than 13,000 people have been killed in the Boko Haram insurgency since 2009. Some estimates put the carnage as high as 17,000 deaths.

Between July 2013 and June 2014 alone, an estimated 7,000 people  died in incidents related to the insurgency. Boko Haram –  which means “Western education is forbidden” –  recently pledged allegiance to ISIS.

 boko-haram

When these formidable jihadists rampaged through Nigeria, last year – kidnapping schoolgirls, slaughtering Christians, and burning down churches, the Obama administration’s primary response was a hash-tag campaign on Twitter. If the besieged people of Nigeria expected more than lip service from the United States in their battle against Boko Haram in the days and weeks that came, they were sorely mistaken. They got bupkis.

Clearly, a more serious response than  #BringBackOurGirls was needed to combat the growing menace – but the United States all but abandoned their African ally.  Not only did the Obama Regime refused to sell Nigeria the arms it needed to fight Boko Haram, it blocked other Western allies from helping them, too.

Back in January, the Jerusalem Post reported that Obama refused to allow “the resale of US-made military helicopters by Israel to the Nigerian government for its fight against Boko Haram last summer.”

Via James Simpson of AIM:

 The administration also denied Nigeria intelligence on Boko Haram from drones operating in the area. While Boko Haram was kidnapping school girls, the U.S. cut petroleum purchases from Nigeria to zero, plunging the nation’s economy into turmoil and raising concerns about its ability to fund its battle against the terrorists. Nigeria responded by cancelling a military training agreement between the two countries.

What do you suppose has been behind the Obama Regime’s abject refusal to help this ally fight terrorists?

Would you believe that there’s a presidential election coming up in Nigeria, and Obama’s favored Muslim candidate is in a tight race against the Christian President Goodluck Jonathan?

And would you further believe that a political consulting group founded by Obama confidante David Axelrod is assisting that candidate - Retired Gen. Muhammadu Buhari - who hails from Muslim-dominated northern Nigeria from whence Boko Haram was spawned?

Thanks to the lack of cooperation and assistance from the United States, the Jonathan government has been failing miserably at beating back the terrorist scourge with the president looking weak and ineffectual.

Desperate, the government finally turned to Russia, China and the black market to obtain the much needed arms.

Six years ago if you had heard of a United States president behaving this way, you might have been shocked. But today, we are no longer surprised by Obama’s lethal perfidy. We watch helplessly and with horror as the world crumbles.

At least 13,000 civilians dead in Nigeria since 2009 and the US looks the other way because Obama wants to put a progressive Muslim in power.

According to an anti-Buhari Nigerian blogger writing in the Western Post:

In the last year, Nigeria sought aid from the White House for many initiatives, including the fight against Boko Haram.

The Obama administration refused to do anything but play [sic] lip service to Nigeria’s requests. However, it used public and private channels to internationally magnify every failure Nigeria’s government experienced.

In the last year, since the involvement of Axelrod’s firm, relations between the two nations have significantly deteriorated, with the US refusing to sell arms to Nigeria, a significant reduction in the purchase of Nigeria’s oil, and the cancellation of a military training agreement between Nigeria and the USA.

In turn, the Buhari-led Nigerian opposition used the U.S. government’s position as validation for their claim that the Nigerian government was a failure.

To top it off, Simpson reports that Secretary of State John Kerry “made a mockery of the administration’s pretext by hinting in January meetings with both Jonathan and Buhari that the Obama administration might allow weapon sales after the election.”

If the U.S. was so concerned about human rights violations, how could a mere election change that? Given the perception that Buhari has Obama’s implicit support, this sends an unmistakable message.

The administration also rationalized its decision to cut purchases of Nigerian oil by claiming that output from domestic oil fracking has reduced America’s dependence on foreign oil. But that begs the question: why have U.S. oil imports from other nations increased at the same time? Nigeria was formerly among America’s top five oil supplying countries, and America its largest customer. Nigeria relies on oil revenues for 70 percent of its budget. America’s decision to look elsewhere has been catastrophic for Nigeria’s economy.

After turning to Russia and China to obtain arms, Nigeria was able to fight aggressively and on the offensive against Boko Haram.

They have retaken 40 towns previously occupied by the group and killed at least 500 of the terrorists.

According to recent accounts, Boko Haram has gone to ground in the northeastern border regions. But whereas the border states of Niger, Chad, Benin and Cameroon formerly took a hands-off approach, they have now joined in the effort to destroy the group, pledging a total of 8,700 troops. Most recently, Boko Haram has been cleared of its northeastern strongholds in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa.

