EPIC FAIL: Obama’s Wars – have “accidentally” aided the rise of Radical Islam.

Failed foreign policy: Obama’s Wars – have “accidentally” aided the rise of Radical Islam. Why? What are the consequences?

Obama: “I will stand with the Muslims.”

What if the creation of the “refugee mess” was intentional? What if the plan is working, and the result is acceptable? My view: Benghazi –> Weapons Smuggling –> Arab Spring –> Rise of Radical Islam –> Hijrah=Migration Jihad, an invasion. See:  https://blog.johntrudel.com/?p=2571

One thing we now know for sure: Obama took extreme measures to undercut Iran’s Green Revolution, to keep Iran’s Mullahs in power. Why? Because it served his agenda.

Long before the #IRANDEAL, Obama wanted to keep Iran’s radical Islamist leaders in power, and even to make them a major power in the region.

“Obama from the beginning of his presidency tried to turn the Iran’s ruling clerics from foes to friends. It was an obsession.”


With that as a starting place, what followed — with Benghazi as a cornerstone event — was a campaign of “regime change,” wars and political actions that topped governments, enabled radical Islamist terrorists, and left the region in flames.


What If They Are Hiding the Truth?

Obama: ISIS Co-Founder

Obama: ISIS Co-Founder

“What if President Obama secretly agreed with others in the government in 2011 to provide arms to rebels in Libya and Syria? What if the scheme called for American arms merchants to sell serious American military hardware to the government of Qatar, which would and did transfer it to rebel groups? What if the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of the Treasury approved those sales? What if the approvals were kept secret because some of those rebel groups were characterized by the same Departments of State and Treasury as terrorist organizations? What if the ultimate recipients of those arms were the militants and monsters in al-Qaida and ISIS who have slain and tortured innocents?”

Judge Andrew Napolitano

Read more here and sign the petition:


See video. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4304882136001/

The Arming of Benghazi (sworn testimony) Link

“It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council.”

– Sworn Federal Court Declaration by CIA Veteran David Manners

Top Obama Appointee: “President Knowingly and Willingly Armed ISIS.”


Does President Obama ever learn?

original_sos-isis-topCongress allowed him money to arm Syrian rebels. To arm jihadists. He can’t fight ISIS with jihadists. They just join ISIS. Do we want American weapons and money going to the “Army of the Mujahedeen” or the “Islamic Front” or the “Al-Nusra Front?” Those are the names of Syrian rebels, and they’re jihadists. All of them. Tell Congress no. Not one dime for jihad. Arm America’s allies, not our sworn enemies. We’re working in Washington to bring common sense back to American foreign policy. Join us. http://aclj.org/radical-islam/no-american-weapons-or-money-for-syrian-jihad

 Jay Sekulow ACLJ Chief Counsel

We armed and trained ISIS: http://americanprosperity.com/militant-islamic-group-isis-trained-at-u-s-base-in-jordan/ http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/campaign-petition/did-obama-arm-the-enemy *** Obama’s Wars – have all “accidently” aided the rise of Radical Islam.

Obama can't say "jihad."

Obama can’t say “jihad.”

Obama’s Iraq “bug out” – Snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory, exactly as George Bush and ALL OUR MILITARY ADVISORS HAD WARNED. (The video link below is the most watched video Fox has ever posted, with over 40 million views.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP28xtVL1ag Obama’s illegal military action in Libya – led to the Benghazi debacle, which (proof is hopefully coming soon from the Select Committee investigation) directly led to: Obama Administration arms-running: from Libya, through Turkey, into Syria.

  • Which destabilized both Libya and Syria
  • Which led to the rise of radical Islam (as has all the “Arab Spring” initiatives)
  • To win: Kill jihadists.

    To win: Kill jihadists.

    Which led to ISIS (which Obama helped to arm and fund) and “Khorasan.” Khorasan is Al-Qaida, which is not as “decimated” as Obama has claimed. It is a label invented by Team Obama, taken from the region in Syria where Obama hit some empty buildings with an airstrike.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388990/khorosan-group-does-not-exist-andrew-c-mccarthy http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/aiding-enemy-isis-insurgents-us-trained-secret-base-jordan/

  • Liberalism is Mental Illness

    Liberalism is Mental Illness

    Which led to  genocide, regional war, the destabilization and collapse of Iraq, and the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.

