Was Hillary’s Concussion & Death of Seal Commander Job Price in 2012 caused by a plane crash in Iran?

December 2012

Hillary Clinton in a recent appearance in Turkey US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s admittance to the New York-Presbyterian Hospital Monday, Dec, 31 – with a blood clot caused by concussion – gave wings to a cloud of rumor and conspiracy theories surrounding her state of health. The hospital, where Saudi King Abdullah was also treated two years ago, stated that the Secretary was receiving anti-coagulents and her condition would be assessed after 48 hours.

However, NBC television’s medical correspondent Robert Bazell was skeptical about the blood clot being caused by an earlier concussion because, he said, it if were, it would not be treated with anti-coagulents. “So either it’s not really related to the concussion and she’s got a blood clot in her leg or something, or there’s something else going on that we’re not being told.”

Speculation about her condition started flying about in early December, when she cancelled without notice, her participation in the Friends of Syrian forum in Marrakesh on Dec, 6. Not only was she one of the founders of this forum, but her presence was vitally needed at the time because NATO and Washington were picking up suspicious movements of the Syrian army’s chemical weapons, which marked a disastrous turn in the Syrian conflict.

She was first reported to have come down with flu and, three days later, on Dec, 9, with a stomach bug.
On Dec. 10, the day before she was due to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the September 11 terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi – in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US diplomats lost there lives – the State Department which has been heavily under fire over the episode, announced that Clinton had sustained a concussion after fainting out from dehydration.
None of the details normally released in such cases, such as when exactly she fainted, the seriousness of the concussion she suffered or how she was being treated, was offered. A State Department source was only willing to say it was “not severe.”
According to another unofficial report, she was apparently working from home. No one in the office appeared to have been delegated her functions although the secretary herself has not been been absent for three weeks.
Then, Friday, Dec. 21, President Barack Obama announced the nomination of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as next Secretary of State. Clinton had made it known for some time that she intended stepping down at the start of Obama’s second term of office. It was reported that she had talked to the president and Kerry, and commended the senator as having proven his mettle in a long and wide-ranging military, political and diplomatic career. Nothing was said on this occasion about her state of health.

But around Tehran and the Gulf Emirates, DEBKAfile was already picking up insistent rumors claiming that Clinton was seriously injured while on a secret mission in the region in the first week of December. Some claimed that in the same incident, Americans in her party – advisers and security personnel – were either injured or killed. Those rumors did not say what her secret mission was. However, the episode described occurred shortly after Dec. 1, when, as DEBKAfile reported at the time, Obama administration officials and senior representatives of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei launched secret talks on Iran’s nuclear program.

Although our sources have not identified the negotiators on either side of the table, one of the theories floating around certain capitals claimed that Hillary Clinton three weeks ago was on her way to a secret meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in regard to those negotiations. The plane carrying her from Bahrain logged its destination as Baghdad, but is described as having changed direction in midair and headed for Ahvaz, capital of the south Iranian province of Khuzestan. There, it was said, the Iranian president was awaiting her arrival. But then the plane ran into technical trouble and made an emergency landing and that was when she was injured, according to this theory.

The unexplained death of Commander Job Price, 42, SEALs commander in Afghanistan is tied by some of the speculation to that incident. At the time, the Pentagon reported that his sudden death on Dec. 22, in Uruzgan, Afghanistan, was under investigation. It is now suggested that Commander Price was head of the security detail attached to Clinton for her Iran mission and he was one of the casualties of the accident.

In the nature of things, the impact these kinds of rumors have lingers even when they are officially denied – especially given Secretary Clinton’s unusually long absence from the public eye. The medical report promised Wednesday after she is monitored at the hospital for 48 hours to assess her condition, “including other issues associated with her concussion,” is tensely awaited. After that, said the hospital announcement, “her doctors will determine if any further action is required.”

Clinton, known as the most traveled Secretary of State in US diplomatic history, has been in the international spotlight since 1992 when her husband Bill Clinton was elected president and she became first lady. She then served in the US Senate and later ran for the presidency against Barack Obama

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0a9_1357045197#OrD7KWQx8yW9IpjX.99

Ben Carson Under Attack – do you agree with his position on Islam’s Sharia?