Read AIM’s exhaustive exclusive here and be sure to note that the rest of the media is curiously uninterested in this story.

There is not a single article mentioning Axelrod’s assistance to Buhari in any U.S. “mainstream” media outlet. Only the Washington Free Beacon ran a story.

Simpson concludes by noting that due to Obama’s horrendous policies, America is losing allies all over the world, while he cozies up to our worst enemies.

Despite his so-called outreach to “the Muslim world,” the few Muslim allies America has are calling him out. For example, observe the unprecedented spectacle of Arabs cheering Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the U.S. Congress. Columnist Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj of the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Jazirah, called Obama “the worst president in American history.” The only Muslims Obama seems to like are those who hate America, and he is going out of his way to court them, come what may.

Or as I put it in January –  the Obama always seems to err on the side of the militant Islamists, doesn’t he?

UPDATE:

boko haram

BBC: Boko Haram crisis: ‘About 500′ Nigeria children missing:

About 500 children aged 11 and under are missing from a Nigerian town recaptured from militants, a former resident of Damasak has told the BBC.

A trader in the north-eastern town told Reuters news agency that Boko Haram fighters took the children with them when they fled.

Troops from Niger and Chad seized Damasak earlier in March, ending months of control by the Islamist militants.

A regional force has recently been helping Nigeria take on the insurgents.

 

Obama Admin Explanation For Why Iran and Hezbollah Left off Terror List Doesn’t Pass Laugh Test

For some nefarious reason, this year’s Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Communities does not include Iran or Hezbollah. The official excuse the Obama Regime is using to explain why Iran and Hezbollah were left off the U.S. terror threat list doesn’t pass the smell test or even the laugh test. National Intelligence Director James Clapper has cited “a change in formatting” as the reason for this removal – evidently too ashamed to admit the awful truth – that Obama had agreed to do it as a concession in his nuke talks with Iran. “It’s a flat lie,” John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, last week. “The format of this years report is exactly the same as last year’s report,” Bolton explained. “Do they think we’re that stupid? Greta asked incredulously. “Yes,” Bolton answered flatly. “The people who would say this is a format change are weasels,” Bolton said. Bolton suspects that Iranian negotiators told American negotiators to “go easy on us on this terrorism stuff.”

SEE ALSO: Michael Goodwin, The New York Post: Israel: Beware of Obama: These are the best opening paragraphs I’ve read in a long time:

First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet. He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast. Now he’s coming for Israel. Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Read the rest at the link. Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

Obama “Embarrassed” For Republicans Because They Wrote to Ayatollah (His Secret Pen Pal)

I guess we’re supposed to all be too stupid to notice the hypocrisy here.

“I’m embarrassed for them,” said the president in an interview with Vice News.

“For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah,” Obama continued, “who they claim is our mortal enemy — and their basic argument to them is don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement. It is close to unprecedented.”

Let’s unpack Captain Bullshit’s bullshit, shall we?

• “For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah”…

Who happens to be Obama’s secret pen-pal. Obama has written to Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader,  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at least four times since taking office in 2009.

• “who they claim is our mortal enemy”…

Note he says THEY (the GOP) claim the Supreme Leader of Iran, (who says things like, “the Islamic peoples all over the world chant ‘Death to America!’ and  “this battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it”) is our mortal enemy. Not he himself. No Obama seems to have found “common cause” with this person the unsophisticated troglodytes in the GOP think is a mortal enemy.

• “and their basic argument to them is don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement”…

No. That was not their argument at all – basic or otherwise. That is a flat out lie. The point of their short, blunt letter was to explain to Khamenei (who they –  but presumably not Obama –  consider a mortal enemy) that any agreement he makes with the president will not be binding, and could be overturned by a future congress.

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
 
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
 
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.  For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.  As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.
 
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
 
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Nowhere in that letter do the Senators suggest that Obama can’t be trusted to follow through with an agreement.

Every single word of Obama’s answer was complete, unadulterated bullshit. It wasn’t – as Obama’s fanbois in the media would have it – “slick” – it wasn’t “too clever by half.” It wasn’t a brilliantly deceptive Jedi mind-trick or part of an awesome 3-steps-ahead chess move. It was transparently ridiculous nonsense.

But I’m not embarrassed for Obama. We expect him to be a lying hypocrite. We expect him to be a disdainful, treacherous cretin. It is his nature.