  • Which led to Obama saying the “Islamic State” is neither Islamic nor a State.
  • Which inspired Obama to ask for Congress to authorize “Libya 2.0,” with America providing arms and air support to jihadists who will use them against us. And to include Iran and Russia as a “friendly force” in the Mid-East, which America would help support and fund.
  • Obamas Wars

    Obamas Wars

    Which led to Obama (with the region now in flames, the world alarmed, and America directly threatened) renewing his (denied) request to have Congress pass laws to allow America to legally arm jihadists in Syria.

  • Which, if successful, would render moot the action of having Congress investigate, convict, impeach, and sentence officials who participated in illegal arms running from Benghazi.


It started in Benghazi

It started in Benghazi

Finally  the proof starts to come out in 2015. The 9/11/2012 Benghazi attack was about running arms to Syria to advance radical Islam. And the Obama Administration knew this a week before the attack even happened. It was NOT about a video. Never. Not ever. See this LINK. And also this Link. And this Link. Hillary, of course, knew this the night of the attack. She communicated it by email to her daughter and to Egyptian officials.


“The Democrats sabotaged the war in Iraq for the worst of reasons. They claimed it was for principle, but it was really – and only — to save their political skins.  Once the Democrats recaptured the presidency, it took no time at all for events to expose this destructive farce. Unlike the majority of his Democratic colleagues, Senator Barack Obama had always opposed the war in Iraq. He was against American interventions in sovereign countries, and he was against presidents who acted unilaterally, and in haste. Or so he said.  But when Obama became president and had the power to do so, he invaded Libya: unilaterally, and without authorization, and with no national security interest at stake. And he lied about the cause. There was no prospect of massacres as he claimed, and it was not a human rights intervention. If it were, Libya would not now be in chaos with al-Qaeda resurgent, and in a worse state than before.  Obama’s invasion of Libya was not merely unilateral. It was egomaniacal. Obama consulted no one outside his White House inner circle, not his own party, not the Congress, not the United Nations. Unlike Bush, he acted without constitutional authority and he acted alone. Yet there was not one Democratic leader who stood up for the principles they had all invoked to cripple America’s war against the jihadists in Iraq. Not one Democratic leader opposed the Democratic president, or criticized his aggression. They abandoned the principles of multilaterialism, consultation with Congress, and support from the U.N. because it would have been bad for their leader if they didn’t; it would have jeopardized their power.”

David Horowitz

 http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/the-threat-we-face-2/ Added 9/24/2014: ISILnotIslamYes, Obama has finally bombed ISIS and Khorasan (illegally in Syria), but only softly and in a way designed to minimize jihadist causalities. By bombing at night and warning both Syria and Iraq first, the buildings hit empty. To stop terrorists you must kill terrorists. Obama still denies that ISIS, the Islamic State, is either “Islamic” or “a State,” and that Khorasan is  Al-Qaida. Obama is doing more to re-label these groups for political reasons than he is to destroy them. http://allenwestrepublic.com/2014/09/23/allen-west-video-when-you-announce-bombing-missions-you-allow-isis-to-harden-themselves/

To win: Kill jihadists

To win: Kill jihadists

“Let me give you the measure of success in airstrikes against ISIS. It is not knocking out windows; it is acres and acres of dead terrorists. That is tactical success.” –Lt. Col. Ralph Peters Watch and weigh in: http://bit.ly/ZJcL6o

Jay Sekulow: The Obama Administration is pushing to fund “moderate” Syrian rebels. Who is defining what makes them moderate? Sign & Share our petition saying no American funding of Syrian jihad: http://bit.ly/1qLXjBK

This is what Obama actually said on the Jay Leno Show (August 2013): “The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are a lot lower than they are of dying in a car accident, unfortunately.” After his speech, Islamic terrorism escalated.

Under Obama, radical Islam is now ascendant. Iraq is essentially gone, well on the way to being overrun by ISIS and/or IRAN. In May 2015, facing bipartisan criticism for his failed policy to destroy ISIS, Obama made it crystal clear that he has NO plans to destroy jihad. He is leaving that to the next President.

Obama understands that an element of his legacy will be the hand-off to the next president of the U.S.- and Iraqi-led operation to defeat ISIS, also known as ISIL, his spokesman said, noting how firmly Obama believes Iraqis must fight for their own country.

“The president has indicated that … essentially, this is a 36-month military operation that will be in the degrade phase,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. “He has been candid about the fact that this will be a challenge that the next president will have to confront.”

It was Obama who bugged out of Iraq. Leaving it to ISIS. Video.

The Russians, disgusted, finally blew the whistle on Obama in November 2015.

In remarks delivered at the East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev accused the United States of aiding the growth of the Islamic State group by focusing on regime change in Syria instead of defeating terrorism.