Who DO You Stand With: Ben Carson or the Washington Post?

If you believe that Sharia Law is consistent with the United States Constitution, then you ought to stop reading this e-mail right now.

If, however, you believe that Ben Carson is right, that anyone who submits to Sharia Law should not be elected President of the United States, then I urge you to stand with Dr. Ben Carson today.

SIGN THE OPEN LETTER OF SUPPORT TO BEN CARSON
Dr. Ben Carson is getting slammed across the nation by liberal newspapers like The Washington Post and TV hosts for simply telling the truth.

What did Ben Carson say?

When asked if he believes if Sharia Law is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said, “No, I do not.”

Ben Carson was also asked if he would have any objection to a Muslim serving as president. Assuming that a practicing Muslim would submit to Sharia Law, he answered…

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

The media has totally and intentionally distorted what Dr. Carson said in an effort to drive him out of the race for president. You and I must not let them succeed!

Ben Carson has doubled down on his courageous stand against radical Islam. As he explained it on Fox News Channel…

“We don’t put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the Constitution. If you’re a Christian and you’re running for president and you want to make this [country] into a theocracy, I’m not going to support you. I’m not going to advocate you being the president.”
“Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets [of Sharia Law] and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them.”
That is precisely what he told Chuck Todd of NBC News, but NBC carefully took Carson’s statement out of context and twisted it into a pretzel to make him look like a bigot.

And then, all the other mainstream news media jumped on board, trying to make it look like Ben Carson said something he did not say. And, that he did not understand the Constitution. As if the left has ever cared about the Constitution.

So, are you going to let the lies and distortions of the news media stand, or will you stand with Ben Carson?

He needs your encouragement and support now!

The news media has tried to say that Ben Carson is wrong because the Constitution says that no one shall be denied the office of President because of his religion.

Ben Carson didn’t say that at all. He said he would not “advocate” that a practicing Muslim be elected President of the United States. But, he did say that Sharia Law was inconsistent with the United States Constitution!

Judge for yourself whether Ben Carson was right…

Equal Rights. The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all Americans, but Sharia Law denies equal rights for women or non-Muslims.

Freedom of Religion. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but Sharia Law doesn’t accept the right of other religions to practice their beliefs.

Freedom of Speech. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Sharia Law limits freedom of speech and no one can say or write anything negative about the prophet, Mohammed or the Quran.

In fact, according to Sharia Law, anyone criticizing or denying any part of the Quran must be put to death.

There are many more things that Sharia law prohibits that are inconsistent with American practices and traditions including…

A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
A woman is prohibited from driving a car or speaking alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
The Quran says that Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
The list of things inconsistent with American values and traditions is much, much longer than the short list provided above, yet the ignorant news media intends to use this stand by Dr. Carson to drive him from the race.

We need to not only tell Dr. Carson that we stand with him, we need to encourage him not to back down!

Shallow candidates like South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham are already attacking Ben Carson.

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group that is an unindicted co-conspirator due to their shadowy ties with radical Islam, is calling on Carson to “withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution.”

Unbelievable!

But, make no mistake about it, Ben Carson is being attacked on all sides.

Please sign the Open Letter to Ben Carson.

Tell him that you are with him. Tell him to stand firm. Tell him that he is right.

Won’t you please do that today?

Ben Carson needs your encouragement now.

Please put your name on the Open Letter to Ben Carson.

And, please make a contribution to help Ben Carson be elected as the next President of the United States.

Thank you, and may God bless America and Ben Carson.
Sincerely,

John Philip Sousa IV
National Chairman

Ahmed The Clock-Bomb Boy – One man’s view

Truth: Ahmed didn’t create or “invent” anything. The device he brought in (at best) would be the result of tinkering. He took apart a standard clock, removed the plastic covering, added some wiring, and then shoved it inside of a briefcase/pencilcase. Not exactly the stuff of NASA scientists or MIT students. In the following video you can see the level of effort he actually went to. Once again not exactly impressive by any means.

Video Player

00:0000:20
Media Narrative #5: The school overreacted in fear because he was a Muslim and suspended him: a startling example of Islamophobia.