I’m embarrassed for his media toadies who allow him – time and time again – to get away with it.

 

 

 

 

Obama Admin May Bypass Congress and Take Iran Deal To United Nations (Video)

Republicans are reacting with alarm to reports that the Obama Regime is contemplating bypassing congress on the Iranian Nuke deal, instead taking it to the U.N. Security Council for a vote.

In a letter, Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said the idea of letting the U.N. consider such an agreement, while threatening to veto legislation that would allow Congress a say on it, is a “direct affront” to the American people.

Via US News and World Report:

In exchange for signing onto a deal aimed at keeping it from developing nuclear weapons, Iran seeks relief from sanctions, including those imposed by the U.S. executive branch, the United Nations and Congress.

 Corker has introduced legislation requiring any final agreement with Iran to be submitted to Congress for review before any sanctions imposed by Congress can be eased.

Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen was invited on the Kelly File Thursday night to offer his insights on this latest Obama overreach.

“It’s an outrage,” Thiessen said. “What the president is basically saying is, ‘I care more about the approval of the United Nations than I care of the approval of the elected representatives of the American people. He’s not simply not going to congress. He’s going to the United Nations and seeking the approval of dictatorships like Russia and China while threatening to veto legislation that would give congress an up or down vote on this deal.”

Asked how the UN deal would work, Thiessen said, “so what he’s trying to do is he has this non-binding agreement with Iran, and he’s going to take it to the UN Security Council and the UN Security Council will give its blessing to this deal, and give it the force of international law which means that under international law, no countries can impose sanctions on Iran unless they’re violation the deal. That’s what he thinks he’s doing. The problem with that is – under US law, the US Constitution trumps international law. The US Constitution trumps the UN charter.”

The bottom line, however, is even though the agreement would not be binding, it would make it more difficult for the next president to undo because he’ll have to deal with the international community if he decides to reverse it.

Iranian Hardliner Finds Common Cause With Obama – Blasts Republicans, Insults Netanyahu

The Iranian hardliner being “the Supreme Leader” himself –  the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei, like Obama and Kerry, denounced the letter by US Republican senators, which threatens to undo any nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran. Khamenei also called allegations of Iranian involvement with terrorism “risible” and called the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “Zionist clown.”

Via the Jerusalem Post:

Mehr quoted Khamenei as saying: “Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing.”

“Every time we reach a stage where the end of the negotiations is in sight, the tone of the other side, specifically the Americans, becomes harsher, coarser and tougher. This is the nature of their tricks and deceptions.”

The negotiations, which resume in Lausanne, Switzerland, next week, are at a critical juncture as the sides try to meet an end of March target for an interim deal, with a final deal in June.

Khamenei added that US accusations of Iranian involvement in terrorism were risible. He also criticized a speech to Congress by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this month that warned the United States it was negotiating a bad deal with Iran that could spark a nuclear nightmare.

“When this Zionist clown spoke at Congress, members of the US government made remarks to deny any role in this event,” a message on Khamenei’s Twitter account read following his meeting with the clerics.

“Zionist clown”, huh? Harsh. But then – a senior Obama official reportedly called Netanyahu, “chickenshit” a few months ago, which may actually be worse.

But yeah – those treasonous Republicans sure have a lot more in common with the Iranian hardliners because they want to prevent them from getting nukes – than our Dear Leader who seems to have the same goals and the same enemies as the Iranian Dear Leader.

Common cause.

Democrats Calling 47 GOP Senators Traitors is the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

ayers-wright_obama

Democrats are in high dudgeon over an open letter 47 United States Senators sent to the Iranian regime on Monday which warned that any deal brokered by the president could be revoked by Congress.

Soon after the letter was made public, an incensed Obama suggested that the senators were in league with mad mullahs of Tehran:

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It’s an unusual coalition.”

Here is what the letter stated, and you tell me if they are making common cause with our enemies:

“The next president,” the letter stated, “could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

It would seem the Republicans in Congress are in agreement with the Prime Minister of Israel and the leaders of the Arab world who fear that the Obama administration is brokering a terrible deal with the mad mullahs – a deal of appeasement and capitulation. A deal that allows Iran to go nuclear.

This is not what any sane person would call “making common cause with hard-liners.”

But taking their cue from the man at the top, Vice President Joe Biden,  WH Spox Josh Earnest, The New York Daily News, former WH speechwriter Jon Lovett, and others have hysterically accused the 47 republican senators of high treason. The hashtag #47Traitors is currently trending on Twitter.

