Secretary of State Pompeo Meets With UN Secretary General Guterres


Any attempt by the ICC to enforce a warrant against any U.S. citizens must be fought by all means necessary

Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist imageRe Posted from The Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesMarch 7, 2020

Secretary of State Pompeo Meets With UN Secretary General GuterresSecretary of State Michael R. Pompeo met on March 6th with United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres at UN headquarters in New York. The offices of the spokespersons for both the State Department and the Secretary General issued their own readouts of the meeting. One would think from reading them that the readouts were reporting on two different meetings.

The UN readout portrayed the meeting as a kumbaya moment. “The Secretary-General expressed appreciation for the continued engagement of the United States in the United Nation,” the UN statement said. It ticked off as topics of discussion “a range of situations around the world, including Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, the Sahel and the questions related to the implementation of the host country agreement.” The reference to the host country agreement implementation may have alluded to a dispute over the denial or delay of visas issued by the U.S. to UN diplomats from certain countries, principally Russia and Iran, seeking to attend UN meetings in New York. However, the statement completely sidestepped the substance of the issue. Nothing was even hinted regarding any other differences between the United States and the United Nations.

The State Department readout did not hold back, however. Half of the readout was devoted to the UN’s highly biased pro-Palestinian decision to release its blacklist of companies doing business with Israeli firms operating in disputed areas of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which includes several U.S. companies. It said that Secretary Pompeo “reiterated his outrage at the decision by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet to publish a database of companies operating in Israeli-controlled territories.” The U.S. statement added that Secretary Pompeo “made clear that the United States will continue to engage UN officials and member states on this matter, will not tolerate the reckless mistreatment of U.S. companies, and will respond to actions harmful to our business community.”

The true agenda of the BDS, with which the UN is complicit, is the total destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and its full takeover by Palestinian militants

As usual, the UN Secretary General tried to paper over significant objections to the UN’s moral failures with diplomatic niceties. Secretary Pompeo, representing the UN’s biggest financial contributor by far, was not willing to be a part of such play-acting. What Bachelet did, with the Secretary General’s evident concurrence, blatantly undermines real human rights. The UN blacklist promotes the agenda of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which discriminatorily singles out the Jewish State for economic punishment because of its “settlements” activities. Turkey, which illegally occupied Northern Cyprus in 1974, has since sent thousands of Turkish settlers and occupation troops to Northern Cyprus, without a whimper of objection by UN officials. Ironically, the livelihoods of Palestinians and their families will be jeopardized if Palestinians working for the affected businesses lose their jobs as a result of the boycott encouraged by the UN’s blacklist.

The true agenda of the BDS, with which the UN is complicit, is the total destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and its full takeover by Palestinian militants. “No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine,” said Omar Barghouti, BDS’s co-founder. The truth is that the BDS movement and its offshoot at the United Nations are a throwback to the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.

Thus, the Trump administration correctly objects to the use of the American taxpayer-funded UN bureaucracy to promulgate a blacklist intended to intimidate U.S. businesses and others into complying with the BDS boycott. Secretary General Guterres should heed the message that Secretary Pompeo delivered to him during their face-to-face meeting on Friday or face the financial consequences from further cuts in U.S. contributions to the UN’s bloated budget.

We do not know for sure what was said during the meeting regarding implementation of the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations – the so-called host country agreement.  However, Secretary General Guterres has expressed concerns in the past over failures or delays by the Trump administration in issuing visas to foreign government officials seeking entry to the United States to attend UN meetings as well as the imposition of travel restrictions.

Hopefully, Secretary of State Pompeo made it clear to Secretary General Guterres that the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and her investigatory staff will not be welcome to the United States as long as they pursue their vendetta against American officials, soldiers, and intelligence agents for perfectly lawful actions taken against terrorists in Afghanistan.

A panel of judges from the ICC’s Appeals Chamber has just reversed an earlier ruling by an ICC panel of judges, which had blocked a probe into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. The Appeals Chamber judges decided unanimously on Thursday to allow the ICC prosecutor to investigate possible crimes on Afghan territory since May 2003 and other alleged crimes linked to the situation there since July 2002. The United States is not a party to the ICC Rome Statute and, moreover, has its own robust system of justice that the ICC has no valid jurisdiction to supplant or override.

The U.S. has already revoked ICC Prosecutor Bensouda’s entry visa to the United States

The ICC prosecutor called the decision “an important day for the cause of justice in the situation of Afghanistan, for the Court, and for international criminal justice more broadly.” To the contrary, the decision was, in Secretary Pompeo’s words, a “breathtaking action by an unaccountable political institution, masquerading as a legal body.” He added, “It is all the more reckless for this ruling to come just days after the United States signed a historic peace deal on Afghanistan, which is the best chance for peace in a generation. We’re going to take all the appropriate actions to ensure that American citizens are not hauled before this political body to settle political vendettas.”

The Trump administration can start by following through on Secretary Pompeo’s warning last year that the U.S. would deny or revoke visas for International Criminal Court staff. The U.S. has already revoked ICC Prosecutor Bensouda’s entry visa to the United States. She should continue to be barred entry, along with her investigators. They also must be barred from interviewing any past or present U.S. officials, soldiers or other government personnel anywhere in the world. Any attempt by the ICC to enforce a warrant against any U.S. citizens must be fought by all means necessary.

Despite DOJ Objections – Judicial Watch Wins Court Order Forcing Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills to Sit for Depositions…


A federal judge has ruled that Hillary Clinton and her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills must sit for a deposition within 75 days (full ruling pdf below).   Judicial Watch won the court ruling despite the ongoing efforts by the DOJ to block their inquiry. [JW Link]

From the Ruling – “The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.”

Here’s the Ruling:  [Also Pdf Available Here]

.

benghazi4

We know from the Bret Baier interview with Hillary Clinton that she was physically located at her 7th floor office in Washington DC on the night of the attack. Unfortunately we also know during the November 2012 Thanksgiving holiday a mysterious fire took place in that building. Well, actually directly above her exact office – cause undetermined.

A “fire” which preceded an unfortunate slip and fall for the Secretary, resulting in a concussion, which led to the discovery of a blood clot, that ultimately delayed her congressional testimony before a Senate Hearing into the events of the night in question.

We know the Libyan uprising began on February 10th of 2011, and we also know that sometime around the end of February 2011 President Obama signed a presidential directive authorizing the State Dept and CIA to begin a covert operation to arm the Libyan “rebels”.

We also know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 Syria.

We know the Libyan “rebels” were positioned in two strategic places. Benghazi, and the port city of Darnah, both located in Northeastern Libya.

We know this 2011 Libyan covert operation came to be known as “Operation Zero Footprint“, and fell under the military command authority of NATO not (important to repeat), NOT, the U.S. Military.

We know by the time operation “Zero Footprint” began, AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham was removed from OPSEC oversight in the Libyan campaign and NATO commander Admiral James G. Stavridis was in charge.

Stavridis was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) at the time of the Libyan uprising. He retired as SACEUR in 2013

In 2011, 57-year-old Stavridis was the perfect pick for NATO Libyan intervention considering he is the son of Turkish immigrants. Turkey played a key role in what might be the most politically dangerous aspect of the events to the White House once the goals changed to redirection of the weapons from Operation Zero Footprint.

We know Operation Zero Footprint was the covert transfer of weapons from the U.S to the Libyan “rebels”. We also know the operation avoided the concerns with congressional funding, and potential for public scrutiny, through financing by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

We also know that officials within the government of Qatar served as the intermediaries for the actual transfer of the weapons, thereby removing the footprint of the U.S. intervention.

We know the entire operation was coordinated and controlled by the State Department and CIA. We also know (from the Senate Foreign Relations Benghazi hearings) that “Zero Footprint” was unknown to the 2011 Pentagon and/or DoD commanders who would have been tasked with any military response to the 9/11/12 attack – namely AFRICOM General Carter Ham.

However, it would be implausible to think that then Defense Secretary Bob Gates or Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral McMullen were completely unaware of the operation, this aspect remains murky.

Both Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chair McMullen were in place when Operation Zero Footprint began but retired from their jobs in Sept of 2011, and were replaced by Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey respectively.

Leon Panetta was CIA Director at the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint (March 2011) and was replaced by CIA Director David Petraeus in the fall of 2011 as Panetta replaced Bob Gates and became Secretary of Defense.

However, Panetta (now as Def Sec) and JC Martin Dempsey were the two who initially briefed President Obama on the night of Sept 11th 2012. Because of his previous role in constructing Zero Footprint, Leon Panetta definitely had knowledge of the intents of the joint State Dept/Cia mission in Benghazi, Dempsey may not have.

We know the White House appears to have followed “The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980” in informing the congressional “Gang of Eight” of Zero Footprint.

The Gang of Eight in 2011 would have included: Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.

From Hillary interviews we also know the White House liaison for Secretary Clinton and CIA Director Leon Panetta during Operation Zero Footprint was National Security Advisor To the President, Tom Donilon.

With this information we can assemble a cast of people “IN THE KNOW” of Operation Zero Footprint on two specific date blocks. March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack – and – Post 9/11/12 attack forward.

March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack: Who knew of Operation “Zero Footprint”?:

        • President Obama and Vice President Biden (both Dems)
        • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Dem)
        • CIA Director Leon Panetta (March 2011 – June 2011)
        • *CIA Director General David Petraeus (?) (Sept 2011 – Nov 2012)
        • NATO Commander, James G Stavridis
        • White House National Security Advisor Tom Donilon (Dem)
        • White House National Security Spox Tommy Vietor (Donilon aide)
        • White House National Security Advisor John Brennan (Dem)
        • Speaker of the House John Boehner (Rep)
        • Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi (Dem)
        • House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers (Rep)
        • Minority House Intel Committee – Charles Ruppersberger (Dem)
        • Senate Minority Leader – Mitch McConnell (Rep)
        • Senate Majority Leader – Harry Reid (Dem)
        • Senate Intel Chair – Diane Feinstein (Dem)
        • Minority Senate Intel Committee – Saxby Chambliss (Rep)
        • [State Dept] U.S. Libyan Ambassador – Chris Stevens
        • [State Dept] U.S. Asst Secretary of State – Andrew Shapiro
        • [State Dept] Senior Head of U.S. Weapons Office – Mark Adams

Along with whomever inside each nation’s state government that was involved in either the finance (UAE), or the logistics (Qatar). [and later, 2012 Turkey]

Obviously the “know” crowd would include the ultimate end destination users, “The Libyan Rebel Commanders”:

        • Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Sufian Ibriham Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu – Darnah Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia
        • Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Khattala – Commander of an Islamist militia group called the Abu Obaida bin Jarrah Brigade (17th Feb Brigade) Benghazi – Ansar Al Sharia

*NOTE* Both of these individuals were labeled as officially recognized State Dept. terrorists in December of 2013Khattala was later arrested.

Mustafa-Abdel-Jalil-POTUS

In addition, the “political face” of the Libyan Transitional Government Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil, should also be included in this list of people who knew of operation Zero Footprint while it was underway.

Justice Abdel Jalil served as the international face of, and spokesperson for, “the rebels” in 2011/12. He worked closely with Chris Stevens and highly visibly with Secretary Hillary Clinton – However, in my opinion – after extensive research- Jalil was a total patsy. He was paid well to present a comfortable face of the movement, but once Gaddaffi was killed Jalil was quickly dispatched.

This Brings us to who knew about “Operation Zero Footprint” post Benghazi 9/11/12 attack:

To wit you can easily add:

        • CIA Director General David Petraeus
        • Adjunct, and Interim, CIA Director – Mike Morrel
        • U.S. Attorney General – Eric Holder
        • President Obama Advisor and now Chief of Staff – Denis McDonough
        • President Obama Advisor and now Treasury Sec – Jack Lew
        • President Obama Advisor and now National Security Advisor – Tony Blinkin
        • Former UN Ambassador and now Senior Nat Sec Advisor – Susan Rice
        • Chief White House Communications Director – Ben Rhodes

Focusing on the post 9/11/12 team for a moment:

This photo was taken at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

This photo was taken on 9/11/12 at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Jack Lew (far right) was Obama’s Chief of Staff. Donilon and McDonough had just left Tommy Vietor in the situation room to update POTUS in the Oval Office. POTUS and VPOTUS had just hung up the phone.