Truth: The school did nothing wrong. The school has a no tolerance policy in place, and the school simply followed their own rules. The only way this story could be classified as discrimination, is if another kid of a different race brought in a device exactly like Ahmed did, and the school did nothing about it. Despite what the media wants so desperately for you to believe, the school would’ve handled it in exactly the same manner.

The left wants you to believe their ******** narrative, despite blaring holes in their propaganda-filled story. But why?

Other facts that point to this story being an elaborate hoax:

6. Ahmed isn’t just some random ambitious teen that is interested in science projects who decided to bring his “invention” to school to impress his teacher. His dad is a Sudanese immigrant who ran for president of Sudan twice. A well-known activist, the father protested the Quran-burning incident that took place in 2011, and is the spiritual leader of an Islamic center in Dallas, Texas (right next to Irving). The father is now working hand-in-hand with CAIR, in order to get his son’s bogus story out. He also has plans for meeting at the White House to discuss event even more. The family has now booked flights to New York to meet with dignitaries at the United Nation to discuss the case, where the father is now making claims that his son was “tortured by school officials.”

Related: ‘#MuslimLivesMatter’ 3 Muslim Students Killed In N. Carolina
Powered by Inline Related Posts
7. Ahmed repeatedly refused to answer when questioned by school officials and police.

“He was not working with our police department…they had asked him some questions, and he was non-responsive and very dismissive….passive-aggressive,” Mayor Beth Van Duyne stated.

Yet, as soon as the media cameras were on, Ahmed with CAIR officials alongside, was suddenly ready to talk, reciting prepared statements on his front lawn and crying racism over the whole event.

8. Less than 10% of the students that go to the school are white. So the narrative that this story was about “white privilege” and that Ahmed was singled out for being a minority is completely false.

9. The Obama Administration along with Muslims have had their sites on Irving, Texas for quite some time. You may remember a story from a few months ago, where local Imams in the area made news after they proclaimed that they would be ignoring local/state law in order to follow Sharia Law, and attempted to establish their own Sharia court. Ahmed’s family also attends the very same mosque that started the tribunal to establish Sharia Law and circumvent the Constitution in Texas.

image: http://universalfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/q7lrcrl3gamobpkqcuak.jpg

Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne at a job fair Thursday, July 19, 2012, in Irving, Texas. (AP Photo/LM Otero)
Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne at a job fair Thursday, July 19, 2012, in Irving, Texas. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

The Mayor of Irving, Beth Van Duyne, stood up against their plans for establishing a Sharia law court and was immediately attacked and demonized by the left. She was dubbed “anti-Muslim mayor” for going against these Muslims’ plans to implement Sharia law. Ahmed’s family attends the very same mosque as the radicals who want to completely disregard US, State, and local laws, and we are supposed to believe that this same Texas town is the site of yet another case of rampant Islamophibia here in America? Is this why CAIR so heavily involved in this story? Why are they working so hard to push an Islamophobia story where none exists? Something is fishy here.

Jim Hanson, Center for Security Policy gave his thoughts during Glenn Beck’s show on Sept 21.

image: http://universalfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/jim_hanson_fox-screencap-800×430.jpg

jim_hanson_fox-screencap-800×430
Jim Hanson, Center for Security Policy

“I don’t think there’s any question that this latest event was a PR stunt. It was a staged event where someone convinced this kid to bring a device that he didn’t build (it’s a radio shack clock that he put in a briefcase). You know how I know that? Because I built briefcase bombs and blown them up. That’s what they looked like. So anyone who looked at that was reasonable in assuming that it was a dangerous device. They did that to create the exact scenario that played out. They wanted people to react. and they wanted to portray this kid as an innocent victim. I think he was a pawn…”

What these Muslims are are engaging in, is known as “civilization jihad,” and now they are at the last step of their plan, which “total confrontation.”

“I think in their ultimate view, they might not even have to get violent. We might just lay down and submit. They have been so effective at this that it’s at the point right now where if you question anything about Islam you are put on lists….they are attempting to subvert us from within,” Hanson went on to say.