This is a disgusting twisting of the facts but all part of a well coordinated campaign – as laid out by Ace of Spades on Twitter:

There is someone who appears to be making “common cause with the hardliners in Iran.” And it’s not the Republicans.

It is the president himself who has sent secret love letters to the ayatollahs.

Obama has made it manifestly clear that he doesn’t like our longtime ally, Israel –  as Ralph Peters so succinctly put it - “if Israel disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, Obama would not shed a single tear.”   It is feared that Obama administration has already accepted that Iran will get the bomb and create a new hegemony in the Middle East – and is just hoping that the first blast happens on someone else’s watch.

But in Obama’s America where black is white, up is down, right is wrong – it is those who stand up for America and the free world – who are the “traitors.”

Hyperventilating Democrats are trying to claim that the GOP letter may have violated the Logan Act – which “has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years” according to Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro. If Republicans violated the Logan Act, so did the Democrats – who have a disgusting history of colluding against Republican presidents with our nation’s enemies:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

And let’s not forget post-presidential meddlings of Jimmy Carter:

In November 1990, two months after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the heads of state of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. He urged the countries to drop their support for Bush’s proposed military solution.
Right up to Bush’s Jan. 15 deadline for war, Carter continued his shadow foreign policy campaign. On Jan. 10, he wrote the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria and asked them to oppose the impending military action.
During the Clinton administration, Carter had similar difficulties coming to grips with the fact that he was not president. In 1994, President Clinton dispatched Carter to defuse an impending war with North Korea over that country’s nuclear program. Again, Carter confused the foreign policy of the U.S. government with his own personal inclinations and conducted some free-lance diplomacy, this time on CNN. After meeting with Kim Il Sung, Carter went live on CNN International without telling the administration. His motive: Undermine the Clinton administration’s efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on North Korea. Carter believed sanctions threatened the agreement he had worked out. By speaking directly to the world about the prospects for peace, he knowingly encouraged countries like Russia and China, which were resisting a sanctions regime. According to Brinkley, a Clinton Cabinet member referred to Carter as a “treasonous prick” for his behavior.

These Democrats did not contact foreign leaders in an effort to undermine an enemy’s nefarious goals (like the Republicans did.) They met with foreign enemies to undermine the Republican president and by extension – our national interests.

If Obama’s nuke deal was in the nation’s best interest, he would abide by the Constitution of the United States which clearly states in Section 2: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”  But Obama refuses to do that. Instead, he goes over their heads, while disturbing details about the deal are leaked out.

MORE:

Speaking of “making common cause with hardliners”

Via Gateway Pundit:FLASHBACK: Obama Sent Ambassador to Tehran to Assure Mullahs He Was Friend of Regime (Video)

Michael Ledeen wrote about Obama’s secret meetings with Tehran on August 29, 2014.

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was AmbassadorWilliam G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Lt. Col Ralph Peters (Ret) weighed in on Hannity, last night, bringing up “the Naval hero of Chappaquiddick’s outreach to the Soviet Union to undermine President Reagan’s anti-Communist policies.

SEE ALSO: 

Roots HQ: The Left’s Unprecedented and Shocking Outrage Machine

 

 

US Backed Islamist Reportedly Now Leads ISIS in Libya

Abdulhakim-Belhadj_2089395b

Abdelhakim Belhadj, a Libyan Islamist who has met Osama Bin Laden twice, fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan, and led the fight to topple Libyan strongman Muammar al-Gaddafi with US backing, has reportedly now been made the leader of ISIS in Libya.

Via Counter Jihad:

Major news out of Libya as the former head of the Al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and a major player in theU.S.-backed overthrow of Mummar Gaddafi, has reportedly joined the Islamic State and is leading its forces there. This according to The Blaze National Security journalist Sara Carter on twitter, and Fox News’ Catherine Herridge in a Fox News report.