We know McDonough and Donilon were in the immediate loop on the night of 9/11/12 because they were photographed updating President Obama at 7:30pm in the Oval Office along with a curious Jack Lew who was Chief of Staff at the time.

In addition we know from former White House National Security spokesperson Tommy “dude” Vietor, that President Obama was not in the situation room where Vietor and his boss Tom Donilon were keeping up on events.

Here’s where it gets interesting:

Leon Panetta was the CIA Director when Operation Zero Footprint was authorized and began, but he left the CIA about 4 months later (June 30th, 2011) and was replaced by General David Petraeus (August/Sept 2011).

[*Note* it is important to remember when the 2nd authorized CIA program began in 2012 for Syria Petraeus would have been included]

Under this principle you can see that General Petraeus had ZERO liability for the origin of the Benghazi weapons deals – it was a joint State Dept/CIA program already being conducted when Petraeus arrived. If it blew up, it was not his political problem – THIS MADE PETRAEUS A RISK.

We know that during the summer of 2012 “a whistleblower” popped up and gave House Republican Leader Eric Cantor a tip about CIA Director General Petraeus being in an extramarital affair with a reporter named Paula Broadwell; along with rumors Petraeus may have shared classified information with Broadwell during pillow talk etc.

We also know that Eric Cantor told AG Eric Holder and FBI director Robert Mueller about the claim and Mueller began an investigation of Petraeus in the Summer of 2012 before the Benghazi attack in September.

However, we also know that neither Holder nor Mueller (nor Cantor) informed anyone in congress this investigation of Petraeus was taking place. That investigation included Broadwell turning over her computer to the FBI in the same summer, and later a search of her home which did reveal confidential information supposedly leaked from Petraeus.

Sometime in October of 2012 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had a conversation with Petraeus urging him to leave.

Immediately after the election of 2012 CIA Director David Petraeus resigned (Nov 9th) and interim CIA Director Mike Morrel took over. This is why Petraeus never testified to the Senate, and Morrel took his place.

General David Petraeus and Paula BroadwellLeon-Panetta-and-Michael-Morell-via-the-Secretary-of-Defense-Public-Domain

We also know this timely switch was beneficial to both the Clinton and Obama camps because Morrel was more politically connected to them than Petraeus.

Given the risks of exposure to both “Operation Zero Footprint”, and worse, the buy-back/redirection to Syria, it’s understandable the risk to Clinton that Petraeus carried. However, Petraeus was not of any risk himself; maybe Leon Panetta would be, but not Petraeus – who, it’s important to add, came from the Defense Department to the office of CIA.

Petraeus’s replacement, interim CIA Director Mike Morrel, and White House Communications Director Ben Rhodes, were the two men who constructed the infamous “Susan Rice” talking points.

After Morrel testified to congress about the CIA involvement around Benghazi, and the issues of terrorism vs. Islamic movie (happy squirrel chase) etc. Morrel was replaced at the CIA by John Brennan.

We know that both Hillary Clinton and CBS immediately hired Mike Morrel. CBS News President David Rhodes -who hired Morrel- is the brother of the White House’s Ben Rhodes; who Morrel coordinated the Clinton friendly, albeit controversial, talking points with.

While it may seem suspect to jump to conclusions, the fact that Eric Holder did not inform either Intelligence Committee of the FBI Petraeus investigation -which is generally standard procedure- lends plausible suspicion to an outline that the events were used as leverage to remove Petraeus; and all of the subsequent risk he represented.

If you accept that Petraeus’s knowledge of, but non-involvement in, “Operation Zero Footprint” represented a potential risk to Hillary and Obama; you’d have to admit that Mike Morrel was by far the more White House friendly person talking about the CIA involvement around the joint State Dept/CIA Benghazi objectives.

Also, it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact Morrel’s loyalty therein was rewarded financially.

Lastly, one of the more slippery people to pin down on the Benghazi attack, and subsequent issues, has been Leon Panetta. If you think about Panetta’s role in the origin of Operation Zero Footprint his comment avoidance makes perfect sense.

Trey Gowdy needs to subpoena Panetta for the Special Committee.

OK, sorry that was more than a moment – but was needed.

Now back to Libya 2011/2012 and the Rift Between State/CIA and DoD/Pentagon over the arming of the “Rebels”. THIS IS REALLY QUITE IMPORTANT because it explains how far out Hillary Clinton had put herself in this covert op “Zero Footprint”.

Duty - by Robert Gates

A few reminder articles will outline and refresh why the White House kept DoD and The Pentagon at arms length throughout their covert operation:

[…] defense leaders in Washington [March 2011] slammed the brakes on the extent of US help to the rebels. Top officials said that some country other than the US should perform any future training and equipping of the Libyan opposition groups. Under withering congressional probing and criticism of what was described as an ill-defined mission to aid a rebel force that officials know little about, Robert Gates, the US defense secretary, sketched out a largely limited role for the US military going forward.

Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of the House Armed Services panel that many other countries have the ability to train and support the rebels. “My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” Gates and Mullen told Congress that future US participation will be limited and will not involve an active role in airstrikes as time goes on(link)

From a New York Times article about the same hearing -AND- the discussion of the CIA involvement. Again, remember this is 2011 – you have Secretary Gates, Joint Chiefs Mullen, and CIA Director Panetta:

2011 […] Gates and Mullen were testifying before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in the wake of revelations that small teams of CIA operatives are working in Libya. Gates declined to comment on the CIA activities in Libya. US officials have acknowledged that the CIA has sent small teams of operatives into Libya and helped rescue a crew member of a US fighter jet that crashed.

The CIA’s precise role in Libya is not clear. Intelligence experts said the CIA would have sent officials to make contact with the opposition and assess the strength and needs of the rebel forces in the event Barack Obama, the US president, decided to arm them. (link)

In hindsight we are now fully aware that unknown to both Mullen and Gates -at the time they were speaking- was President Obama having authorized Operation Zero Footprint several weeks earlier, and Panetta carrying it out.

The State Dept (Hillary) and CIA (Panetta) were now in the execution mode of the covert op.

We now know against the March/April 2011 backdrop of growing information about al-Qaeda’s presence within the rebel units – there was a genuine difference of opinion on whether even getting involved was a good idea.

The Defense Department (Gates, Mullen) was saying no, the State Department (Clinton, Rice), was saying yes.

Remember too, this covert operation was going to require NATO Admiral James Stavridis to allow the weapons into Libya. So lets look at what he was quoted saying around the same timeframe as Mullen and Gates, *knowing Stavridis was one of the actual key figures to make the weapons delivery possible*:

2011 – […] Now, as the White House and NATO continue to debate the possible ramifications of arming the Libyan opposition, the Haqqani network-linked Afghan commander says Libyan al Qaeda affiliates seem to be more “enthusiastic” about the war against Gaddafi every day.

And from what the Afghan Taliban commander has seen, there appears to be more than “flickers” of al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, the description given by NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis(link)

There is Stavridis playing down the possibility of al-Qaeda ideology within the make-up of the Islamic Fighting Group – which is important because by the time this quote was attributed Stavridis was already part of the team coordinating the shipments.

Samantha Power - Susan Rice - President Obama

Also, remember R2P? This March/April 2011 time frame is when “Responsibility To Protect” came up as a justification for our engagement. Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton all wanting to fully support “the rebels”.

Ultimately Obama/Jarrett (The White House) agreed with Hillary Inc (State Dept); hence “Zero Footprint” got the nod – well, let’s be really accurate: it “sort of” got the nod.

Think about it. President Obama authorized arming the Libyan rebels, but the covert nature of Zero Footprint actually reflects the political filter through which all Obama White House decisions are made. A White House team that always looks for an escape hatch in case any decision is ever publicly wrong.

If the rebels were al-Qaeda, the covert op lends plausible deniability.

Isn’t it strange how in 2014 hindsight you can clearly see exactly what we now know as the “Benghazi narrative”; the use of their exact escape hatch because they were al-Qaeda, and it did go horribly and publicly wrong.

Libya Banner 3

Operation Zero Footprint Becomes Political and Legal Risk

It should be noted, and actually emphasized, that Operation Zero Footprint, at least in 2011, was not illegal. Indeed, all indicators are that President Obama followed his constitutional responsibility as he carried out his executive authority.

We know in late February 2011 President Obama signed a Presidential Finding Memo authorizing the State Department and CIA to engage in actions within Libya to identify a course of action.

We know in March 2011 when Hillary Clinton (State Dept) and Leon Panetta (CIA) constructed “Operation Zero Footprint” that President Obama approved the covert action and then informed the Gang of Eight of the weapons transfer operation.

Both of those known facts speak well to the Executive Office following a legally outlined process. This does not, however, dismiss the concern, which became the reality, that the action itself was terribly flawed and horridly imprudent.

During March, April and May 2011 there was enough intelligence information flowing to the White House informing them of exactly who would be the beneficiaries of U.S. Libyan involvement and specifically providing weapons. It did not take long to identify the Benghazi and Darnah “rebels” were actually affiliates of al-Qaeda.

While no-one reporting in 2011 was aware of Operation Zero Footprint, there were literally hundreds of media reports showcasing the ideology of the Libyan “rebel” uprising. Indeed there were numerous reports in mainstream media outlets of al-Qaeda fighters (numerous factions) flowing to Libya to oust their life-long nemesis, Gaddaffi.

From a policy standpoint it will have to be left up to historians to pore over the facts and ultimately decide what was *this* White House goal in the entire region.

      • Ben Ali removal -Tunisia- seemed OK to the administration, Obama and Clinton.
      • Hosni Mubarak removal -Egypt- seemed even more ok to Obama and Clinton.

Both of the above were viewed as potential sources for favorable policy outcomes. Indeed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt -and election of President Morsi- did not seem to be a concern for the White House.

However, when you get to Gaddaffi’s removal -Libya- you see a serious split between ideologies within the U.S. political class as Obama/Clinton actually pushed the outcome. The U.S. defense department saying they were apprehensive about this outcome, and Obama/Clinton going “all in” for Gaddaffi ouster with French President Sarkozy.

The same interventionist Obama/Clinton motivation was evident with Syria’s Assad as yet another uprising surfaced in yet another Mid-East nation – again in March/April 2011.

We know on October 20th 2011 Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddaffi was finally captured, then killed by “the rebels”.

Gaddafi being shotDead-Gaddafi

From the standpoint of “regime change” operation Zero Footprint was a success.

The Libyan Transitional National Council was now in control. Well, maybe in charge, or, well, sort of.

The TNC (pictured below 4 days later) may have been the face of Libya the Obama/Clinton team wanted to portray. But they were merely just that, a face.

Abdel Jalil and the Libyan National Transitional Council

We know Eastern Libya was then (2011), and is now (2014), a hotbed of radical Islam controlled by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Groups, the very people who benefitted from the arms that were part of Zero Footprint.

We know by the Fall/Winter of 2011 the U.S. State Dept and CIA were joined and trying to re-secure the same weapons they provided in the Spring/Summer.

December 2011 – New York Times:

“Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro raised the American desire to arrange a purchase program in a meeting this month with Libya’s new defense minister, according to American officials familiar with the proposal.

The United States has committed $40 million to secure Libya’s arms stockpiles, much of it to prevent the spread of Manpads. No budget has been designed for a purchase program, and the price to be paid for each missile and its components has not been determined, the official said. (link)

We know from a speech delivered by Asst. Secretary of State Shapiro in Feb of 2012 the actual program to recapture the Zero Footprint weapons began in August of 2011 about two months before Gaddaffi was killed:

“Once the stalemate broke and the fighting rapidly shifted in the TNC’s [Libyan Transitional National Council] favor in August, we immediately deployed a State Department expert from the MANPADS Task Force to Benghazi.

Mark Adams, who you will hear from shortly on the panel, is the head of our MANPADS Task Force and spent considerable time on the ground in Libya.

[… ] The initial primary objective was to reach an agreement with the TNC to set up a MANPADS control and destruction program that would enable us to set up what we call our Phase I efforts.

Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure, and disable loose MANPADS across the country. To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists.”

We know those “civilian technical specialists”, being talked about in August 2011, were contractors, CIA contractors, hired by the State Department to recapture the weapons – some of which they provided as a specific consequence of Operation Zero Footprint.