These Muslims and the Obama Administration must take us for complete ******* idiots. This story was nothing short of an elaborate hoax perpetrated upon the American people in order to demonize those who speak out against Islam. See a Muslim running around with a briefcase that looks like a bomb? Say something, and guess what: YOU ARE A BIGOT!!! See how that works? The whole “see something, say something” statement that we frequently tell our children, and is the advice many law-enforcement and school officials use as a way to prevent crimes has now been completely blown out the window.

Related: You Should Read This Because Facebook And Our Sponsors Are Bending-Over To Islam
Powered by Inline Related Posts
Now if you see something, you better keep your mouth shut, unless you immediately want organizations such as CAIR swarming your ass and screaming you’re a bigot over your observations, while they threaten you with lawsuits and publicly shame you. And because of the way the media and the White House ran with this story, Muslims have yet one more way to further remove themselves from the same rules and restrictions the rest of us have to follow. They are working hard to ensure that they are above reproach when it comes to anyone questioning anything that they do. WELL GUESS WHAT: WE AREN’T BUYING IT! WE WON’T STAND FOR IT!!

Share this story, and make sure that others know the truth!

Read more at http://universalfreepress.com/9-facts-that-prove-clock-boy-ahmed-was-an-elaborate-hoax-created-by-obama-administration/

The Rivkin Project

Understanding The Origin Of The Arab Spring…Posted by sundance

The origin of the Arab Spring did not begin on December 17th, 2010 in Tunisia with the self-immolation Mohamed Bouazizi.
Bouazizi’s decision to douse himself with gasoline and light himself on fire was an outcome of an economic and social reality in Tunisia at a very specific moment in time – the origin for that event happened many years earlier in Europe.

Understanding the earlier origin helps to set the stage to understand Libya in 2011, the rise of al-Qaeda, and Obama’s short-sighted folly leading NATO intervention.
A basic tenet of humanity is freedom, a natural yearning to be free. To be able to move, decide, act and strive, is as natural as the flow of water through the path of least resistance.
When Europe formed a collective Union there were multiple political, social, and socio-economic factors which aligned to create an environment where the formation was constructed.
A tireless movement of Fabian Socialists with a history of long-term strategy were behind the rise of the EU as a collective union. 
fabian-400-glassThe Fabian’s come in a variety of sub-forms: Globalists, Socialists, Communists, Keynesians, The Open Border Crowd, et al. However, the central DNA which aligns them all is a general view of a Central Planning Authority with control over the individual.
Fabian’s generally support a principle that human activity is able to be controlled toward a “better outcome”. They believe central planning by a central body can create a fundamentally better society than if individuals were left to their own decisions.
The formation of the EU was a time of “Hope and Change”, not too dissimilar to the U.S. version which came many years later in the form of President Barack Obama.
However, central planning requires essential ingredients in order to be successful. One of the most important aspects is the removal of national identity in favor of a more collective view of the multi-nation construct. Nationalism must be deconstructed and patriotic sentiment changed in favor of a larger sense of identity, a multi-cultural identity.
This was the general aim of the Fabian led EU immediately after they formed their collective association.
One aspect of the new larger identity needs to be a new acceptance of immigration. A view of “One Collective People” helps to remove the national identity in favor of the collective. Think of it like a European version of a melting pot. However, the planners also need to construct a socio-economic underline to the new identity, this is a little more challenging.
The socio-economic aspects can be major roadblocks in the assimilation models of central planners, so strategies need to be developed to improve the acceptances of the nationalist minded individuals. This is the general purpose of the “Rivkin Project“.
Rather than explain the Rivkin Project here I would suggest you read this link where we have previously outlined the purpose. The short version/adjective is “forced assimilation”.
So long as the economics support assimilation, meaning the immigrants can find work and sustain themselves, then not too much attention is directed to the objectives.
However, once the economics of a situation change, and the immigrant can no longer support themselves, then the nationalists have cause for concern. After all, it does not take long for an immigrant to appear as a demanding parasite upon a nationalist host.
This is exactly what happened in Europe.
Europe was accepting tens of millions of immigrants from the African Continent into the various countries of Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Great Britain. The flow of these immigrants followed a path of least resistance.