Belhadj’s ties to Al Qaeda were controversial during the run up to U.S. airstrikes in support of the Libyan rebels, but this did not prevent him from maintaining a high profile at the time, including being made head of the Tripoli Military Council, a position he held until resigning to run for office in May 2012. Belhadj has a reputation for involvement in the international jihad has well, playing a role in the 2004 Madrid training bombings, and accused by investigators of being involved in the murder of two Tunisian politicians at behest of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Islamic State fighters landed in Libya back in November of 2014, and have been at work establishing training camps in the Libyan city of Derna before launching a terror offensive which included an attack on a Libyan hotel, attacks on oil field workers, and the execution of 21 Copts in a graphic video which made international headlines. (read more)

I did a little research on Abdelhakim Belhadj and now have a splitting headache.
Via the Daily Beast (9/2/11):

The trouble is that Belhaj’s record as a Gaddafi adversary just might be too impressive. Belhaj is a founding member and former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which is listed by both the U.S. State Department and the British Home Office as an international terrorist organization. Several past or present LIFG members have held prominent positions in al Qaeda, including operations chief Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, who was recently killed in a CIA drone attack. The LIFG is hardly Libya’s only militant Islamist force, but it’s easily the biggest and very possibly the most dangerous.

Belhaj himself makes no secret of having met Osama bin Laden in the late 1980s, back when they were both fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Even so, he denies any sympathy for al Qaeda’s aims. “Meeting with a person with a specific ideology doesn’t mean I agree with that ideology,” Belhaj told The Daily Beast. “I didn’t go to Afghanistan to fight with bin Laden. I went to Afghanistan to support the Afghans and fight with them.”

***

No matter what he may have thought of al Qaeda, Belhaj found himself in serious trouble after Gaddafi abruptly decided to make peace with the West in 2003. As a gesture of support, the State Department added the LIFG to its list of terrorist organizations, and the vast resources of America’s intelligence services were added to the Libyan regime’s efforts to track down the group’s members. It didn’t take long: Malaysian authorities captured Belhaj in Kuala Lumpur and conveyed him to the CIA in Thailand for interrogation. Belhaj claims he was tortured before his captors determined that he posed no direct threat to the United States and shipped him back to Libya.

The regime locked him away in Gaddafi’s Abu Salim prison, where Belhaj believed he might spend the rest of his life. But shortly after his imprisonment, Seif al Islam Gaddafi, the dictator’s second son, initiated talks with Belhaj and other Islamist leaders about a possible truce and prisoner release. The Internal Security documents seen by Newsweek  / The Daily Beast include a 2006 email exchange between a Libyan government operative and an LIFG member, setting up a meeting between the two sides. The negotiations eventually led to freedom for approximately 80 Islamist prisoners in 2008 and the 2010 release of approximately 200 other prisoners, Belhaj included.

Via Libya SOS War Diary (9/26/11) in the aftermath of the Libyan war.

In the case of Abdelhakim Belhadj we have to deal with a potential state leader, and under any circumstance a person with extremely strong influence, who must have an intense love hate relationship to many of the constructions, systems and persons that are tied into the mental fabric of the experiences that dominated the last two decades of his life.
The recent PR effort by Al Jazeera et al., an exercise in applied social constructionism,  is indicating that he is an image problem for the NTC, US, EU, and NATO – and he is aware of that too. More love/hate.
 Even though the PR will bolster his ego, it also makes him aware of the fact that he is a problem. Dialectical Problem. Dialectical Problems are hard to bear for unstable personalities. The most likely result of those dialectics and dilemma is that he will become more double dealing, will restrain himself in public, and vent his anger and frustrated aggression the more when it is not seen, wittnessed, or by covert activities.
It´s absolutely not unthinkable that he will be targeted – not right now, but after the NTC is more consolidated and the country more stable, if that ever happens as long as 95 % of it´s population oppose the occupation and everything that comes with it.
French, British, US, NATO,Israel,..any of the services that back any of his colleagues or rivals could be the culprit. Alternatively, if he makes it, and he either goes to the very top, or the top of a sub system like the military, it is not unlikely that he will continue to be used as operative for covert militant activities – false flags or similar.
If so, he would be the one to doublecross the ones who make use of his services if he can get away with getting revenge. Imagine a false flag going awry because some DIA, CIA, MI5, MI6 spooks think he could be useful. 
Did someone say CIA false flag?
Jumping ahead to 8/13/2013 via Maggie’s Notebook: 

CNN broke a story today that “dozens” of CIA were in Benghazi on the night of September 11, 2012 – far more than we have been told. Others are telling that story. I’d like to go in a different direction.

AllahPundit at Hot Air says Belhadj has ties to Osama bin Laden. Belhadj says he simply met him twice.

CNN is reporting twenty-one (21) Americans were working inside the CIA Annex on the night of September 11, 2012. They further report that the number of Americans between the Mission and Annex totalled 35 with 7 wounded.