If the story ended there it would be bad enough. A flawed policy, a secret mission arm the Libyan “rebels” without a great deal of thinking through the longer term consequences. A flawed policy with political consequences.

But when you think about the larger picture you understand why the details of the covert weapons operation Zero Footprint were so tightly guarded among select members of Congress (the Gang of Eight), the CIA (Panetta), the State Department (Clinton) and the White House (Donilon).

Each of them was trying to manage a covert operation that would expose a U.S. policy decision to arm al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist militias.

But that’s only “IF” the story ended there, in Libya, at the end of 2011 into the beginning of 2012. It didn’t, the decisions got worse – much worse.

Syria Banner

The uprising in Syria was only a few months behind the uprising in Libya. Arguably if the timing were reversed you could ponder that Assad would have met Gaddaffi’s fate, and Gaddaffi would be as alive today as President Assad.

Whichever rebel group got the attention of the R2P crowd was sure to be the first to get assistance. The Obama R2P Doctrine is so tenuous, and so lacking in political principle, it’s subject to change based on the political whims of capitol hill at any given moment.

The Libyan “rebels” got all the weaponry love – the Syrian “rebels”, not-so-much. At least in 2011; by mid 2012 that sentiment appears to have changed.

Enter Hillary Clinton. As she reiterated vehemently to Greta Van Sustern during a recent interview, it was Hillary who wanted to help the Syrian rebels when no-one else wanted to assist them. Secretary Hillary Clinton wanted early and direct interventionist action in Syria to topple Assad just like Gaddaffi.

Obviously consequences from the first covert weapons mission in Libya made a stark case for not repeating it in Syria. Another huge factor against helping the FSA was Israel. Ultimately Israel could not afford to be put into such a risky position if Syrian rebel forces were given arms that ultimately might be used against them.

Additionally, you would think there’s no way congress, in an election year, would approve of funding Syrian rebels against the possibility of it hurting Israel; And the White House was not about to do a known and official covert operation which had a great potential to go sideways, and become far too politically dangerous. 2012 was an election year.

But they did.

Who wanted to aid Syria more? President Obama or Hillary Clinton? That is a question for later year historians. Regardless of how the idea came up, we know a decision was made to do it, and to do it covertly.

Arming the Benghazi Darnah rebels was, well, stupid. It was actually stupid, and politically stupid, but it was not illegal.

Arming jihadist fighters in Syria likewise ended up being stupid but by all appearances NOT illegal.

obama-hillary-holding-hands-wh-photo

In August 2012, one month before the attack on the Benghazi Compound, the following Reuters article appeared. This is how we find out about the SECOND presidential findingwhich again authorized covert CIA involvement, this time in Syria:

WASHINGTON, Aug 1 [2012] (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.

Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.

The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.

But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad’s opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.

Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.

The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.

‘NERVE CENTER’

A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.

Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad’s opponents.

This “nerve center” is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.

Turkey’s moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad’s departure with growing vehemence. Turkish authorities are said by current and former U.S. government officials to be increasingly involved in providing Syrian rebels with training and possibly equipment.

European government sources said wealthy families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing significant financing to the rebels. Senior officials of the Saudi and Qatari governments have publicly called for Assad’s departure.

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen surface-to-air missiles, weapons that could be used against Assad’s helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Syrian government armed forces have employed such air power more extensively in recent days.

NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.

On Wednesday, however, Bassam al-Dada, a political adviser to the Free Syrian Army, denied the NBC report, telling the Arabic-language TV network Al-Arabiya that the group had “not obtained any such weapons at all.” U.S. government sources said they could not confirm the MANPADs deliveries, but could not rule them out either.

Current and former U.S. and European officials previously said that weapons supplies, which were being organized and financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were largely limited to guns and a limited number of anti-tank weapons, such as bazookas.

Indications are that U.S. agencies have not been involved in providing weapons to Assad’s opponents. In order to do so, Obama would have to approve a supplement, known as a “memorandum of notification, to his initial broad intelligence finding.

Further such memoranda would have to be signed by Obama to authorize other specific clandestine operations to support Syrian rebels.

Reuters first reported last week that the White House had crafted a directive authorizing greater U.S. covert assistance to Syrian rebels. It was unclear at that time whether Obama had signed it. (read more)

Note how the FSA says they didn’t get missiles, and yet missiles were shipped. This is important against the backdrop of the reality the extreme elements we now call ISIL were operating in Syria and openly laughing at our inability to identify them:

“NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD” – members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.

(JULY 2012) As they stood outside the commandeered government building in the town of Mohassen, it was hard to distinguish Abu Khuder’s men from any other brigade in the Syrian civil war, in their combat fatigues, T-shirts and beards.

But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.

They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.

According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. “We meet almost every day,” he said. “We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations.” Abu Khuder’s men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.

[…] Abu Khuder split with the FSA and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s organisation in Syria, the Jabhat al Nusra or Solidarity Front. He let his beard grow and adopted the religious rhetoric of a jihadi, becoming a commander of one their battalions.

“The Free Syrian Army has no rules and no military or religious order. Everything happens chaotically,” he said. “Al-Qaida has a law that no one, not even the emir, can break.

The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. They have an organisation that all countries have acknowledged.

In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience,” he told the gathered people. “Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion.”

At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: “So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?”

“[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state,” he replied. “Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah’s jurisdiction. If you don’t commit sins there is nothing to fear.” (link – more)

Against the backdrop of ISIL 2014 does this Sound familiar ?

It should also be noted this is the exact time (August 2012) when the U.N. and Kofi Annan gave up trying to influence a peaceful outcome in Syria – things had escalated beyond any hope for a diplomatic resolution.

We know the basic set up to arm the Syrian rebellion was generally not too complex.

Turkey would be used as the distribution hub, and the U.S. had Sunni friends in Saudi Arabia, and Qatar -who were more than willing to see Assad removed- and financially assist in arming the Syrians without too great a concern for what could happen to Israel.

For Obama/Clinton to get weapons to the Syrians, against the shadow of Operation Zero Footprint, without going extensively through congress, could be done covertly and easily. Either ship weapons just like Operation Zero Footprint, Saudi=> Qatar=> Turkey=> Syria, OR, buy back the weapons already floating around from Operation Zero Footprint and redirect them to Syria through Turkey.

OR both.

The Saudis would be a willing financier if the State Dept needed additional money to facilitate the transfers.

We know Ambassador Chris Stevens set up a formal U.S. Embassy consulate in Tripoli around May 26th of 2012; and we know the State Dept and CIA set up their joint operations in Benghazi around the same time. We also now know this is around the EXACT time of the second Presidential CIA Directive.

Looking at the historical timeline, and knowing the contacts developed, gives a great perspective into what would have spurred the CIA/State Department to set up a more expansive presence and operation in the coastal region of Eastern Libya May/June 2012.

The official U.S. State Dept Libyan presence was vacated on Feb 25th of 2011 when the embassy personnel were evacuated. Stevens was re-establishing the diplomatic office and acting as Ambassador to Libya during the 2012 reconstruction phase.

What we did not know at the time was that Chris Stevens was also acting as the facilitator for U.S. arms shipments OUT OF LIBYA, through Turkish diplomatic couriers and into Syria. While coordinating a second covert action to arm the Syrian resistance.

A very strong argument can easily be made that Chris Stevens was a CIA operative inside the State Department. Many people within the State Department are CIA personnel using the State Dept as part of their visible cover.

In Eastern Libya June, July, August 2012 – Obviously the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Ansar Al Sharia, aka 17th Feb Brigade, and all of their commanders knew of the U.S. Benghazi weapons programs. Both the 2011 distribution, and the 2012 repurchase.

Considering the redeployment to Syria – for the most part the Benghazi and Darnah brigades would have been in alignment with their Jihadist brethren in Syria being the beneficiaries of any additional shipments.

But there was in 2011/2012 – as noted in the above articles – an ideological rift between the newly emboldened Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘more initially moderate’ Free Syrian Army (FSA). As the Libyan conflict rolled on through the summer of 2011 more al-Qaeda elements flocked from other engagements into the Syrian fight. Moderates were replaced by extremists.

By the time of the second presidential directive, as Hillary and Chris Stevens were working on support for Syria, Summer 2012, the radical Syrian opposition was embedded inside the FSA. Arguably in hindsight they were the majority element.

The Syrian opposition had three al-Qaida arms operating within it. Including one that also operated in Libya:

      • Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
      • Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
      • Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.

It would be into this eclectic mix of Jihadist ideologues, which later became ISIL, that any diverted U.S. arms would flow. It’s no wonder that Senator John McCain was so confused when he was calling them “moderates” in 2012/2013. Almost no-one knew the severe elements in Syria would rise to the surface and become the modern ISIS now capturing all of the global attention.

ISIS John McCain - Abu Mosa

https://twitter.com/ThinkAgain_DOS/statuses/502449737011068928

al-Qaeda with flags

And…. If you just realized…. Yes, ISIS or ISIL currently on the march in Iraq, came from Syria, fought in Syria and more than likely was armed by the U.S. inside Syria and Turkey. They were more likely trained, in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence; by the same CIA operatives used by the State Dept to send Syria weapons from Benghazi and Darnah back in Libya.

If Operation Zero Footprint in Libya was stupid, arming the Syrian branches of al-Qaeda two years after the FSA was thoroughly corrupted by al-Qaeda, is infinite degrees beyond stupid.

But that’s hindsight for ya….. or as Secretary Clinton would say “Whether they were, … at this point, what difference does it make?

By June of 2012 the New York Times was reporting that the CIA is operating a secret arms transfer program to Syria that sounded exactly like the re-diversion plan Clinton developed with Panetta/Petraeus. According to the Times suddenly, there is: “…an influx of weapons and ammunition to the rebels.”

The Reuters article in August 2012 confirms the earlier report.

We know on September 5th 2012 – A Libyan flagged ship called Al Entisar (“The Victory”) docks in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It is carrying 400 tons of cargo including many weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels 35 miles away from Iskenderun.

The ship’s captain told the Times of London that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army broke into a fight over the arms.

Operation Zero Footprint

In response to the Times of London report, and in a generally dismissed part of her congressional testimony, Senator Rand Paul asked outgoing Secretary Hillary Clinton a very specific question – (See @2:20 of this video and pay attention to the “duping delight”):

Which would bring us to a series of now reconcilable questions surrounding the joint State Dept. and CIA Benghazi Mission.

The entire weapons operation 2011 was labeled “Operation Zero Footprint”. The intent is outlined in the operational title – to leave no visible record of U.S. involvement in arming the Libyan “rebels”No visible footprint.

We know from congressional inquiry Ambassador Chris Stevens had asked for more security in the months prior to Sept. 11th 2012. Requests sent to the State Dept that were denied.

We also know that NO MARINE DETACHMENT was ever put in place to defend the Benghazi Mission.

We also know the Benghazi Mission was initially, and mistakenly by media, called “a consulate”, or a “consulate outpost”. But there was no State Dept record of any consulate office in Benghazi.

All of these seeming contradictions can be reconciled with the simple understanding that this “Mission” in 2011 was unofficial. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

We also know the Second Operation, in 2012, to arm the Syrians’was also covert – No visible footprint.

Why were security requests denied? Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

We know from General Carter Ham (AFRICOM Commander now retired) the Department of Defense was not even aware the State Dept was operating a mission in Benghazi during 2012. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

How could Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, or Patrick Kennedy approve or request a marine security detachment knowing the entire mission around both Benghazi operations was covert?

Such a request would have travelled outside the small group of State/CIA insiders. The request would have gone to DoD. Short answer, they couldn’t.

Hence the disconnect between what seemed to be obvious and/or simple questions and the inability to accurately discuss in the public venues of congressional inquiry.

To the public Chris Stevens was a U.S. ambassador, a diplomat. To the folks inside the State Dept and CIA, Chris Stevens was a U.S. Ambassador, AND a CIA operative coordinating covert arms sales.

In 2011 those arms shipments were to aid the Libyan rebels, in 2012 those same arms were redirected to aid the Syrian rebels.