According to Interfax (via Bloomberg News), Medvedev said Sunday that the Islamic State’s rise “became possible partly due to irresponsible U.S. politics” which were aimed at deposing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Read more: http://conservativetribune.com/russia-drops-obama-isis/#ixzz3sMaaPaAv


Obama Bows to his fellow Muslims

Obama Bows to his fellow Muslims

Obama’s End Game —  Migration jihad

Muslim history repeats (video)

This practice known as HIJRAHJihad through migration.

(Both hemispheres this time, with waves of “refugees” containing jihadists)

Note: Americans need to know more about Islamic jihad. Who was “Tamerlan“? Not the Boston Marathon bomber: Timar the Lame, The Sword of Islam.

Every Muslim knows the name Tamerlan, as did everyone in the West in the 1500s. We’ve forgotten our history, and they have not. Look inside my novel “Soft Target” on Amazon or buy the book for some of that history.

“Rep. Peter King who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Counterintelligence and Terrorism, cautions: “Today’s announcement by the White House that the U.S. will admit at least 10,000 Syrian refugees next year will put American lives at risk. The decision is in direct contrast to opinion of leading law enforcement and intelligence officials in this administration.”  King notes that we don’t have the ability to screen them in the next 12 months. Then he ominously warns: “We do not want another Boston Marathon bombing.”  That slaughter was committed by two Muslim brothers admitted as asylum-seekers from Chechnya. [JDT: One actually named Tamerlan.] To repay this country for its kindness in taking them in, and giving them a welcome basket of welfare benefits (and a college scholarship for one), the Tsarnaev boys planted two pressure-cooker bombs packed with shrapnel at the finish line of the 2013 Marathon, killing three, including an 8-year-old boy, and wounding 264. Of the latter, 14 required amputations.”

Islam is on track to dominate the world in a few decades, Europe sooner. Not through suicide bombing the West into oblivion, but through HIJRAH,”Migration jihad.” Here are the demographics to prove it. https://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU



Hijrah (Migration jihad)

Obama's Plan

Hijrah (Migration jihad)

Sign up for John's Mail lists
Free Newsletters and Action Notes
This entry was posted in Actionable, Constitution & Gov, Military, Non-Fiction and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to EPIC FAIL: Obama’s Wars – have “accidentally” aided the rise of Radical Islam.

  1. Pingback: John Trudel: Obama's "foreign policy" has inspired more jihadis | Victoria TaftVictoria Taft

  2. John Trudel says:

    ISIS Plans Mass Genocide — 500 Million People Need to Die
    Evidently ISIS plans to wipe out all of us, starting with those in the Middle East, those of other religions, all atheists, and those who don’t subscribe to their particular brand of Islam.

    At least that’s what a German reporter claims. He was permitted to be embedded in the Islamic State for 10 fun-filled days. Well, that must have been more fun than a barrel of severed heads.

    According to 74-year-old reporter Jurgen Todenhofer, ISIS is deadly serious and truly believes they can actually win the fight against the infidels. Todenhofer told ABC News that “The IS fighters are much smarter and more dangerous than our leaders believe. In the Islam State, there is an almost palpable enthusiasm and confidence of victory, which I have not seen in many war zones.” He added: “They are extremely brutal. I’m talking about the strategy of religious cleansing. They are talking about 500 million people who have to die.”

    And why wouldn’t they be extremely confident, knowing that Western politicians lack the courage and will to do what is truly necessary to stop them….

    Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/19439/isis-plans-mass-genocide-500-million-people-need-die/#fPpMelZQwAPWAl7g.99

  3. John Trudel says:

    Enemy in the White House
    Exclusive: Pamela Geller asks, `If Obama were Muslim, what would he do differently?’

    Obama’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday continues to send shockwaves through this country.

    Obama’s statement has quickly become notorious: “Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the crusades and the inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” Not yesterday, President Obama. Centuries ago. Not yesterday.

    People committed terrible deeds in the cause of Allah yesterday, and the day before and the day before – but Obama refuses to say that.

    Contrary to his claims that Christians were slaughtering in the name of Christ, we see none of that. Nowhere do you see Christians beheading, setting alight or crucifying non-Christians while screaming, “Christ is greatest!” Obama had the unmitigated gall to bring up the Spanish Inquisition and what was done at the end of that 800-year-old war, as well as the Crusades (which Obama mentioned as well), which was against the Muslim hordes close to 1,000 years ago. Had it not been for Charles Martel beating back the Muslim armies, Europe would look like the hellhole that much of the Middle East looks like today.

    Obama insists that “the future does not belong to those that slander the prophet of Islam,” but insulting Jesus Christ? He’s all in.