Many sources believe that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi to transact business involving shipping arms to Syrian rebels. CNN reported in October 2011 that a shipment of SA-7 surface-to-air (SAMs) anti-craft missles (MANPADS) and rocket-propelled grenades traveled from Benghazi to Syria through southern Turkey. Stevens met with a Turkish diplomat at the Compound just a few short hours before he died.

SAMs can be used to shoot down airliners. “Thousands” of them went missing after Gaddafi met his end with a bayonet up his rear.

Was the task to gather the missing missiles and ship them out of harms way – maybe back to the U.S. or was the task to covertly smuggle them to Syrian rebels (you know them, the “moderates” that the Obama administration says we were NOT arming)?

Was Belhadj in charge of these SAMs and other weapons, in an exchange aided by Stevens and the Obama administration via the presence of “dozens” of unexplained and unreported CIA agents on the scene? He was the head of the Military Council and in charge of security. He had to be involved.

Gaddafi hated the Muslim Brotherhood. For years he made every attempt to wipe them out, and did a fairly good job of it, at least to the naked eye.

Files examined by Newsweek and The Daily Beast at Tripoli’s notorious Internal Security headquarters last week include extensive records on thousands of detainees. The most common charge? Jihad. The most common sentence? Life imprisonment.

Abu Abdullah Sadeq—Belhaj’s nom de guerre—topped the Gaddafi regime’s most-wanted list for years….together with other Afghan vets he [Belhadj] created the LIFG. “We wanted to tear down the regime,” says Belhaj. Source: The Daily Beast Page 1 September 2, 2011

In 1995 Belhadj tried, he lost and was once again on the run. …

…Belhaj found himself in serious trouble after Gaddafi abruptly decided to make peace with the West in 2003. As a gesture of support, the State Department added the LIFG to its list of terrorist organizations, and the vast resources of America’s intelligence services were added to the Libyan regime’s efforts to track down the group’s members. It didn’t take long: Malaysian authorities captured Belhaj in Kuala Lumpur and conveyed him to the CIA… Source: The Daily Beast Page 2

It seems fairly certain Belhadj’s LIFG is affiliated with al-Qaeda. What were his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Under the Political Isolation Law, if passed, anyone who held a position in the Qaddafi regime over the last 30 years would be banned for 10 years from holding office in the government. The law would effectively remove the President, the Prime Minister, and one-third of the GNC from office and would amount to a legal coup d’etat by the forces of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and the Muslim Brotherhood. Source – May 2013

If you missed it, Kevin McCullough radio talk show host writing at Townhall had a bombshell story a few weeks ago. He had in his possession a copy of a document written in Arabic and translated by an Arabic speaker from a U.S. University. The Libyan internal government memo discussed the confessions of 6 Egyptians saying they were responsible for the assault on the Mission and Annex and…further said that Dr. Mohamed Morsi sent them and funded them.  Morsi (Mursi) is the deposed Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood former president now sequestered somewhere in Egypt by the Egyptian military. Walid Shoebat says he has a video of one of the attackers at the Mission looking into a security camera saying “we’re sent by Mursi.” Neither of these stories have been touched in the media. Are they true? I don’t know but neither should be difficult to confirm.

The stories of a botched kidnapping sanctioned by the U.S. to exchange Stevens for The Blind Sheikh (Omar Abdel Rahman – in a U.S. prison convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) are rampant. Morsi would likely be jazzed to finance that operation while working side-by-side with Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton.

Having been a member of the “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group” or LIFG for decades, he would literally travel to Afghanistan where he would fight American soldiers in the wake of 9/11. He was even captured and enrolled in the United States’ infamous “rendition program.” Upon release from prison in Libya, he would promptly organize and lead armed rebellion against the government Muammar Qaddafi, with extensive NATO arms, cash, and even air cover.

2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report examining the demographics of foreign fighters caught in Iraq fighting then occupying US troops would reveal that the NATO-backed rebels in Libya led by Belhaj were in fact fighters drawn from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) listed by both the US State Department and UK Home Office as a foreign terrorist organization.

In essence then, the United States and its NATO partners knowingly and willfully handed the nation of Libya and its people over to Al Qaeda. Despite Belhaj’s documented terrorist past and present, US politicians would meet with him, showering upon him accolades, praise, and continued political and military support. Among these politicians were US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham who met and literally shook Belhaj’s hand while standing upon the ruins of Libya.

This does appear to be Belhaj pictured with Senators McCain and Graham – I believe that’s Senator Richard Blumenthal on the left.

mccain-graham-isis

Those assholes!