Even after death the public face of Chris Stevens, the official role, was the only role able to be discussed. The covert, or unofficial role, was not. Again, we see the disconnect between inquiry that could be answered, and inquiry that could not be answered. Many irreconcilables surface because of this intelligence role – even through today.

The second role of Stevens, the covert and CIA aspect, still causes problems for people trying to understand the “why not” questions. The broader public asking why have we not seen, or heard from the survivors of the attacks?

The short answer is, we have not heard from the survivors – but the intelligence community has.

Twice some of the survivors have given testimony to congress. The problem for the public is that those hearings are closed door, classified, intelligence hearings – led by Chairman Mike Rogers and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Again, go back to the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint and you see the congressional Intelligence Gang of Eight were fully aware of the intents.

The Gang of Eight in 2011 / 2012 was: House Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.

Why was Speaker Boehner reluctant to establish a Select Committee on Benghazi ?

Simple, again he is one of the Gang of Eight – and he was briefed on both operations. How is he going to call for a select committee when he knows the substance of the committee investigation is classified under national security. Such a committee would not, because it could not, deliver what the public was requesting, sunlight.

The only reason Trey Gowdy was finally assigned the task of a Select Committee, was simply because the public lies of the White House and administration were contradicting themselves.

The White House “talking points“, which was/is a ridiculous squirrel hunt, were created to reconcile the problem faced when unable to discuss a covert operation.

It is far easier to look at the reality of the problem faced by the White House and CIA than any nefarious intention.

Unfortunately for the administration they are not that good.

Team Obama was so committed to keeping the covert operations “Zero Footprint” a secret (because of the political embarrassment from factually arming al Qaeda) that the cover story they manufactured (on the fly) was fraught with contradictions.

How could President Obama dispatch help to the Benghazi team, when DoD was not even aware of it’s existence? Sending help would have compromised OpSec, Operational Security.

The dispatch of F.E.S.T. would lead to increased knowledge of a covert operation.

Hopefully you are beginning to see the root of the contradictions. Once you understand the truth of what was going on within the backstory – there’s almost nothing left which would dangle as an unanswered question. It all reconciles.

Back to the FALL of 2012 – On September 5th/6th 2012 the Turkish vessel “Al Entisar” docked in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. 400 tons of serious cargo including weapons destined for Syrian “rebels”.

In the U.S. that September 5th night former President Bill Clinton was introducing Candidate Barack Obama at the DNC convention in Charlotte North Carolina. In Afghanistan that night something happened that had already become a serious concern for the operatives within “Operation Zero Footprint”.

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Thalia Ramirez. Ramirez was killed when her OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter crashed in eastern Afghanistan Sept. 5, 2012. Ramirez was assigned to Troop F, 1-17 Air Cavalry Regiment, 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division. Photo: Photo Courtesy Pro Image Digital;Inc., Courtesy / U.S. ArmyAt the exact time Clinton was speaking in North Carolina, halfway around the world in Afghanistan Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, of San Antonio and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, of San Juan, in the Rio Grande Valley, were killed while flying an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, a Defense Department news release stated.

On September 5th 2012 – A U.S. organized ship loaded with weapons including missiles was offloading at a Turkish port. Bill Clinton was introducing Barack Obama, and the first black female combat pilot was shot down and killed by a shoulder fired missile in Afghanistan.

The relationship between the three events reflects the absolute political fear that revolved around Operation Zero Footprint.

The CIA and Intelligence community had stated earlier the biggest concern anyone held about arming the Libyan Rebels was the possibility those weapons might leave the Libyan conflict and travel to other locations where they would be used against our own soldiers. More and more evidence of this happening was growing.

In 2011 a total of four air assets were destroyed by enemy fire in Afghanistan. Two of those helicopters happened at the same time in August 2011 when we lost the Navy Seal unit that killed Osama Bin Laden. 22 Americans killed.

We had been in close quarter full combat operations in Afghanistan for 10 years, and we never had a problem with close air support. We had never faced the concern of our enemy having MANPADS.

From 2002 through 2010 Combat Operations saw zero occurrences of SAMS, Stingers, or MANPADS in general.

Within months after delivering weapons to the Benghazi and Darnah rebels (May, June and July 2011) we began facing MANPADS in Afghanistan.

Four instances in late in 2011 including the 22 lives lost in what came to be known as Operation “Extortion 17”.

In 2012 it got worse, much worse: June 1st AFGHANISTAN:

A combined patrol discovered a weapons cache containing three shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles, three anti-tank mines, 423 RPGs, 118,600 7.62 mm rounds, 30 rifles and other ordnance in the Tarin Kot district of Uruzgan province. The cache’s contents were destroyed.(link)

We had a serious problem and it was picking up speed exponentially. June 6th 2012 we lost another crew. July 25th 2012 yet another. August 16th 2012 again more losses. September 5th 2012 more deaths. It just kept getting worse.

By September 5th 2012 in the preceding nine months we had lost 11 helicopters to shoulder fired missiles in Afghanistan. The following headline hit the media:

America Suffers Worst Airpower Loss Since Vietnam

One of the incidents revealed details of what was being faced. The July 25th 2012 downing of a CH-47 which was found to have been hit with a “new generation” stinger missile. The risks were no longer mere worries, they were real:

[O]n July 25, 2012, Taliban fighters in Kunar province successfully targeted a US Army CH-47 helicopter with a new generation Stinger missile.

They thought they had a surefire kill. But instead of bursting into flames, the Chinook just disappeared into the darkness as the American pilot recovered control of the aircraft and brought it to the ground in a hard landing.

The assault team jumped out the open doors and ran clear in case it exploded. Less than 30 seconds later, the Taliban gunner and his comrade erupted into flames as an American gunship overhead locked onto their position and opened fire.

The next day, an explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to pick through the wreckage and found unexploded pieces of a missile casing that could only belong to a Stinger missile.

Lodged in the right nacelle, they found one fragment that contained an entire serial number.

The investigation took time. Arms were twisted, noses put out of joint. But when the results came back, they were stunning: The Stinger tracked back to a lot that had been signed out by the CIA recently, not during the anti-Soviet ­jihad.

Reports of the Stinger reached the highest echelons of the US command in Afghanistan and became a source of intense speculation, but no action.

Everyone knew the war was winding down. Revealing that the Taliban had US-made Stingers risked demoralizing coalition troops. Because there were no coalition casualties, government officials made no public announcement of the attack.

My sources in the US Special Operations community believe the Stinger fired against the Chinook was part of the same lot the CIA turned over to the ­Qataris in early 2011, weapons Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department intended for anti-Khadafy forces in Libya.

They believe the Qataris delivered between 50 and 60 of those same Stingers to the Taliban in early 2012, and an additional 200 SA-24 Igla-S surface-to-air missiles. (link)

In Afghanistan the DoD field response was immediate; all Close Air Support was cancelled.

The White House had a problem – “Operation Zero Footprint” missiles were now being used against us, but DoD didn’t know the origin because the Defense Department did not know about Zero Footprint, the State Department and CIA did.

The killing of Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, might not have been the final straw – but their September 5th 2012 deaths coincided with an absolute change in direction.

While the ISIS-minded Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army were arguing over who gets what from aboard the Turkish vessel, back in Benghazi, Libya it was obvious the ideology of the Syrian factions were too extreme and the CIA could no longer control who would use such weapons.

God forbid DoD ground commanders in Afghanistan find out the MANPADS they were facing originated by our covert efforts in Libya.

Tayyip Erdogan - Turkey, David Cameron - U.K.

Tayyip Erdogan – Turkey, David Cameron – U.K.

Strangely one must give credit to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As unbelievable as it might sound he was the lone Islamic voice in March 2011 saying “don’t arm the Benghazi rebels“:

March 2011 – Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has said he does not support the idea of arming Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.

Speaking at a joint news conference with David Cameron, the British prime minister, in London, Erdogan said: “Doing that would create a different situation in Libya and we do not find it appropriate to do that.”

Erdogan also said that that sending weapons to Libya could feed terrorism, saying such weapons shipments “could also create an environment which could be conducive to terrorism”. (read more)

Erdogan and U.S. Defense Secretary Bob Gates were of the same mindset.

“My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” (link)

However, for Syria in 2012 Erdogan had a divergent opinion. He was all for arming the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. This article, again from August 2012 – one month prior to the attack against Chris Stevens, outlines the goal of both Erdogan and President Obama:

(August 2012) President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke by telephone Monday “to coordinate efforts to accelerate a political transition in Syria,” the White House said.

This “would include the departure of (Syrian leader) Bashar Assad and be responsive to the legitimate demands of the Syrian people,” the statement said.

Obama and Erdogan shared their concerns over the Syrian regime’s crackdown on opposition “and the deteriorating humanitarian conditions throughout Syria as a result of the regime’s atrocities.”

Both [Obama and Erodgan] promised to coordinate efforts to help the growing numbers of Syrians displaced by the violence within Syria or forced to flee over the border to take refuse in Turkey or other nations in the region.

The statement said US and Turkish teams “would remain in close contact on ways that Turkey and the United States can work together to promote a democratic transition in Syria.” (link)

Obama Erdogan - Turkey

Alas, given the backstory of DoD not wanting to arm the rebels, and given the unintended consequences of 2011/2012 from Operation Zero Footprint, and given an upcoming election in November 2012, you can see why in post September 11 of 2012 the Obama administration would want to discontinue this operation and throw a bag over the events of the past 17 months.

Perhaps following the fiasco at the Port of Iskenderun a week earlier, Turkish Diplomat Consul General Ali Sait Akin arrives at the Benghazi Mission on Sept 11th 2012 to talk about the ongoing efforts to support Syria.

Perhaps, the conversation was about the increasing risk of arming a rising group of radicals against the backdrop of MANPADS being used against U.S. forces in other fields of combat.

Regardless of motivation Ali Sait Akin and Stevens were most certainly discussing the current situation with Turkey suffering the consequences and pushing a greater sense of urgency.

Indeed Turkey’s border region was filled with historic numbers of Syrian refugees fleeing the fighting which was completely out of control. The Scale of the crisis was staggering and out of control. Over 500,000 Syrians were now seeking shelter in Turkey.

Meanwhile the ideology of the radical elements controlling the arms shipments was openly becoming a danger to the entire region, and especially U.S. interests beyond Syria.

This would have put Stevens (U.S.) and Akin (Turkey) as opposing ends of the issue.

What we now know as ISIS – originated inside this group of Zero Footprint recipients, and Erdogan while willing to see Assad removed, was also well aware that these elements do not believe in borders. These rabid ideologues (now known as ISIS-2014) were quickly evolving into a risk for the region.

The U.S. policy team would have viewed the risk far differently than Turkey.

As the New York Times reported in an Oct. 14 2012 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

We can only imagine the conversation within the Benghazi compound as both Ali Sait Akin and Chris Stevens parted ways for the final time on September 11th 2012.

Outside the compound walls, the 17th Feb Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia – were also assembled to deliver their final goodbyes.

The Turkish delegation was able to navigate the roadblocks without issue. And within 30 minutes of Consul Akin leaving the venue, Ansar Al Sharia executed their attack.

The Benghazi and Darnah Brigades already knew the compound inside and out, as well as the CIA ANNEX compound, a kilometer away, which contained four warehouse type buildings used by the CIA during the collection, distribution and delivery of Zero Footprint’s objectives over the past 17 months.

In June of 2009 the primary Benghazi Mission compound looked like this:

In March of 2011, when Operation Zero Footprint began, the Tactical Operations Command building (TOC) was added and it looked like this:

.

In December of 2005 the area which became the CIA Annex compound held two buildings:

.

In 2009 two more buildings were added bringing the total to FOUR:

.

By the time the CIA took over 2011, and when the compound came under mortar fire 2012, it looked like this:

 

Author’s notes:

patriotThe primary reason for outlining this brief is to deliver a greater understanding of why things happened the way they did in the post 9/11/12 attack media frenzy.

If you understand what took place from March 2011 through the night of the attack itself all of the contradictions reconcile, and most of the questions become answered.

Factually, I would challenge anyone who reads this brief to actually have a question left unanswered.

The events of the attack itself are gut wrenching and troubling. Our brave operations folks had to fight their way out of a situation where they literally were on their own due to the political risks inherent in carrying out their objectives.