    Obama freely brought up Christianity’s ancient history, but did not mention Islam’s 1,400-year bloody history of jihadi war, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements. He failed to mention the 1,400-year jihad against the Jews raging still today against Israel and Jews across the world. And, of course, he did not discuss the religion’s bloody jihad now. On the contrary, he falsely claimed that Islam was being “hijacked.”

    Hijacked, how? Jihadists are citing the Quran, chapter and verse. They are using Muhammad as their “perfect example.” Obama never said Christianity had been hijacked a thousand years ago. But he did make the outrageous claim that Jim Crow and slavery were sanctioned in the name of Christ.

    Jim Crow was not in the name of Christ. Slavery was not in the name of Christ. These are despicable statements from the leader of the free world. But jihad is in the cause of Allah, and this he will not say.

    Jesus did not behead, kill, rape or steal from conquered people, calling the theft righteous booty. Jesus did not marry a six-year-old. Muhammad did. And he slaughtered untold numbers, with his mujahadeen raping and pillaging every bloody step of the way.

    Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books – featured at the WND Superstore

    Those of us who saw this coming back in 2008 and 2009 were excoriated, ridiculed and marginalized for speaking the truth about Obama’s past. In 2007, I wrote a commentary for Israel National News titled, “Obama, the Muslim Thing, And Why It Matters.” Before Obama’s election, anyone who used his middle name, Hussein, was labeled a racist-anti-Muslim-Islamophobic-bigot. And yet the first call he made to a foreign “leader” after he was inaugurated was to terror leader Mahmoud Abbas. The first interview he gave was with al Arabiya television. His first world tour was an apology tour to the Muslim world, culminating in a speech from the leading Islamic university in Cairo, Al Azhar. He invited the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group to his speech in Cairo, despite the fact that it had been banned for decades. Then President Mubarak and his cabinet, America’s 30-year ally in that troubled region, could not attend Obama’s speech because of the terror presence.

    It’s why I wrote my 2010 book, “The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.”

    And now, five years later, with the global jihad roiling the world thanks to Obama’s support and sanction, he deigns to tell us what our religion is.

    President Dawah. The more jihad rages, the more Obama proselytizes for Islam. Muslim countries like Jordan are taking a much harder line than the U.S. It’s outrageous.

    The question isn’t whether Obama is or isn’t a Muslim. The question is, if he were a Muslim, what would he be doing differently? In a word, nothing.

    Enemy in the White House.

    – See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/02/pamela-geller-wnd-enemy-in-the-white-house.html/#sthash.OYp38feE.vYorEDZ1.dpuf

  4. Pingback: War on Terror –> Jobs for jihadis –> “Hand’s up, Don’t Shoot” for jihadis… | Freedom Writers

  5. John Trudel says:

    Obama’s Wars. He’s not on America’s side.

    Aiding Islamic Terrorists Is Our Foreign Policy

    February 20, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield

    Obama says that we are not fighting a war on Islam. What he leaves out is that under his administration the United States is fighting in a civil war that is taking place within Islam.

    It’s not a conflict between the proverbial moderate Muslim and the raging fanatic. That was an outdated Bush era notion. Instead Obama has brought us into a fight between Muslim governments and Muslim terrorists, not on the side of the governments we were allied with, but on the side of the terrorists.

    It’s why Egypt is shopping for French planes and Russian nukes. Yemen’s government was run out of town by Obama’s new Iranian friends in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia. And the Saudis are dumping oil.

    Iran and Qatar are the regional powers Obama is closest to. What these two countries have in common, is that despite their mutual hostility, they are both international state sponsors of Islamic terrorism.

    Obama’s diplomats will be negotiating with the Taliban in Qatar. Among the Taliban delegation will be the terrorist leaders that Obama freed from Gitmo. And Iran gets anything it wants, from Yemen to the bomb, by using the threat of walking away in a huff from the hoax nuclear negotiations as leverage.

    In Syria and Iraq, Obama is fighting ISIS alongside Islamic terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and Iran. In Libya, he overthrew a government in support of Islamic terrorists. His administration has spoken out against Egyptian air strikes against the Islamic State Jihadists in Libya who had beheaded Coptic Christians.

    At the prayer breakfast where he denounced Christianity for the Crusades was the foreign minister of the Muslim Brotherhood government of Sudan that has massacred Christians. Unlike Libya, where Obama used a false claim of genocide to justify an illegal war, Sudan actually has committed genocide. And yet Obama ruled out using force against Sudan’s genocide even while he was running for office.