Morocco, Tunisia and Libya were the primary migration gateways – the secondary Gateway was Turkey. However, when the EU economy could no longer afford the assimilation the EU national anxiety fomented as civil unrest.
After a few bad economic years you began to see visible strains inside the individual EU nations.
Eventually the collapse of various EU currencies began an irreversible situation where socio-economic stresses created real pressure and violence erupted. Eventually leading to political leaders beginning to outline the broad failure of multi-culturalism.
Immigration had to be stopped – it was destroying the EU and worsening the civil unrest.
So the EU governing body made a strategic decision to payoff the gatekeepers to shut-down the immigration. By himself, Libyan leader Gadaffi was paid €5,000,000,000 (yes, billion) to stop the now considered “undesirables” from leaving North Africa.

Gaddaffi and Ben Ali (Tunisia) did just that. They shut the gates and stopped the immigrants from crossing the Mediterranean.
In North West Africa, Morocco, bowing to the demands of the EU, did the same.
But this created a serious bottleneck of African immigrants who were still flowing North from their initial homeland while escaping violence and bloodshed which had broken out throughout various countries in the African continent.
Tunisia and Libya began to fill with the now displaced immigrants who became viewed as parasites not only by the EU, but also now by the host countries which had been paid of to detain them.
The economies of the Gateway countries could not support the mass migration now bottlenecked in their geography. The economics of the situation just exacerbated the sociological situation as various religious and political factions began to fight.
Algeria – widespread discontent had been building for years over a number of issues. In February 2008, United States Ambassador Robert Ford wrote in a leaked diplomatic cable that Algeria is ‘unhappy’ with long-standing political alienation; that social discontent persisted throughout the country, with food strikes occurring almost every week; that there were demonstrations every day somewhere in the country; and that the Algerian government was corrupt and fragile.
During 2010 there were as many as ‘9,700 riots and unrests’ throughout the country. Many protests focused on issues such as education and health care, while others cited rampant corruption.
Western Saraha – The Gdeim Izik protest camp was erected 12 kilometers (7.5 mi) south-east of El Aaiún by a group of young Sahrawis on 9 October 2010. Their intention was to demonstrate against labor discrimination, unemployment, looting of resources, and human rights abuses. The camp contained between 12,000 and 20,000 inhabitants, but on 8 November 2010 it was destroyed and its inhabitants evicted by Moroccan security forces.
The security forces faced strong opposition from some young Sahrawi civilians, and rioting soon spread to El Aaiún and other towns within the territory, resulting in an unknown number of injuries and deaths. Violence against Sahrawis in the aftermath of the protests was cited as a reason for renewed protests months later, after the start of the Arab Spring.
Tunisia – Mohamed Bouazizi was an elderly Tunisian. Frustrated by a dictator and a government fraught with corruption, and unable to find work he began to sell fruit at a roadside stand. On 17 December 2010, a municipal tax inspector confiscated his wares.
An hour later he doused himself with gasoline and set himself afire. His death on the 4th January 2011 brought together various groups dissatisfied with the existing system, including many unemployed, political and human rights activists, labor, trade unionists, students, professors, lawyers, and others to begin the Tunisian revolution.

[left to right] Ben Ali (Tunisia), Ali Abdullah Sulah (Yemen), Maummar Gaddafi (Libya), and Hosni Mubarak (Egypt)

It was against this increasing frustration that various Islamist opportunists began to take advantage of the situation.
In Libya 2011 The campaign and character of the opposition was never clearly established. No one actually knew who these “rebels” were, or what entailed their ideology. It is still best described as a motley gathering of opposition forces vaguely referred to as ‘The Rebels’.
In contrast to the seeming failure of its military challenge, the public relations campaign of the rebels, and their advocates, worked brilliantly. Most of all it mobilized the humanitarian lefty hawks inhabiting the Obama presidential bird nest.
Most prominently Samantha Power, who has long called upon the United States government to use its might wherever severe human rights abuses occur. And the media celebrants of this intervention have been led by the ever progressive NY Times stalwart, Nicholas Kristof.
The PR full court press also misleadingly convinced world public opinion and Western political leaders that the Quackdaffy regime was opposed and hated by the entire population of Libya, making him extremely vulnerable to intervention, which encouraged the belief that the only alternative to military intervention was for the world to sit back and bear witness to genocide against the Libyan people taking place on a massive scale. This entire portrayal of the conflict and the choices available to the UN and the global community was manipulatively false in all its particulars; But it helped the radical islamists.
This Peace Corps generation keeps leaving its mark on the minds of the youth MTV humanitarians and Bono-Brangelina peaceniks with wars of excellence such as Libya, where the no-fly zone was actually an intervention, where the “matter of days” timeframe turned into months, where the war is to be called only conflict and all to avoid a genocide that wasn’t; But supported radical Islamists.
[…] For the politically correct academia and civil society the hallmark of sophistication is now “Responsibility to Protect” (or R2P for the t-shirt makers).
R2P is a humanitarian’s “limited sovereignty” doctrinal version. It draws on international humanitarian law—a field of law which is still in its early stages and being written based on principles instead of practicality or empiricism—to claim that states are obligated to protect their citizens and that whenever they fail in this mission, the international community gains the legal right to intervene.
In its light form, the territory is to simply be “civilized” by the missionaries of liberal democracy. In its worse form, military force is to be applied promoting forceful regime change.