However, they knew they were beyond the wire – they knew there was no manner, method or possibility of protection…. And this is the point everyone seems to miss:

THEY KNEW THE DoD WAS IN THE DARK ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITY. There was NOTHING the Pentagon could have done to help them. Those people inside the Eastern Libya City of Benghazi, operating on behalf of the administration, were, for all intents and purposes, GHOSTS. They did not “technically” exist.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the mission they were tasked to carry out, there is no doubt they worked honorably to serve their nation. Ultimately the leadership within the State Department, The CIA, and the White House are responsible for the outcomes of policy.

Our hope is that this outline will stimulate journalists to question those who were at the heart of these two operations. Ultimately the Trey Gowdy select committee will find there is no venue to discuss intelligence operations with public sunlight. While both Zero Footprint in 2011, and the Unnamed CIA operation in 2012 were flawed policy – they were not necessarily illegal.

There is a matter of an unidentified State Dept $6 billion contractor fund missing from Hillary’s term as Secretary of State; that might bear investigation. However, beyond those smaller questions there is little if anything to gain.

FUBAR.

~ Sundance

Common Questions: The AFTERMATH – “The Cairo Protest VS The Benghazi Attack”

Here is where people get confused – because the U.S. State department wanted people to get confused.

On 9/11/12 the State Department was originally trying to deflect attention away from the Cairo Embassy Protest.

CNN correspondent Nick Robertson interviewed Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Al Zawahiri on the morning of the planned Cairo protest 9/11/12. Zawahiri and team told Robertson they were rallying and protesting for the release of the Blind Sheik.

The protest turned violent and the U.S. Embassy was overrun by extremists who eventually hoisted the black flag of al-Qaeda within the compound.

The State Dept was trying desperately to cover their ass and frame the narrative so the optics of the al-Qaeda onslaught to the Embassy could be controlled.

To hide the intentions of the protesting mob (release of the Blind Sheik) the U.S. State Department fell back on a story about the Mohammed video – which they found out about two days earlier.

Against the backdrop of an upcoming election, and with Republicans beating up Democrats over the short-sighted foreign policy, the State Dept did not want the Muhammed Al Zawahiri narrative. The compound being overrun was a political embarrassment so they used the silly video to explain the protest:

(Remember this is all early in the day – prior to the Benghazi attack)

However, Mitt Romney jumped on this State Dept. Press Release to make the case that the U.S. appeared weak and apologetic. It created an immediate stir.

Unknown at the time was an UNRELATED attack was taking place at the Benghazi compound. The attack at Benghazi Libya had nothing to do with the protests at the Cairo embassy.

However, once the Benghazi attack took place, the State Dept needed a cover story which would sell to the U.S. electorate to explain the Benghazi issues. What Hillary and team did was sell/use the Cairo story as an explanation for Benghazi.

This is how the YouTube video came into play.

The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Cairo Embassy Protest.
The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.

Nothing about the YouTube story was correct. It was all manufactured excuse-making, strategically put into the media cycle to protect the administration from the reality of flawed policy.

The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Embassy protest in Cairo, nor the Benghazi attack in Libya. By now I think everyone would concur, albeit the media never went back to the Cairo motive to discuss because it became a secondary issue.

Did the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Cairo, or specifically Muhammed Al Zawahiri, coordinate in some way with Ansar al Sharia in Libya, specifically on 9/11/12?

That’s a good question – unfortunately however, it’s a question without a factual answer. I don’t know; and an argument can be made that given all of the players and the influx of their communication it’s quite possible there was some coordination of effort.

What is factually certain is any communication they did have had nothing to do with a ridiculous U-Tube video.

The Cairo protest was 100% certain to be about the release of the Blind Sheik.

Was the Benghazi attack related in some effort to gain a hostage (Chris Stevens) as leverage toward that Al Zawahiri effort? Possible. I’ve seen that argument made, but have not been able to definitively connect the two.

It is a hard question to answer because the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammed Al Zawahiri (the brother of al-Qaeda’s #1 Ayman Al Zawahiri), and the leadership of Ansar Al Sharia were not necessarily telling the foot soldiers the plans or larger objectives.

I do, however, believe the answer, if known, would be known by Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and his team of military and intelligence people. The most reasonable approach is to listen to the Egyptian intelligence leadership on this point

DHS Whistleblower Philip Haney Dies of Gunshot Wound – Amador Sheriff Rules Suicide…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on  by 

Several new outlets have been reporting today on the death of Philip Haney, a DHS whistleblower who became well known for outlining how the Obama administration downplayed issues surrounding domestic radical Jihadist activity and Islamic terrorism.

It is being reported by Amador County, CA, sheriff’s office that Haney died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.  However, many people are questioning the finding.

CALIFORNIA – Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower Philip Haney was found dead in Amador County, Calif., on Friday, according to local authorities.

Haney, 66, “appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound,” the Amador County Sheriff’s Office said in a release. Sheriff and coroner Martin A. Ryan shared the initial details of the case.

“On February 21, 2020 at approximately 1012 hours, deputies and detectives responded to the area of Highway 124 and Highway 16 in Plymouth to the report of a male subject on the ground with a gunshot wound,” the release read.

“Upon their arrival, they located and identified 66-year-old Philip Haney, who was deceased and appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound. A firearm was located next to Haney and his vehicle. This investigation is active and ongoing. No further details will be released at this time,” the office added. (read more)

DocWashburn@DocWashburn

Phil Haney was murdered last night. When BHO became President, Phil’s work identifying those (who come here to kill us) was scrubbed from intelligence training manuals & hard drives. Here’s my interview w/Phil about his book, “See Something, Say Nothing”. https://soundcloud.com/docwashburnradio/phillip-haney-5-23-17-karn 

809 people are talking about this

Kevin Shipp@Kevin_Shipp

Whistleblower Phil Haney shot dead last night. I knew Phil. He was exposing the penetration of the US government by Islamic cultural jihadists. He was instrumental in exposing Keith Ellision and Obama’s concealment of radical Islam in America.

View image on Twitter
7,395 people are talking about this

Paul Sperry@paulsperry_

BREAKING: The late DHS whistleblower Philip Haney was owed tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid royalties for his bestselling book, “See Something, Say Nothing,” and at one point had sought a class-action lawsuit with other authors stiffed by the publisher

1,302 people are talking about this


Just how is Chinese communist disinformation playing into coverage of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? How has the Chinese regime been ramping up its efforts to spread propaganda and shape news content globally, including in the US? And, what methods does Beijing use to systematically suppress dissenting voices and critical coverage? This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

President Trump Remarks During Business Session With Nation’s Governors – Video and Transcript…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree house on  by 

Earlier today President Trump hosted a business luncheon with U.S. governors to discuss economic expansion and administration policy efforts to assist the states.

[Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Wow. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. It’s a great honor to have you at the White House, a very special place. Beautiful and so meaningful in so many ways. And our country has never done better. You’re all doing really well. Every state is doing well. I can say most every state in the room today is setting records. And we’d like to think that the federal government has been helping you a lot.

But it is wonderful being with you. And we had a great evening last night. And the talent of those musicians — they could be anywhere in the world. Many of them could work in the great opera houses, but they love the military.

When you heard the violins and the talent, the great talent — I don’t know if anybody has an ear for music. Believe it or not, a long time ago, I was told I have a great ear for music by somebody. (Laughter.) I took a test. They said, “He has a wonderful aptitude for music.” I said, “I do?” (Laughter.)

But when you listen to that, it’s really incredible, the talent. They’re great people. They want to be in the military; they don’t want to be anywhere else. So it’s really — really something.

As I said in my State of the Union last week, we’re in the midst of a great American comeback. With the help of many of the people in this room — and you’ve done, really, a fantastic job — I think I can say that just about everybody — I’ll say “just about,” just in case. Someday, somebody is going to run or do something that I won’t like, and I can have a little bit of an out when I say “just about.” (Laughter.) I said, “No, he was included in the ‘just about.’” But we’re creating the most prosperous economy and the most inclusive society ever to exist, actually.

Since my election, America has gained 7 million new jobs. We added 225,000 jobs in January alone, crushing expectations. The unemployment rate reached the lowest level in 50 years. And a statistic that’s incredible to me is: The average unemployment that we’ve had during this three-year period is the lowest in the history of our country. Compared to any other administration, the lowest in the history of our country. The unemployment rate for African American, Hispanic American, and Asian Americans have reached the lowest level ever recorded.

Low-income workers have seen a 16 percent pay increase since my election — something that’s so great to see. When I campaigned, they hadn’t had rate increases, pay increases for 20 years, 21 years. They were working three jobs and two jobs, and making less money than they made 20 years ago.

Median household income, as you all know very well, is the highest ever recorded, by far. Since 2016, 28 states have reached or matched their lowest unemployment rate on record. So we have 28 and you — I think, soon, we’re going to have just about everybody. And at the end of last year, a record 39 states had unemployment below 4 percent. Again, another record.

Just as I promised during my campaign, we’re fighting every day to expand opportunity for African American communities all across our country. African American youth — we have such great news on African American youth — unemployment has reached its lowest level ever recorded. It’s a great statistic. African American poverty rates have plummeted to their lowest rate ever in history. And wages for African American workers have increased $2,400 a year. That’s also a record.

At the center of our economic agenda are Opportunity Zones. I hope you’re embracing them. I think many of you are. My administration has worked with the governors in this room to create nearly 9,000 Opportunity Zones in our most vulnerable communities. Jobs and money are pouring into these areas that have never seen investment. I mean, they haven’t seen them in decades and decades and decades. And hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into certain communities — individual communities. Hundreds of millions of dollars. And there’s never been anything like it: Opportunity Zones. Tim Scott did a great job on that. Senator Tim Scott.

I urge all governors to create a state-level version of our White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council to coordinate the efforts of state government to provide maximum support for the Opportunity Zones. And we’re there to help you. If you have a problem, call me. Literally, call me and we’ll work it out. But the Opportunity Zones — and that’s Democrat or Republican, by the way. Opportunities have been fantastic.

We must not stop until we have delivered equal and abundant opportunity for every community in our land. And that’s what’s happening.

To give former prisoners a second chance — this has worked better than any program ever — I was proud to sign the landmark criminal justice reform into law. And since that time, 10 states have passed legislation following our lead. And there were numerous states. I know Texas was there, Governor, with criminal justice reform. Amazing. And Kentucky and a few others that were thought of as being very strict states and yet they had criminal justice reform. We looked at a lot of what Texas did and some of the other states where it worked so well.

And Alice Johnson, as an example, she was in for 22 years and she had another 20 years to serve on something that — everything is bad, but to be in jail for 40 and 50 years for what Alice did on a telephone was crazy.

Thanks to our roaring economy, former inmates are now finding jobs. And the employers are so happy. Now, the economy is really helping, but it’s the first time ever where prisoners coming out of jail are finding jobs, loving it. And the employers — the feedback we’re getting from so many people, so many employers are: These are among the best people they have. And they were, in a way, forced by the economy, the good economy, because it’s hard to get people. Down to 3.5 [percent] and actually, it went to 3.6 [percent] because we’re opening up the valve. They’re hiring more and more people. That was a positive. Two hundred and twenty-five thousand, as I said.

But the prisoners are now working and they’re doing a phenomenal job, for the most part.

Our booming prosperity is being fueled by our historic regulatory reduction campaign. In my first month in office, I imposed a “two-for-one” rule, requiring for every one new regulation, two old ones must be eliminated.

Well, that turned out to be — we went to four, we went to six, we went to eight. We had a period where we were at 22 to 1. Twenty-two to one. And we’re eliminating, on average, $3,100 in regulation costs per family a year. Nobody has ever even heard of such a thing.

And we’re getting housing built too. We have rules and regulations — made it impossible. I hope California gets their act together because the cost of regulation is almost the cost of a house. And they need housing, and they can’t — they can’t build it. They don’t know what they’re doing.

The Governors’ Initiative on Regulatory Innovation is designed to continue our unprecedented progress through straight — state-level deregulation.

Governor Doug Ducey has achieved 3 for 1 on cuts. Where’s Doug? Good job, Doug. (Laughter.) Well, you only won by about 17 percent, so, you know. He should be — in fact, at 17 percent, you should be at 4 to 1, I think. Right? (Laughter.) That was a big win. A big win. That was a great win.

And Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma has reached 2 for 1 and going to 3 for 1. Where’s Kevin? Hi, Kevin. Good job. Great.

We’re also working together — and many of you in the room have done much better than 1 for 1. Some of you, you’re up to four.

We’re also working together to reform occupational licensing. Just this year, at least 12 governors have taken action to reduce burdensome occupational licensing requirements. That means licensing, where either it’s unnecessary or where you actually can do it very quickly. There are some licensing requirements that takes years to get approved, and it could take a matter of days. Could take a matter of days.

Governors understand the need to get infrastructure projects quickly approved. To speed up permitting and reduce traffic conjection — congestion, last month, we issued a proposed new rule to reduce permitting and the permitting time for new infrastructure by more than 70 percent. Highways that were taking 12 years to get approved, 14, 15, 17, 21 years, we’re trying to get it down to one year. That means you may get rejected if you have an environmental problem or a safety problem. In many cases, these highways became much more unsafe and they took a long time because they’d try and get away from certain problems, including nesting. But they’d try and get away, and instead of having a straight run, they’d create curves in the highway, which obviously make it much more dangerous. And they had problems with some of those highways. And they’re much more expensive to build — not only the time — the design but the time. I mean, by the time they get it approved.

So we have highways that would take 21 years. We have roads that took 10 years, 11 years, 12 years to get approved. And Elaine Chao has been fantastic. Elaine, thank you very much. The job you’re doing at transportation, we appreciate it very much.

And, Jeff, you were over there for a long while, I will tell you, so I have to give you at least partial credit. Right now you’re at a different location. (Laughter.)

But you really did — you did a great job on that. And — so we have it down to two years now, but we — I think we’re going to get it down to one. And very good chance you’ll be rejected if it doesn’t meet environmental standards and tests.

And we are rescuing students from failing government schools by introducing the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act, which will replicate the great success of tax-credit scholarships available in 18 states. We believe very strongly, or at least many of the people in this room — not all of them — but believe very strongly in school choice.

We’re also working closely with the states to improve public safety. This includes the incredible work being done by our nation’s heroic ICE officers. We’ve moved thousands of MS-13 out of the country, back to where they came from — whether it’s Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico.

And, as you know, we reached agreements with those countries so that we can do that. And the past administration, they wouldn’t accept them. They’d come from one of the countries, tough countries, and we would send them back and they wouldn’t take them. Not me. They take them now. Now they say, “Thank you so much for sending them back. We were looking for this killer. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.” But they all take them now. They take them very quickly.

Before, they used to say, “Don’t ever even think about landing that airplane. We don’t want those people.” So they take them back rapidly. Someday they’ll tell the real story as to why, but that’s the way it has to be. We have thousands and thousands of killers and gang members that we’re bringing back to countries that now accept them. They were not taking them back.

Last year alone, ICE officers arrested 120,000 criminal aliens charged with nearly 10,000 burglaries, 5,000 sexual assaults, 45,000 violent assaults, and 2,000 murders. You know, some of them we keep here when they — it’s very egregious. We don’t necessarily trust other people to take care of justice, so we keep them here. But, you know, we don’t like having people in our prisons for 50 years, 60 years. And we have to pay for it. And so, for the most part, we bring them back to their countries and give them a very bad recommendation.

State and local cooperation is the backbone of this effort. We have a tremendous relationship with many of the states and governments, cities. It’s essential that all of our states and cities honor ICE detainer requests to ensure that safe transfer of criminal aliens into federal custody takes place.

Jurisdictions that adopt sanctuary policies that instead release these criminals put all of Americans in harm’s way. A very, very, serious problem. I mean, we’re all here for the same thing. I know we have different policies, different feelings, different everything, but sanctuary cities are causing us a tremendous problem in this country.

We have stone-cold killers that they don’t want to hand over to us, and then they escape into communities and they cause, in some cases, tremendous havoc.

Another vital element of federal and state cooperation is the relentless fight against opioids and the drug epidemic. We’ve had great progress. We’re down 18, 19, 20 percent in some of the communities. The First Lady has been very much involved in that. Kellyanne has been very much involved in that. A lot of the people in this room — almost everybody in this room has been involved in it.

So — and I want to thank you for that. We’re making progress. Very tough. All over the world — this is a problem all over the world. This is a big problem here, but it’s a big problem almost everywhere.

For the first time in three decades, we’ve achieved a decline in drug overdose deaths, including, as an example, Ohio. Mike is around here someplace. Mike? Mike? Mike?

AIDE: He left, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Twenty-three percent in Ohio. Nineteen percent in Pennsylvania. Ten percent in Wisconsin. And we’re averaging probably about 16, 17 percent. So it’s been — it’s not enough, but we’re making a lot of progress. And if we had more help in Congress, we could get it even lower.

My administration is truly grateful for the leadership, cooperation, partnership, and friendship of the governors in this room. No matter our party, we must work together and really do the job. And I think that’s what’s happening. Our country is now receiving thousands and thousands of companies that are coming into the United States. Some had left and some had never been here before, but they all want to be where the action is.

We lost 60,000 plants and factories over the years. Sixty thousand. It’s hard to even conceive. And we’ve got many of them back, and many are coming back. And they’re moving to a lot of your states. I know a lot of them are coming into Texas and Florida and a lot of different locations — South Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania. It’s incredible what’s happening. Ohio is a big beneficiary. Michigan is a tremendous beneficiary, with the car companies. Tremendous. Somebody was saying they’re so happy in Michigan.

And I meet with Prime Minister Abe of Japan. I say, “You have to — Shinzo, you have to get more car companies here. We have a deficit with you. You have to get them in.” And they are — they’re sending a lot of companies. We hadn’t built a plant in years and years and decades, frankly. And now we have car plants being built all over the United States. And we have expansions — a lot of expansions of existing plants.

So it’s been, really, an incredible thing. We’re doing incredible work. And we’re the number-one country in the world right now, in terms of the economy.

When I was running, and long before I was running, I’d always heard that China — I have great respect for President Xi and great respect for China, frankly — but that China was going to be the number-one economy in the world during 2019. Actually, it was 2018, 2019. You all heard it, that we were going to go to number two.

And I will tell you, we had our battle. And we took in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs and other things. And you saw the — it was just announced the trade deficit was the lowest it’s been in years with China. It just happened two days ago. They just announced.

But we are now so far ahead of China, in terms of the size of our economy, that if somebody is smart that’s at this position for times into the future — hopefully, after five years — I won’t joke by saying “nine, thirteen, fifteen.” (Laughter.) It drives them crazy — for the governors. It drives them crazy. (Laughter.) Even when I joke, it drives them crazy, so I won’t say that. But if somebody smart is in this position, it’ll never happen where China overtakes us. It’ll never happen.

So we, right now, have — we’re so far ahead of them. They’re not catching us for a long time. If the wrong person stands here or sits in the White House — that beautiful chair in the White House, in the Oval Office — sure, they’re going to — you know, they’re going to catch. They have 1.5 billion people; we have 350 million people. But we have a very special place and a very special country, and nobody is going to catch us if we have great leadership. And you have been great leaders for your states, and we appreciate very much that you’re at the White House. Thank you very much.

So what we’re going to do is — I thought maybe we could take a few questions. If you want, we could leave the press there. The press would love that, I’m sure. Or we could have them leave and we could talk in a different fashion. You won’t have to showboat. (Laughter.)

So would anybody prefer — we’ll leave them here for a little while, and then we’ll go a different route perhaps. Any questions, please? Please.

GOVERNOR PARSON: Mr. President, (inaudible) do you feel like your infrastructure? You’ve got a budget coming out, I think, today. Where are you going to be on infrastructure?

THE PRESIDENT: We’re doing a big infrastructure potential deal. We need — obviously, we need help from — we need the votes of Democrats. They’ve been so focused on something else and wasting a lot of people’s time, although my poll numbers have been driven way the hell up, so that’s one way to do it, I guess.

But they have been so focused on the impeachment hoax that they haven’t had time to do anything else. But we’re ready to go with a big infrastructure bill if they’re ready to approve it. We’re also ready to lower drug prices very substantially. We did — last year was the first time in 51 years that drug prices — prescription drug prices — went down. First time in 51 years.

But to get them really down, we have to do exactly what we’re doing. We’re — we have — we need the votes of the Democrats, and they just didn’t have the time to do anything. So maybe they will now have the time.

But we’re all ready to go on infrastructure, on reducing drug prices very substantially. We can reduce drug prices unbelievably easily and substantially, but we have to get Democrat votes. Okay?

Thank you. Thank you, Governor. Please.

GOVERNOR RICKETTS: Mr. President, you’ve had a lot of successes on trade — USMCA, China, and Japan. What’s next on your agenda for trade?

THE PRESIDENT: So, Europe has been treating us very badly. European Union. It was really formed so they could treat us badly. So they’ve done their job. That was one of the primary reasons. But they treat us badly there and they treat us badly, frankly, on NATO. But NATO, I’ve gotten, as you know, $130 billion more they will pay.

Because NATO was going down like a rocket ship. Our past leaders would go over, make a speech, and leave. I went over, made a speech, and said, “You got to pay more.” Because the United States was paying everything. Essentially, they were paying close to 100 percent. And I let them know: “You have no choice.” And they are paying more. They paid $130 billion.

I think my biggest fan in the whole world is Secretary General Stoltenberg, head of NATO. And he said he can’t believe it, because for 20 years it went down. It’s like a roller coaster dip. No — none of this; just down. They paid less and less and less. And it got more expensive and more expensive with time.

But I raised $130 billion my first meeting, and I raised $400 billion the second meeting. So now it’s in good shape. But, you know, we were taken advantage of by a lot of countries — a lot of allies, frankly. Sometimes allies do a better job on you than the enemy, because the enemies you watch out for, right?

So, Pete, I think that the next thing could be Europe where we talk to them very seriously and they have to do it because they’ve — there’s been a — over the last 10, 12 years, there’s been a tremendous deficit with Europe. They have barriers that are incredible. I didn’t do — I didn’t want to do them while we were doing China, Japan, South Korea. You know, I didn’t want to do the whole world at one time. Does that make sense? (Laughter.) People have learned that doesn’t work out too well, even on trade.

So we’re going to be starting that. They know that. They know that. They’re ready for it. You know, we made a good deal with Japan. We’re going to do a bigger, much more comprehensive deal. But we’re taking in $40 billion from Japan, which they didn’t expect. Nobody expected. We’ve done great on the trade. It’s going to have a tremendous impact.

Now, the virus that we’re talking about having to do — you know, a lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat — as the heat comes in. Typically, that will go away in April. We’re in great shape though. We have 12 cases — 11 cases, and many of them are in good shape now. So — but a very good question.

Yes, please. Colorado.

GOVERNOR POLIS: Yeah. You mentioned deporting criminal aliens. What about also — what are your ideas for fixing it for the — for the, kind of, for the DREAMers and the folks who are here that are hardworking? And, you know, it’s really tough out there, and they work on our farms, and the kids who grew up here. And how do we do that, and at the same time you’re also, kind of, enforcing the other side for those who violate our laws?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we almost had a deal on that with the Democrats, as you know. It was done. And then we lost the decision, and the Democrats said, “Trump? Who’s that? Trump? Who’s that?” But we were very close to having a deal on the DREAMers with the House and with the Senate. It would’ve been a very good deal for everybody.

So we’re looking at that, but now we’re before the Supreme Court. I think we’re going to win, because if we don’t win, that gives the President of the United States unbelievable powers.

You know, President Obama signed that bill. It was an executive order. And when he signed it, he said — essentially, he said, “I don’t have the right to do this, but I’m going to do it anyway.” And he was upheld by a judge. And anyway, it will be before the Supreme Court pretty soon. And at some point, I think we’ll probably make a deal on that. I do feel that way. Okay? Good question.

A question? Yes, please, Gary.

How’s Mitt Romney?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I haven’t talked to him.

THE PRESIDENT: You keep him. (Laughter.) We don’t want him. Go ahead.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: States are used to —

THE PRESIDENT: Doing a great job in Utah, by the way. Go ahead, Gary.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: States are used to balancing the budget. So I think, by and large, we don’t spend more than we take in. And I know you’ve unveiled your budget today, and I know there’s — a concern for you is the growing debt.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I know we’ve had nonpartisan economists talk to us as governors saying this is going to come back to bite us in the future if we don’t do something about it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, I agree.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: What are we doing, and how can we get to a more balanced budget — certainly reduce the debt as opposed to continuing to grow the debt?

THE PRESIDENT: So we’re putting out a plan today that, over a period of — not that long a period of time, brings our budget and our deficit down to what it should be, which is close to zero. And I think people are going to be very impressed by it.

We’re not touching Medicare. We want to keep Medicare. We’re not touching Social Security. We’re making our country stronger again. We’re not decreasing Medicaid. But we’re doing a lot of things that are very good, including waste and fraud — tremendous waste and tremendous fraud.

So we’re doing that, in terms of certain programs. And we’re taking good care of our military. We’re increasing spending on our nuclear program because we have no choice — because of what China is doing, what Russia is doing in particular. And so we have a very big number in for that.

Now, at the same time, Russia and China both want to negotiate with us to stop this craziness of spending billions and billions of dollars on nuclear weapons. But the only way, until we have that agreement — the only thing I can do is create, by far, the strongest nuclear force anywhere in the world, which, as you know, over the last three years, we very much upgraded our nuclear.

But we’re buying new. We have the super-fast missiles — tremendous number of the super-fast. We call them “super-fast,” where they’re four, five, six, and even seven times faster than an ordinary missile. We need that because, again, Russia has some. I won’t tell you how they got it. They got it, supposedly, from plans from the Obama administration when we weren’t doing it. And that’s too bad. That’s not good. But that’s how it happened. And China, as you know, is doing it.

So we have a tremendous $740 billion for military. But again, it’s also jobs in the United States. So it’s — you know, everything is made in the United States, proudly. And we have the best in the world. We have the best equipment in the world. The best missiles, planes, rockets. Everybody wants our equipment. We have to be very selective, obviously.

But we’re — we’re going to have a very good budget with a very powerful military budget because we have no choice — okay? — about that.

Ron, do you have something about, for instance, your plan of buying and cutting prescription drugs? You want to tell them what we’re doing?

GOVERNOR DESANTIS: Well, so we had a panel about the — your administration’s approval under an old 2003 law that prior administrations did not utilize to allow safe and affordable drugs to be imported from Canada. So that’s going through the regulatory process.

We, in Florida, are working our own parallel track. As soon as your rules are done and in place, you know, we’re looking to buy. And, you know, we can save a lot of money just for things like our prison system —

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

GOVERNOR DESANTIS: — because the drugs are a lot cheaper.

So we think there’ll be good savings here. But I think it opens up a larger conversation, which I know you want to have, about: Why are we funding the drugs for everyone in the world?

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

GOVERNOR DESANTIS: You know, Americans want relief and I know you’ve fought hard for that. But thanks for approving the Florida program.

THE PRESIDENT: You can go — and Colorado is doing that also — you can go to certain countries, and the exact same pill, made in the exact same plant, factory — wherever it may be — from one of the big companies will sell for 50, 60, 70 percent less than the United States is paying, because it’s broken; it’s a broken system.

And so one of the things I’ve authorized is that certain states have requested — probably after this, everybody in this room will go back — (laughter) — but if we buy from Canada, you’ll save 50 percent at this moment.

Now, that may go up or everything may come down. One thing is going to happen or another. Either the drug companies are going to raise it and not make it possible to buy. They’re going to raise it in Canada, meaning so you won’t be able to do it, or everyone is going to go down. Because you have a middleman in the middle that are making a fortune. Nobody knows who these people are, but they’re getting rich. Because we had a broken system and it’s about time it gets fixed. So a lot of — a lot of shakeup is going to take place.

But if we had Democrats helping us, we could solve this problem in one day, but they don’t want to vote again. They don’t have any time to vote. They don’t have any time to do anything other than what they do. So they seem to be freed up a lot now. They’re freed up a lot, actually, I hear.

How about a couple of more and then we’ll let the press go and relax and take it easy? (Laughter.)

Please, Governor.

GOVERNOR ABBOTT: Your administration has done a — your administration has done a great job with regard to addressing the opioid crisis.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

GOVERNOR ABBOTT: An aspect about that is the growing problem of fentanyl, especially fentanyl coming across the southern border.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

GOVERNOR ABBOTT: And it is my understanding that there’s some information about a lot of that coming from China.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

GOVERNOR ABBOTT: What I’m curious about is what the status is with regard to the reduction of fentanyl coming from China and our ability to corral that and to reduce that.

THE PRESIDENT: So, as you know, it’s gone down. I met with President Xi on the trade deal. And I said, “You have to stop fentanyl coming into our country. You have to do me a favor and stop it. You have to get it stopped.” It has to end — because it’s a favor for our country. And we’re losing thousands and thousands of people to fentanyl. I mean, the size of a pinhead can kill a lot of people. It’s unbelievably bad. And they send it direct and they send it through Mexico and through the border. And we would catch a lot of it, but even if a little bit got through, it’s a very deadly drug.

And they have cut it way back. And they’ve also criminalized — it wasn’t a criminal. They considered a corporate kind of a thing. It was a drug of a different nature. And now, they’ve put it into their criminal statutes. And criminal, in China, for drugs, by the way, means that’s serious; they’re getting a maximum penalty. And you know what the maximum penalty is in China for that. And it goes very quickly.

It’s interesting: Where you have Singapore, they have very little drug problem; where you have China, they have very little drug problem. States with a very powerful death penalty on drug dealers don’t have a drug problem. I don’t know that our country is ready for that. But if you look throughout the world, the countries with a powerful death penalty — death penalty — with a fair but quick trial, they have very little, if any, drug problem. That includes China.

But they’ve put fentanyl now into their — he’s working on that, and we’ve — it’s gone down a lot, as you know. They’ve put it into their penalty system, and people will be getting the death penalty in China now for fentanyl. That was a big thing. It’s not — it’s not part of the trade agreement, but it is part of the trade agreement. And they have acted on it.

Now, of course, they’re working on something else. And I think they’re doing a good job on that, on the virus. I had a long talk with President Xi — for the people in this room — two nights ago, and he feels very confident. He feels very confident. And he feels that, again, as I mentioned, by April or during the month of April, the heat, generally speaking, kills this kind of virus. So that would be a good thing.

But we’re in great shape in our country. We have 11, and the 11 are getting better. Okay?

It’s a great question. I think that fentanyl is a huge problem. It’s almost, at this moment, 100 percent made in China. And they are starting to enforce it on our behalf. We have a good relationship with China now. Probably the best we’ve ever had. Okay.

Okay, so I think what we’ll do — any other questions from the governors? Yes, please.

GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON: Mr. President, I want to thank you for giving the states more flexibility in healthcare, particularly. Last week, your Health and Human Services announced the Medicaid block grant —

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON: — waiver authority for the states. Arkansas will be pursuing that. But I wanted to thank you for that and also ask you: In terms of your State of the Union Address, you talked about healthcare. Is there anything that we can expect this year in Congress, with an election year — is there anything that we can get done that you’re going to be a priority in Congress this year?

THE PRESIDENT: So we did a big thing on healthcare. We got rid of the individual mandate on Obamacare, which basically made Obamacare not Obamacare anymore. It was the most unpopular thing in Obamacare, and basically, you paid a lot of money for the privilege of not paying to have bad healthcare. And nobody wanted that. And we got rid of it. Big, big move.

And I had a choice: I can make — so it really isn’t Obamacare anymore, but I can — and we do — as you know, we left preexisting conditions and everything. We left it. Because preexisting will always have — and I think I can speak for Democrats too. But we are all going to have preexisting conditions. We are always going to make sure that that’s taken care of, the preexisting condition situation.

I think I can speak — I know I can speak for Republicans. I think I can speak for Democrats. It’s a — it’s a part of our society right now, and nobody is going to change it. If a law is overturned, that’s okay because the new law is going to have it in. The new law would replace the old law that was overturned. It would have preexisting conditions. So I think that’s important to say.

But one thing that we will be doing is, at least from a Republican standpoint — you have 180 million people out there that have great health insurance. They love it. Private health insurance. And we’re going to save it. Other people are thinking about terminating it, which is brutal for unions and others. So I don’t know how they’re going to get around that, but we’re going to be saving that.

But when I took over, I had a choice. We got rid of the most unpopular thing in Obamacare, almost got rid of Obamacare, but essentially we did. But now I said: Do we run it really well, or do we run it really poorly? Do we make everybody unhappy and blame the Democrats, or do we make people relatively happy with a bad law? It’s a bad law. Bad — it’s a bad policy. But do we make people relatively happy? And I chose — I felt I had an obligation to do the latter.

So it’s been working out pretty well, and it goes along, and we’ve done block grants. We’ve done a lot of different things with different states. And we’re tailor-made — really, it’s tailor-made for different states. We are doing thing for states. Some people want block grants, some people want something else. And we’re working with individual states, and I think governors are really happy and really surprised that we’re doing that.

I could’ve just cold-lined it and just said, “We’re not doing anything,” and everybody would be happy, everybody would be complaining. But I think the best thing for our country to do is the way we’re doing it, until we get a replacement for Obamacare, a full replacement, that’s going to be great.

And I would say this: If we change the House — if we get the House, the Republicans get the House back, we will have that; otherwise, we’ll just have to negotiate with the Democrats. And I think at some point they will come around and start negotiating these things, because they really are good.

So, media, thank you very much. We appreciate it and we’ll have a little more discussion. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

[End Transcript]

Germany Frets – China Threatening German Auto Industry if Huawei 5G is Blocked…


At the same time Beijing is reportedly promising internal reforms to retain access to a vital and necessary U.S. market for Chinese goods, Beijing is threatening Germany if they block Huawei technology from their 5G network China will announce German autos are unsafe for import…. Chancellor Angela Merkel is in a pickle.

According to Bloomberg analysis, German automakers sold approximately seven million cars to China in 2018.  The Chinese Ambassador to Germany said this weekend: ” “If Germany were to take a decision that leads to Huawei’s exclusion from the German market, there will be consequences. The Chinese government will not stand idly by.”

(SCMP) […] The Chinese ambassador in Berlin has stirred up a fresh controversy over the tech giant Huawei after he threatened “consequences” if it was excluded from Germany.

Wu Ken’s comments – in which he pointed to the importance of the Chinese market to Germany’s car industry – came amid an intense debate about the company’s role in building 5G networks, which the United States has warned poses a security threat.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government has been widely accused of bowing to Chinese pressure after she ruled out banning Huawei from the country’s 5G network.

Lawmakers from her ruling coalition are seeking to override her decision with a bill that would impose a ban on “untrustworthy” 5G vendors without explicitly naming Huawei. (link)

With Brexit a virtual certainty as an outcome of the recent U.K. election; and with a WTO ruling giving U.S. President Trump a massive $7.5 billion tariff approval against the EU in the Boeing case; and with USTR Lighthizer completing a Section 301 investigation against France resulting in another $2.4 billion in U.S. tariff authority; and with Germany’s economy essentially at a standstill, this latest Chinese threat against Merkel is a perfect storm of negative economic issues.

Germany and France are very precariously positioned against the looming tariffs almost guaranteed by President Trump, and the USMCA content rules for the auto-sector are already going to cause a major supply chain reorientation for German autos sold in the U.S.  Overlay the EU climate regulations the nations’ have regulated against their own industry and, well, it doesn’t take a economic analyst to see a future of severe consequence.

This is the background for Beijing’s threat.  Essentially China knows Angela Merkel’s economic policies are all coming to bear at the same time the 5G tech issue has risen to the surface of the political debate.   Germany has few options, they cannot lose the Chinese market for their auto exports.

Things are about to get very interesting in Europe.

It’s a hot mess worth keeping an eye on…

 

Socrates Project – Best Kept Secret


QUESTION: Marty; A friend of mine is an analyst at one of the major banks in New York. He said they are not allowed to forecast some things as you said. He used to work for a European bank and did say it was much worse.  He said everyone who is anyone reads you. He also said that none of the mainstream media will ever report on Socrates because you will put all analysis out of business. Is this why you intend to go public?

Thanks so much for your insight in creating Socrates.