    The United States now has a strange two-tier relationship with the Middle East. On paper we retain a number of traditional alliances with old allies such as Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia, complete with arms sales, foreign aid and florid speeches. But when it comes to policy, our new friends are the terrorists.

    American foreign policy is no longer guided by national interests. Our allies have no input in it. It is shaped around the whims of Qatar and Iran; it’s guided by the Muslim Brotherhood and defined by the interests of state sponsors of terror. Our foreign policy is a policy of aiding Islamic terrorists.

    It’s only a question of which terrorists.

    Obama’s familiar argument is that ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters shouldn’t be called Islamic terrorists. Not even the politically correct sop of “Radical Islam” is acceptable. The terrorists are perverting Islam, he claims. The claim was banal even before September 11, but it bears an entirely new significance from an administration that has put Muslim Brotherhood operatives into key positions.

    The administration is asserting the power to decide who is a Muslim. It’s a theological position that means it is taking sides in a Muslim civil war between Islamists.

    This position is passed off as a strategy for undermining the terrorists. Refusing to call the Islamic State by its name, using the more derogatory “Daesh,” denying that the Islamic terrorists are acting in the name of Islam, is supposed to inhibit recruitment. This claim is made despite the flood of Muslims leaving the West to join ISIS. If any group should be vulnerable to our propaganda, it should be them.

    But that’s not what this is really about.

    According recognition to a state is a powerful diplomatic tool for shaping world politics. We refuse to recognize ISIS, as we initially refused to recognize the USSR. Obama resumed diplomatic ties with Cuba. His people negotiate and appease the Taliban even though it was in its own time just as brutal as ISIS.

    Obama is not willing to recognize ISIS as Islamic, but he does recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as Islamic. Both are violent and murderous Islamists. But only one of them is “legitimate” in his eyes.

    Those choices are not about terrorist recruitment, but about building a particular map of the region. Obama refuses to concede that ISIS is Islamic, not because he worries that it will bring them more followers, this is a tertiary long shot at best, but because he is supporting some of their rivals.

    The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism has brought a covert strategy out into the spotlight. Despite its name, it’s not countering violence or extremism.

    The new director of the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, the axis of Obama’s CVE strategy, is Rashad Hussain who appeared at Muslim Brotherhood front group events and defended the head of Islamic Jihad. In attendance was Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, yet another Muslim Brotherhood linked group, who had urged Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI and defended Hamas and Hezbollah.

    In Syria, the United States is coordinating with Assad and backing the Syrian rebels, who have their own extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and even Al Qaeda. This could be viewed as an “enemy of my enemy” alliance, but this administration backed the Brotherhood before it viewed ISIS as a threat. Top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, had focused on outreach to Assad under Bush.

    They’re not allying with Assad and the Brotherhood to beat ISIS. They’re fighting ISIS to protect the Brotherhood and their deal with Iran.

    In the White House, Obama has tried to shape an Islamist future for the Middle East, favoring Islamist governments in Turkey and Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood. He saw his role as paving the way for the next generation of regional regimes that would be explicitly Islamist.

    The Arab Spring was a deceptive code name for a clean sweep that would push out the old leaders like Mubarak and replace them with the Muslim Brotherhood and other likeminded Islamists. Islamic terrorism, at least against the United States, would end because their mission had been accomplished.

    Stabilizing unrest by putting the destabilizers in charge wasn’t a new idea. Carter helped make it happen in Iran. And the more violent an Islamic terrorist group is, the more important it is to find a way to stop the violence by putting them in charge. The only two criteria that matter are violence and dialogue.

    So why isn’t Obama talking to ISIS? Because ISIS won’t talk back. It’s impossible to support a terrorist group that won’t engage in dialogue. If ISIS were to indicate any willingness to negotiate, diplomats would be sitting around a table with headchoppers in less time than it takes a Jordanian pilot to burn.

    And that still might happen.

    Obama isn’t trying to finish off ISIS. He’s keeping them on the ropes the way that he did the Taliban. Over 2,000 Americans died on the off chance that the Taliban would agree to the negotiations in Qatar. Compared to that price in blood, the Bergdahl deal was small potatoes. And if Obama is negotiating with the Taliban after all that, is there any doubt that he would negotiate to integrate ISIS into Iraq and Syria?

    Obama’s foreign policy in the region has been an elaborate exercise in trying to draw up new maps for a caliphate. The inclusion of terrorist groups in this program isn’t a mistake. It’s not naiveté or blindness. It’s the whole point of the exercise which was to transform terrorist groups into governments.