Now that we have established the foundation of the Libyan uprising we can focus on the consequences. In Part 4 of the Series we outline those consequences.

Obama

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer, and she is risking her professional career to call out President Barack Obama in the biggest way possible.
Lopez is well respected in the intelligence community and worked in the Reagan White House. After two decades in the field with the CIA, and as an instructor for special forces and intelligence students, Lopez is now with the Center for Security Policy managing the counter-jihad and Shariah programs.

Now, she is claiming Obama is why America has completely “switched sides” during the war on terrorism. America is now supporting the enemy, especially through the Muslim Brotherhood.
Lopez has been unwilling to speak in public, but has confined with a few members of the House of Representatives her serious concerns about Obama’s motivations about foreign policy decisions.

Lopez noted that the war on terrorism has always been about stopping the spread of Shariah Islamic law, until Obama started to make major changes which clearly supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadist interests.
She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

The transition was easy for Obama, who already hates American values and principles as an ideologically radical…

Why the switch?
Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?
As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.
She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”
And,

The former CIA operative said, “as Israel fought enemies on all sides to remain free, secure and Jewish, America began to move away from Israel and toward its Muslim enemies. And, as Iran moved inexorably toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability, America helped.”
via WND

In addition, Lopez claims that the only reason Obama approved of the killing of Osama bin Laden is he simply couldn’t ignore the chance without looking suspicious. The opportunity presented himself, and he “couldn’t delay it any longer.”

Please share this post with friends on Facebook and Twitter. Every patriot should learn just what side our President is on
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/former-cia-officer-just-exposed-obama-our-worst-fears-are-true/#ixzz3kjH9KwuP

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer, and she is risking her professional career to call out President Barack Obama in the biggest way possible.

Lopez is well respected in the intelligence community and worked in the Reagan White House. After two decades in the field with the CIA, and as an instructor for special forces and intelligence students, Lopez is now with the Center for Security Policy managing the counter-jihad and Shariah programs.
Now, she is claiming Obama is why America has completely “switched sides” during the war on terrorism. America is now supporting the enemy, especially through the Muslim Brotherhood.
Lopez has been unwilling to speak in public, but has confined with a few members of the House of Representatives her serious concerns about Obama’s motivations about foreign policy decisions.
Lopez noted that the war on terrorism has always been about stopping the spread of Shariah Islamic law, until Obama started to make major changes which clearly supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadist interests.
She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.
The transition was easy for Obama, who already hates American values and principles as an ideologically radical…
Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”
And why would Obama want to do that?
As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.
She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”

And,
The former CIA operative said, “as Israel fought enemies on all sides to remain free, secure and Jewish, America began to move away from Israel and toward its Muslim enemies. And, as Iran moved inexorably toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability, America helped.”

via WND
In addition, Lopez claims that the only reason Obama approved of the killing of Osama bin Laden is he simply couldn’t ignore the chance without looking suspicious. The opportunity presented himself, and he “couldn’t delay it any longer.”
Please share this post with friends on Facebook and Twitter. Every patriot should learn just what side our President is on!

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/former-cia-officer-just-exposed-obama-our-worst-fears-are-true/#ixzz3kjH9KwuP