MH

ANSWER: Mainstream press in the USA has never been interested in really covering our analysis. They are not interested in reporting that a computer can actually write reports and forecast the entire world. You have to understand, we remain the best-kept secret. Even when Nigel Farage was our guest speaker in Rome, he said he had to come after we forecast BREXIT. Now, not a single British newspaper ever reported our forecast before or after. Nonetheless, those in power and in strategic institutions and corporations, all know what our forecasts were. So it is an interesting paradox. We are the best-read, but the most under-reported.

Nobody wants to report there is a computer that forecasts the world for it at the same time exposes the true trend of the economy and all the interconnections, including climate change. In the summer when the Inverted Yield Curve was taking place, all the newspapers were forecasting Trump would lose because the economy was headed into a recession. That was their typical biased war against Trump. Our model showed there would be a moderate decline in the expansion into the ECM for January, but that we did not see a major correction or a major recession.

These types of forecasts are not luck nor are they based upon what “I think” for we are all human and thus we are subject to making mistakes. We need a dispassionate analysis of a computer to provide an objective outlook. People keep trying to compete with me personally which is often quite funny to me.

Socrates will only be recognized when (1) we go public, and (2) after my death. That is just how things work. Even in the Bible, Jesus said that a prophet has no honor or is recognized in his own country’ (John 4:44). That is the way it has ALWAYS been in every field. Not exactly sure why it is that way. It just is! I have always been covered more by the press outside the USA than inside.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on DACA Case Tomorrow…


Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case: “DHS -vs- Regents of University of California“, also known as the DACA case: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.  DACA was instituted by a President Obama ‘executive action’, not an ‘executive order’.

The Obama Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) did not fully support the constitutional framework around the effort to protect a sub-set of illegal aliens; and therefore the originating presidential action was not an official ‘executive order’, a technicality that could end up as part of the argument(s).  The same issue existed within DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Arrivals), and was ruled unconstitutional by a divided SCOTUS.

Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog has a great encapsulation of the case and current status:

In 2012, the Obama administration established a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows undocumented young adults who came to the United States as children to apply for protection from deportation.

Applicants who meet a variety of criteria – for example, who have graduated from high school or served in the military and do not have a serious criminal record – must pay a fee of nearly $500 in total, submit (among other things) their fingerprints and home address and undergo a background check.

In the past seven years, nearly 800,000 people have obtained protection from deportation under DACA, which permits them to work legally in this country and gives them access to other benefits like health insurance and driver’s licenses. In 2017, the Trump administration announced that it would end the DACA program; in November, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a challenge to that decision. (read more)

In September of 2017 President Trump released a statement outlining how the administration would work with congress on immigration legislation toward a final disposition for those who fall under the DACA construct.

Unfortunately, Pelosi and House Democrats ultimately rebuked an immigration reform package they viewed was too heavy on enforcement and too much of an impediment to their preferred open-border platform.  By January 2018 the negotiations collapsed.

While the oral arguments are tomorrow, it is unlikely there will be a SCOTUS ruling on the current DACA case until sometime later in 2020 (summer).  Which will likely put DACA at the center of the 2020 election.

President Trump has previously been open to affording immigration protection for those who fall under DACA as part of a package for structural immigration reform.   However, it is very likely Speaker Pelosi and the DNC will rebuke any legislative effort in their continued push to politicize the “dreamers”, and trick young voters into supporting democrat candidates.

Turning to the legality of the government’s decision to end DACA, the government explains that it had several different reasons to shut the program down, all of which were entirely reasonable. First, it reiterates, it believed that the program was illegal, so that keeping it in place would be “sanctioning an ongoing violation of federal immigration law by nearly 700,000 aliens.” And not only did the government believe that DACA violates federal law, but the 5th Circuit had in fact struck down the two related policies.

Particularly in light of the program’s “legally questionable” provenance and the announcement by Texas and other states that they would challenge DACA, the government believed that the best course was to go forward with an “orderly wind-down” on its own terms rather than taking its chances defending the program in court and risking the possibility that the program could be abruptly shut down.

It was also, the government observes, “entirely sensible” for it to determine that, even if it could have continued DACA, it would be better to do so “only with congressional approval and the political legitimacy and stability that such approval entails.” After all, even then-President Barack Obama, when announcing DACA, had indicated that the program was only intended as a “temporary stopgap measure.”

Instead, the government concluded, it opted to return to the pre-DACA system of reviewing requests for protection from deportation on a case-by-case basis. “One can agree or disagree with that judgment,” the government suggests, “but it is not remotely specious.” (more)

Larry Schweikart@LarrySchweikart

DACA lands before Supreme Court: Showdown over Trump bid to end ‘Dreamer’ program https://fxn.ws/34UpXHf 

Time for the Court to end this garbage.

DACA lands before Supreme Court: Showdown over Trump bid to end ‘Dreamer’ program

The long-running battle over the Trump administration’s bid to end the Obama-era program for young undocumented immigrants known as “Dreamers” will land before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

foxnews.com

280 people are talking about this

 

Flashback 2016: Secretary of State John Kerry Admits President Obama Intentionally Armed ISIS in Syria – Audio Recording and Transcript…


CTH has some new readers, so against the backdrop of the UniParty in Washington DC jumping into action to criticize President Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria; and against the backdrop of President Trump authorizing an operation last night that killed ISIS leader Baghdadi, perhaps a little factual and historic refresher is in order….

On September 30th 2016 the New York Times quietly released a leaked audio recording of Secretary John Kerry meeting with multiple factions associated within Syria.

The 40-minute discussion took place on the sidelines of a United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting took place at the Dutch Mission to the United Nations on Sept. 22nd 2016:

[…] Kerry’s off-record conversation was apparently with two dozen ‘Syrian civilians’, all from US backed opposition-linked NGO’s in education and medical groups supposedly working in ‘rebel-held’ (aka terrorist-held) areas in Syria.

This opposition conclave also included ‘rescue workers’ which can only be ambassadors from the White Helmetsa pseudo NGO which serves as Washington and London’s primary PR front in pursuit of a “No Fly Zone’ in Syria, and it’s being bankrolled by the US, UK, EU and other coalition states to the tune of well over $100 million (so far). (link)

When you listen to the audio recording (embedded below) it becomes immediately obvious what was going on in 2014, 2015 and 2016 as an outcome of policy from the White House. In addition, you discover why this jaw-dropping 2016 leak/story was buried by the U.S. media and how it connects to the prior 4 years of perplexing U.S. mid-east policy.

This evidence within this single story would/should forever remove any credibility toward the U.S. foreign policy under President Obama. It also destroys the credibility of a large number of well known republicans, and explains how the prior action placed President Trump into a precarious position requiring a careful approach.

The key Secretary Kerry moments are at 02:00, and again at approximately 18:30 forward.

The discussion from 18:30 through to 29:00 are exceptionally revealing and should be listened to by anyone who has wondered what was going on in Syria. Kerry even makes mention of the “Responsibility to Protect, or R2P” principle:

.

@18:30 Secretary John Kerry [transcript]:

[…] “Well, the problem is the Russians do not care about law, and we do. And, we don’t have a basis -our lawyers tell us- unless we have a U.N. Security Council resolution, which the Russians can veto and Chinese, OR unless we are under attack from the folks there, or unless we are invited in. Russia was invited in by the legitimate regime, well, it’s illegitimate in our mind, by the regime. And so, they were invited in and we’re not invited in.”

“We’re flying in airspace there, where they can turn on the air defense and we have a very different scene. The only reason they’re letting us fly is because we’re going after ISIS. If we were going after Assad, those air defenses, we’d have to take out all those air defenses, uh, and we don’t have a legal justification, frankly, for doing that unless we stretch it way beyond the law on a humanitarian basis, which some people argue we should – by the way.”

“Uh, but so far American legal theory has not gone into these so called “right to protect”, uh, and we don’t even have what we had in Kosovo where we had an, you know, an existing resolution and so forth. Uh, even though we went alone.”

“And so it’s complicated, it’s not easy. And we’ve been fighting. How many wars have we been fighting? We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan, we’ve been fighting in Iraq, we’ve fighting -you know- in the region for fourteen years. And a lot of Americans don’t believe that we should be fighting and sending young Americans over to die in another country. That’s the problem.”

“The congress won’t vote to do it. And you can be mad at us, but what we’re trying to do is help Syrians fight for their own country; and we’ve been spending a lot of money, a lot of effort to try and help do this. So, there’s an opposition there; the opposition is doing very well. Russia came in, and that’s a problem I know, because, uh, y’ know, uh, we don’t behave like Russians, it’s just a different standard.”

“So we are trying to see if we can test whether Russia, you see, is serious about a political solution. And if they are not serious, then we will help the opposition more. But I don’t think that’s particularly good for Syrians in the end because it will mean more fighting.”

Secretary Kerry is then questioned by an obvious sympathizer toward the extremist elements (calls pro-assad Sunni faction “Sunni Jews”) about why the U.S. fights the extremist Sunni (ISIS), but not the extremist Shia (Hezbollah). Kerry’s response:

“Well, they’re [Hezbollah] a terrorist organization, we’ve designated them a terrorist organization. The reason for [airstrikes against the Sunni Extremists] is because they have basically declared war on us; and are plotting against us, and Hezbollah is not plotting against us; Hezbollah is exclusively focused on Israel, they’re not attacking now, and on Syria where they are attacking in support of the, uh, in support of Assad.”

“So it a, uh, it’s…”

[Interrupted]

Question: “But how to make the majority of the Syrian people accept this approach, that because Hezbollah or the Iraqi or Iranian groups are not attacking the U.S. now when they are attacking against the terrorism in Syria?”

Kerry: “Well, they, they are targeted by the opposition who we are arming and training.”

What the recording reveals is substantive:

♦ Firstonly regime change, the removal of Bashir Assad, in Syria was the 2013, 2014, and 2015 goal for President Obama. This is admitted and outlined by Secretary John Kerry.

♦ Secondly, in order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS (’13, ’14, ’15) by placing their bet that ISIS’s success would force Syrian President Bashir Assad to acquiesce toward Obama’s terms and step down.

♦ Thirdly, in order to facilitate the objective, Obama and Kerry intentionally gave arms to ISIS and even, arguably, attacked a Syrian government military convoy to stop a strategic attack upon the Islamic extremists killing 80 Syrian soldiers.

Pause for a moment and consider those three points carefully. Because the audio, along with accompanying research now surfacing, not only exposes these three points as truth – but also provides the specific evidence toward them.

The problem in the Obama/Kerry’s secret strategy became clear when ISIS grew in sufficient strength to give the White House optimism for the scheme – however, instead of capitulation Assad then turned to Russia for help.

When Russia came to aid Bashir Assad the Syrian Government began being able to defeat ISIS and the Islamic Extremist elements within Syria. For the hidden plan of Obama/Kerry (and also McCain, Graham, et al), Russia defeating ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, upended their objective.

Against the backdrop of this recording we can reconcile so many historic issues. We already know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 Syria.

2012: WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.

Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad. (link)

Further consider how this Kerry audio tape, and the now transparent Obama policy toward Syria, absolutely confirms our earlier research as contained within the Benghazi Brief surrounding Syria. [Previous post]

President Obama, Secretary Clinton (2011, 2012) and later Secretary Kerry, together with John McCain, and the CIA tentacled team within the Republican party (2013, 2014, 2015) were willing to support extremist (under all factional names) in order to overthrow Bashir Assad…

THIS WAS THE Obama/Kerry POLICY.

This was their 2016 admitted policy, only because they were caught.

Nothing else mattered.

President Trump took office in January 2017, and began a process to kill and remove, with extreme prejudice, the ISIS forces that President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry armed. He began with the end in mind, and delivered the following quote:…

That mission has been accomplished.

Department of State

@StateDept

Last night, the United States brought the world’s number one terrorist leader to justice. President @realDonaldTrump addresses the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder and leader of ISIS. Full remarks: https://youtu.be/GYzNpv-7F7M  | More: https://go.usa.gov/xpCDb 

Embedded video

24.5K people are talking about this

Steve Bannon Discusses the Corruptive Influence of China Upon Capitalism…


Steve Bannon is at his best when he explains how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) use their power in economics -against the capitalist view of profit- to erode the values of western companies and corporations.   Good points made in this interview.