    Stabilizing the region by turning terrorists into governments may sound like pouring oil on a fire, but to progressives who believe in root causes, rather than winning wars, violence is a symptom of discontent. The problem isn’t the suicide bomber. It’s our power structure. Tear that down, as Obama tried to do in Cairo, and the terrorists no longer have anything to fight against because we aren’t in their way.

    Bush tried to build up civil society to choke off terrorism. Obama builds civil society around terrorists.

    Obama does not believe that the terrorists are the problem. He believes that we are the problem. His foreign policy is not about fighting Islamic terrorists. It is about destroying our power to stop them.

    He isn’t fighting terrorists. He’s fighting us.


  6. Pingback: Right to Work & Obama Neutrality Agreement | Freedom Writers

  7. John Trudel says:

    “Washington (CNN) President Barack Obama has pointed to Yemen to boast that his new global anti-terror strategy was thriving.

    But with Iranian-backed rebels now overrunning the U.S. ally tasked with beating back local al Qaeda affiliates, the nation at the tip of Arabian Peninsula makes a better case study in the approach’s limitations.

    Yemen was the petri dish for Obama’s concept of how to fight Islamic extremists with a hybrid warfare of U.S. drone strikes, special forces and on-the-ground intelligence provided by local partners….”


    Country of India Saving Americans Trapped in Yemen, But Obama Says He Won’t Help

    It isn’t just India helping our people flee Yemen, either. France, Canada and even our enemy Russia are helping Americans get out. And Obama? Not so much.

    The State Department is telling U.S. citizens fleeing the fighting in Yemen to contact the government of India or an international NGO dedicated to migrant rights for help, according to the website for the abandoned U.S. embassy in Sanaa and statements by Indian government officials.

    The United States has military assets in the area. However, Marie Harf, a spokesperson for the State Department, said last week, “Doing something like sending in military assets, even for an evacuation, could put U.S. citizen lives at greater risk.” The State Department’s website currently states that, “There are no plans for a U.S. government-coordinated evacuation of U.S. citizens at this time.”

    Just like he did for the victims at Benghazi Obama has abandoned you, Americans.


  8. Pingback: Congress takes a stand on a nuclear Iran? | Freedom Writers

  9. John Trudel says:

    Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

    For months, many Western observers have been closely following the minute-by-minute developments concerning the battle between Islamic State and coalition forces in the hopes that such data will help them discern what the future may hold.
    Yet knowledge of the end game has been available for anyone viewing the Obama administration with the eyes of a hedgehog, not a fox.

    In an article published over seven months ago, I anticipated the main developments to have taken place since U.S. President Obama declared war (i.e., “airstrikes”) on the Islamic State in September, 2014.

    Titled “Does Obama Need ‘Time to Defeat or Forget ISIS? [2]” I made the following predictions, all of which have come true, and in the same sequence:
    Obama’s “it will take time” [to defeat IS] assertion prompts the following prediction: U.S. airstrikes on IS targets will continue to be just enough to pacify those calling for action against the caliphate (“we’re doing what we can”). The official [U.S. government’s] narrative will be that the Islamic State is gradually being weakened, that victory is a matter of time (remember, “It will take time”)….

    [W]e will hear about the occasional victory against IS—this or that leader killed or captured…

    Then, just as they “suddenly” appeared in Iraq, we will “suddenly” again hear—probably first from IS itself—that the Islamic State has made some major comeback, winning over some new piece of territory, as the caliphate continues to grow and get stronger.

    Now consider how the Obama administration’s actions have fulfilled these predictions, and often in the same sequence.

    The official [U.S. government’s] narrative will be that the Islamic State is gradually being weakened, that victory is a matter of time…

    Last February, key Obama administration figures—including Secretary of State John Kerry and retired General John Allen, the president’s special coordinator for the coalition against the Islamic State—triumphantly asserted that, thanks to U.S. airstrikes, “half the group’s [IS] leaders in Iraq had been killed.”

    Not long thereafter an investigative report demonstrated that such claims were utterly false [3] and hardly representative of reality.

    [W]e will hear about the occasional victory against IS…

    In April, the Pentagon announced [4] that, thanks to U.S. airstrikes and the Iraqi army, “ISIL [Islamic State] is no longer the dominant force in roughly 25 to 30% of the populated areas of Iraqi territory where it once had complete freedom of movement.” The Pentagon even released a map showing which territories the Islamic State had lost.

    Soon, however, it became evident that the Pentagon’s claim and map were misleading and incomplete [5]. Among other irregularities, the map, while showing territories that IS once held and territories it had since lost, failed to indicate the new territories IS had gained since the coalition effort began—making the 25%-30% claim totally misleading.

    [W]e will hear about … this or that leader killed or captured…

    Nor was Obama administration grandstanding concerning the killing of “key” ISIS figures wanting. Most recently, on May 16, U.S. special forces managed to kill Abu Sayyaf. Although only a mid-ranking leader, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said his killing “represents another significant blow to Isis [6].” (Read here [7] for an idea of how many times U.S. officials have made the “significant blow” assertion whenever this or that jihadi dies, only for the jihad to spread and conquer more lands.)

    Even the New York Times observed [8] that “Abu Sayyaf is a midlevel leader in the organization — one terrorism analyst compared him to Al Capone’s accountant — and likely is replaceable in fairly short order.”

    Then, just as they “suddenly” appeared in Iraq, we will “suddenly” again hear—probably first from IS itself—that the Islamic State has made some major comeback, winning over some new piece of territory, as the caliphate continues to grow and get stronger.

    Finally, after the Obama administration had claimed that it had killed half of IS leadership, that it had pushed IS out of 25%-30% previously held territory, that its killing of an IS midlevel leader was a “significant blow”—right on cue, the Islamic State just announced its takeover of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, one of Iraq’s most strategic provinces. According to a May 17 Reuters report [9]:
    Islamic State militants said they had taken full control of the western Iraqi city of Ramadi on Sunday in the biggest defeat for the Baghdad government since last summer.
    It was the biggest victory for Islamic State in Iraq since security forces and Shi’ite paramilitary groups began pushing the militants back last year, aided by air strikes from a U.S.-led coalition.

    The U.S. Defense Department, while not confirming the fall of Ramadi, sought to play down the impact on the broader Iraq military campaign of an Islamic State seizure of the city.

    To fully appreciate the significance of this latest conquest by the Islamic State, consider the words of Anbar governor Ahmed al-Dulaimi spoken [10] back in November 2014: “If we lose Anbar, that means we will lose Iraq.”

    Of course, none of these developments are surprising for those among us who were able to take a step back—to transcend the distracting noise and nonsense daily grinded out by mainstream media—and look at the big picture.

    For those able to read the plain writing on the wall, the end game of Obama and IS was always easy to discern [2].

    Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here [11].
    LIKE [12] Frontpagemag.com on Facebook and Subscribe [13] to Jamie Glazov Productions [13].

    Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com
    URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/raymond-ibrahim/obamas-policies-to-empower-isis-exposed/
    URLs in this post:
    [1] Image: http://www.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/obama1.jpg
    [2] Does Obama Need ‘Time to Defeat or Forget ISIS?: http://www.raymondibrahim.com/other-matters/does-obama-need-time-to-defeat-or-forget-isis/
    [3] utterly false: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-13/did-kerry-exaggerate-islamic-state-casualties-
    [4] announced: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/13/iraq-obanma-al-abad-isis-isil/25733983/
    [5] misleading and incomplete: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/22/the-pentagon-s-isis-map-is-so-wrong.html
    [6] represents another significant blow to Isis: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/16/isis-leader-killed-us-special-forces-raid-syria
    [7] Read here: http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/a-dead-caliph-vs-the-hydra-of-jihad/
    [8] observed: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/world/middleeast/abu-sayyaf-isis-commander-killed-by-us-forces-pentagon-says.html?_r=0
    [9] report: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/17/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-idUSKBN0O20M020150517
    [10] spoken: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2850831/Iraqi-forces-battle-IS-jihadists-Ramadi-Kirkuk.html
    [11] Click here: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=david+horowitz&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&qid=1316459840&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&sort=daterank
    [12] LIKE: https://www.facebook.com/frontpagemag?fref=ts
    [13] Subscribe: http://jamieglazov.com/

  10. John Trudel says:

    Obama often lies but has now gone full Orwellian — or full delusional. He argues [falsely] that America is “more respected” and has made the world safer by enabling jihad, giving nukes to Iran, etc. He is giving speeches about this to foreign groups.


    The truth is that our enemies no longer fear us and our friends no longer trust us thanks to his policies and actions.

    President Obama: Under My Leadership, US Once Again Most Respected Country on Earth

    By Larry O’Connor (1 day ago) | Nation, World

    Speaking with Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative Fellows at the White House, President Barack Obama said that under his leadership, the United States has become the most respected country in the world.

    The Daily Caller details President Obama’s remarks, in which he emphasized his pending nuclear deal with Iran as one of the deciding factors:

    “People don’t remember, but when I came into office, the United States in world opinion ranked below China and just barely above Russia, and today once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth, and part of that I think is because of the work we did to reengage the world and say that we want to work with you as partners with mutual interests and mutual respect.

    It was on that basis we were able to end two wars while still focusing on the very real threat of terrorism and to try to work with our partners in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s the reason why we are moving in the direction of normalize relations with Cuba. The nuclear deal that we are trying to negotiate with Iran.”

    The President didn’t cite specific research to support his claim. According to a 2014 survey conducted by the Reputation Institute and covered by Forbes, the top nod goes to Switzerland, with the U.S. falling to 22nd place.


  11. John Trudel says:

    Judge Andrew Napolitano

    Hillary’s Secret War

    In the course of my work at Fox News, I am often asked by colleagues to review and explain documents and statutes. Recently, in conjunction with my colleagues Catherine Herridge, our chief intelligence correspondent, and Pamela Browne, our senior executive producer, I read the transcripts of an interview Browne did with a man named Marc Turi, and Herridge asked me to review emails to and from State Department and congressional officials during the years when Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state.

    What I saw has persuaded me beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Clinton provided material assistance to terrorists and lied to Congress in a venue where the law required her to be truthful. Here is the backstory.

    Turi is a lawfully licensed American arms dealer. In 2011, he applied to the Departments of State and Treasury for approvals to sell arms to the government of Qatar. Qatar is a small Middle Eastern country whose government is so entwined with the U.S. government that it almost always will do what American government officials ask of it.

    In its efforts to keep arms from countries and groups that might harm Americans and American interests, Congress has authorized the Departments of State and Treasury to be arms gatekeepers. They can declare a country or group to be a terrorist organization, in which case selling or facilitating the sale of arms to them is a felony. They also can license dealers to sell.

    Turi sold hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of arms to the government of Qatar, which then, at the request of American government officials, were sold, bartered or given to rebel groups in Libya and Syria. Some of the groups that received the arms were on the U.S. terror list. Thus, the same State and Treasury Departments that licensed the sales also prohibited them.

    How could that be?

    That’s where Clinton’s secret State Department and her secret war come in. Because Clinton used her husband’s computer server for all of her email traffic while she was the secretary of state, a violation of three federal laws, few in the State Department outside her inner circle knew what she was up to.

    Now we know.

    She obtained permission from President Obama and consent from congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and in both parties to arm rebels in Syria and Libya in an effort to overthrow the governments of those countries.

    Many of the rebels Clinton armed, using the weapons lawfully sold to Qatar by Turi and others, were terrorist groups who are our sworn enemies. There was no congressional declaration of war, no congressional vote, no congressional knowledge beyond fewer than a dozen members, and no federal statute that authorized this.

    When Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked Clinton at a public hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 23, 2013, whether she knew about American arms shipped to the Middle East, to Turkey or to any other country, she denied any knowledge. It is unclear whether she was under oath at the time, but that is legally irrelevant. The obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to Congress pertains to all witnesses who testify before congressional committees, whether an oath has been administered or not. (Just ask Roger Clemens, who was twice prosecuted for misleading Congress about the contents of his urine while not under oath. He was acquitted.)

    Here is her relevant testimony.

    Paul: My question is … is the U.S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons … buying, selling … anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey … out of Libya?

    Clinton: To Turkey? … I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me. I, I…

    Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons … and what I’d like to know is … the (Benghazi) annex that was close by… Were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons … and were any of these weapons transferred to other countries … any countries, Turkey included?

    Clinton: Senator, you will have to direct that question to the agency that ran the (Benghazi) annex. And I will see what information is available and … ahhhh…

    Paul: You are saying you don’t know…

    Clinton: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.

    At the time that Clinton denied knowledge of the arms shipments, she and her State Department political designee Andrew Shapiro had authorized thousands of shipments of billions of dollars’ worth of arms to U.S. enemies to fight her secret war. Among the casualties of her war were U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three colleagues, who were assassinated at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by rebels Clinton armed with American military hardware in violation of American law.

    This secret war and the criminal behavior that animated it was the product of conspirators in the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the CIA and a tight-knit group of members of Congress. Their conspiracy has now unraveled. Where is the outrage among the balance of Congress?

    Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?


  12. Pingback: HAZIRA -- "Migration Jihad." It's back! | Freedom Writers

  13. John Trudel says:

    Barring the unexpected, it looks like game over. Obama has given Iran Nukes and $150 Billion. The feckless Republicans refused to use all their powers to stop him. They caved. The video link below is worth watching.

    71% Oppose Iran deal – http://www.iransideeffects.com/index.html

  14. Kristen says:

    Hey there! I’ve been following your blog for a long time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Humble Tx!
    Just wanted to tell you keep up the excellent job!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *