Thursday, December 31, 2015

Hillary’s and the Democrats’ "war on children"

From HERE:

2016 is our last stand. It’s the most important year in our country’s history.

After what Barack Obama has done to damage America, I fear the window is closing fast. I don’t believe America can be saved if a Democrat like Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders follows Obama in the White House. Either we take back the White House; repeal and replace Obamacare; stop the madness of climate change/green energy; stop the EPA dead in its tracks; undo all the onerous regulations put into place by Obama; build a wall and secure the border; stop the madness of importing Syrian refugees to America; and dramatically lower taxes, spending and debt, or America is lost forever.

If the GOP doesn’t win the White House on Nov. 8, the very next day we need to all be thinking of where to go and what to do to protect our families, our incomes, our assets, our children’s future. It’s time for “Escape From America.”

It sounds like the title of a fictional horror film, except this time it’s real. Every friend I have with substantial assets to protect is already making plans either to leave or to obtain dual citizenship. The preparations have begun for smart people with the resources.

Today’s column is about the campaign theme that the GOP presidential candidate must use to win the 2016 election. This is the theme that can save our country and our children’s future. If Republicans don’t use it 24/7 from now until the election in November, they should be prosecuted for gross negligence. Their only defense would be insanity. I call this theme the Democrats’ “war on children.”

Democrats understand marketing and branding so much better than Republicans. Obama, Hillary and Bernie always take a page right out of their favorite playbook, Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals,” by declaring a “Republican war on women.” It’s all Hillary talks about. It will most certainly be the theme her 2016 campaign is built around.

Sadly, Republicans are cucktarded cowards afraid of their own shadows. Democrats trot out “the race card” and the “you hate women card” again and again. The GOP responds by playing defense and running scared.

It’s the reason I’m a big fan of Donald Trump. He doesn’t play that game. He isn’t afraid of anyone. He doesn’t apologize or play on defense. He plays on offense. He’s in your face. He tells the truth and lets the chips fall where they may — no matter how offensive or politically incorrect. He plays to win. 

Donald understands that we need to be relentless to make America great again and to make America safe again.

It’s time for all Republicans to learn from Trump. It’s time to fight fire with fire. It’s time to throw out all the gentlemen’s rules because we’re not fighting gentlemen. We’re fighting slanderous liars and frauds out to destroy America and steal our children’s future. We can’t afford to “play nice.” It’s time to put Democrats on the defensive.

Democrats understand the marketing and branding power of using emotional hooks like “the war on women.” Well, two can play at that game. It’s time to use an emotional hook of our own. The difference is this one isn’t made up. It’s time to point out that the real war is the Democrats’ “war on children.”

The war on children starts in the womb. Hillary and her ilk don’t hesitate to kill children in the womb. No point in a woman’s pregnancy is too extreme. No limit to abortion is acceptable. Not even ripping a child to pieces with partial birth abortion is too extreme for Hillary and the Democrats. Not even the harvesting and sale of organs from innocent fetuses by Planned Parenthood is too extreme.

And anyone who tries to point out these extreme examples of murder or torture upon children, anyone who champions or defends children who cannot speak for themselves, is immediately slandered and labeled as “extreme” or “an enemy of women.”

Well-meaning people can have legitimate disagreements about whether or not life begins at the moment of conception. But surely only radical extremists would argue that after five months or more, a fully formed fetus with a beating heart is not a child. Surely only radical extremists would defend the harvesting of organs from dead babies.

But this is only the start of Hillary’s and the Democrats’ war on children.

The children who survive are then consigned to government schools where they are kept marginally ignorant, taught to always obey authority and show loyalty to government, and taught it’s OK to be dependent upon government. The brainwashing begins young, starting with free breakfasts and lunch provided by government. Parents no longer take care of the most basic of responsibilities: feeding their children.

Can you imagine? Moms and dads are no longer capable of making breakfast for their children. 

Government schools teach kids to expect breakfast, lunch and now even a backpack filled with food to take home for the weekend.

Big Brother now provides your meals, not mom or dad.

These same government schools have outlawed being a boy, labeling the actual signs of masculinity as “Attention Deficit Disorder” and drugging boys because they act like boys. Not to mention the more boys they count as “disabled” the more money the school gets from the federal government.

These same government schools teach our children to be sheep. They are discouraged from thinking for themselves, taught that competition in all forms (but especially in business and the workplace) is bad, and rewarded with a trophy if they simply show up.

What does this lead to? A future taking orders from a manager at a fast food restaurant, or a future sitting home watching cartoons and Jerry Springer while waiting for a welfare check in the mail. But of course, this is how you create future loyal Democratic voters.

Perhaps worst of all is that for many years now our schools have been keeping America’s schoolchildren ignorant about basic economics. Our children are never taught in school (and the mainstream media keeps it well hidden, too) the numbers $164,000 and $8,200: $164,000 is the current federal debt each American family of four owes; and $8,200 is the amount, at 5 percent interest, you are paying on that debt each and every year.

No one teach our children that this debt will destroy their future and rip their hopes and dreams to shreds. No one teaches our children why the debt keeps growing: to keep progressive politicians in office for life and line the pockets of the political class.

This government spending and debt machine is at the heart of the Democrats’ war on children, and the day of reckoning is fast approaching.

If you have any doubt about a day of reckoning and what it might look like, all you need do is look at Greece. That bankrupt, broken country proves that debt is a poison, a dream killer, the death of a nation.

But we can look closer to home to see even more proof. Just study Detroit, a city under 100 percent Democratic control for well over 50 years. The last Republican mayor of Detroit left office in 1962. Ruled for half a century by the same policies and leftist agenda of Obama, Hillary and Bernie, Detroit is a bankrupt broken cesspool of murder, violence, crushing poverty, broken street lights, abandoned buildings and taxes so high everyone with any assets has left. Both Greece and Detroit are places that prove the Democrats’ war on children is brutal and real.

So setting aside abortion, you mean a place where children can’t walk the streets without risking shootings, rape or murder is not a war on children?

You mean a place where children are almost guaranteed to never get a solid education, never find a good job, and rely on food stamps and welfare for life isn’t a war on children?

You mean a place where almost no child has a father in the home isn’t a war on children?

You mean a place where your environment is abandoned buildings, broken street lamps and drug dealers’ owning the streets isn’t a war on children?

You mean a place where a child is more likely to wind up in prison than college isn’t a war on children?

Again, let me stress, only Democrats and their policies and progressive agenda have created this brutal environment. Only Democrats like Obama, Hillary and Bernie have been in power and control of Detroit since 1962. And don’t forget the party that ran Greece into the ground was called the “Socialist Party.”

It’s always liberals, leftists, progressives and socialists who lead a war on children.
So let’s stop talking about a made-up war on women. It is only meant to distract. The GOP must start talking about the real war: Hillary Clinton’s and the Democrats’ war on children.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty®. I want to thank you all for reading and commenting on my columns for four wonderful years. I hope you’ll continue to watch my videos and read my columns at my personal website, Because that’s what my life is dedicated to: I root for America. God bless you. God bless America. And Happy New Year 2016, the year we take back our great country!

Personal Liberty

Wayne Allyn Root

Wayne Allyn Root is one of America's leading Libertarian-conservative authors. Wayne's new book is The Murder of the Middle ClassWayne is a Capitalist Evangelist, serial entrepreneur, conservative media commentator, and proud champion of the middle class. He is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee and Fox News regular. Follow Wayne on Twitter and visit Wayne's web site:

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Obama Set to Sign Deal Allowing Foreign Takeover of America’s Land and Resources

From here:

Once shrouded in secrecy, President Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership is now becoming public, and what we’re discovering is absolutely frightening.

Apparently the deal reverses policies in place to protect national security.

Chapter 11 of the deal allows foreign investors the rights to acquire American land, businesses, ports, natural resources, infrastructure and other property.

Chapters 28 and 29 give foreign investors the ability to work around U.S. courts and sue the United States before a dispute tribunal if they feel U.S. law violated their “rights” under the deal.
Additionally, the U.S. government had unfettered power to protect its national security interests as it deemed necessary, but the TPP agreement reverses this power. As a consequence, other countries could maintain that U.S. security interests violate the deal and they could then insist the United States pay billions of dollars in damages.

The TPP is anything but the simple free trade deal Obama wants us to think it is. It is a complex array of rules and regulations intended to control the economic relations between the nations involved in the deal. Furthermore, there is no economic model indicating any benefit to the United States from the agreement.

There is a reason Obama wanted to keep the details of this deal secret. While he wants to tout that it will help workers, the truth is that it does the opposite.

Obama has proven again and again why he cannot be trusted. He goes behind the backs of the American people and institutes legislation whether we like it or not. His actions suggest that he constantly puts Americans at risk.

Even if we didn’t now have the agreement of the text to go by, his track record alone should tell us this is a bad deal and should be stopped.


UNITED NATIONS – The fine print of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a reading has revealed, reverses policies put in place to prevent the foreign takeover of the United States’ ports and other crucial national infrastructure.

And it appears to undermine U.S. national security.

The release of the long-hidden Obamatrade text reveals it gives foreign interests the power to do an end-run around laws designed to protect crucial American infrastructure from national security threats – and the U.S. would be hard pressed to stop it.

Previous U.S. trade pacts stated in no uncertain terms that the national security interests of the United States are determined solely by the U.S. government and supersede any provisions of the pacts.
The U.S. government had unfettered power to protect its national security interests as it deemed necessary – even if its actions might violate the terms of a trade agreement.

But the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement reverses this precedent. As a result, other countries could claim the U.S. national security interests violate the TPP agreement and they could then demand the U.S. pay billions of dollars in damages.

It’s telling that the Obama administration failed to safeguard the U.S. national security while other nations – Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand – made sure they maintained their sole and sovereign authority to control their national security.

Chapter 11 of the TPP gives foreign investors special rights to acquire American land, natural resources, businesses, ports, infrastructure and other investments in the U.S.

Under Chapter 28 and Chapter 29, these foreign investors could do an end-run around U.S. courts and sue the U.S. before an international panel, known as an investor-state dispute tribunal, if they feel American law violates their “rights” under the TPP.

Currently, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, reviews pending foreign investments in the U.S. to determine if they pose a threat to national security and can recommend the president shut down investments deemed a threat. Under previous trade agreements, foreign investors would have no recourse.

But under the TPP, the sultan of Brunei, the billionaire autocrat who rules his TPP country under Shariah law, could sue for billions of dollars if CFIUS denied his bid to buy a company providing security to U.S. ports and airports.

He would bring his case before a foreign tribunal that could force taxpayers to award him compensation for “lost profits,” under the terms of the agreement.

The tribunal, staffed by three unelected lawyers hailing from anywhere in the world, would have the power to second-guess the U.S. government on what constitutes a threat to national security.

This is not an unheard of scenario.

In 2006, Dubai Ports World (DPW), a state owned enterprise of the United Arab Emirates, sought to buy a company that ran six major U.S. ports. Congress intervened to block the sale after Coast Guard officials raised the possibility of significant security risks.

That controversy came in the midst of congressional debate over the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. Like the TPP, the Oman pact gave foreign investors expansive rights to acquire and operate U.S. businesses – and to sue if they felt their rights were violated. After a huge public outcry, the sale was blocked.

Following the Dubai Ports World controversy, language was added in a footnote to all U.S. trade agreements to shut down any second-guessing of U.S. security interests by trade tribunals. The footnote makes clear the U.S. has sole discretion in determining its essential national security interests.

The critical footnote to the “Security Exception” Article 22.2 of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, Article 21.2 of the Panama FT, Article 22.2 of the Colombia FTA and Article 23.2 of the Korea-US FT read: ” For greater certainty, if a party invokes [the 'Security Exception'] Article in an arbitral proceeding initiated under [Investment] Chapter or [Dispute Settlement] Chapter, the tribunal or panel hearing the matter shall find that the exception applies.”

In plain English, it says if the U.S. invokes national security, that’s final – no foreign “trade” tribunal could overrule it.

But this crucial stipulation was eliminated from Article 29.2 of the final TPP text.

As a result, any company operating in a TPP country could drag the U.S. before an extrajudicial foreign tribunal and demand taxpayer compensation if our government prevented it from buying a
crucial American asset based on national security grounds.

Without this footnote to Article 29.2, one of the TPP’s trade dispute tribunals could substitute its
judgment for that of the U.S. government with respect to what is considered an essential security interest of the U.S.

The TPP also includes an Annex 9-H, which states that a government’s decision on whether to approve a given foreign investment in its territory is not subject to challenges before an investor-state dispute tribunal. While Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand listed their relevant foreign investment review laws, the United States failed to do so.

WND reported only weeks ago when the text of the TPP finally was released so lawmakers and taxpayers could read it.

TPP was envisioned as the largest-ever economic regulatory treaty, encompassing more than 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product.

Secretary of State John Kerry said the pact will merge the U.S. economy with Mexico and ten others nations, including Canada, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei.

Muslim cleric giving Clinton millions

From HERE:

The Clinton family and Hillary Clinton’s campaign are being accused of accepting millions of dollars from what at least one U.S. ally is calling a terrorist network.

The U.S.-based Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen is a longstanding ally of Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their cozy relationship has included dinners and speaking arrangements throughout the years.

He is suspected of controlling $25 billion in global assets and his followers have reportedly poured millions into the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

But now Gulen has been accused in a U.S. court of being the ringleader of an international terrorist network, and Turkey is calling on America to extradite Gulen.

A Turkish government-backed lawsuit has been filed against Gulen and alleges that the Muslim cleric orchestrated human rights abuses from his residence in Pennsylvania against three men in Turkey.
A lawyer hired by the Turkish government, Robert Amsterdam, provided a copy of the filing in the U.S. district court in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit labels Gulen’s movement, which many have compared to a cult, as a terrorist organization.

Most recently, the lawsuit alleges, Gulen’s followers participated in a plot that led to the false imprisonment of three men in Turkey.

The controversial Islamic cleric’s cozy relationship doesn’t stop with the Clintons. In October, Gulen’s religious movement was accused of secretly funding up to 200 trips to Turkey for members of Congress and staff since 2008, and according to the USA Today report these trips may have repeatedly violated House rules and possibly federal law.

The lawsuit is part of a broad campaign against Gulen’s movement in Turkey and abroad. The government has carried out a purge of civil servants suspected of ties to the movement, seized businesses and closed some of Gulen’s suspected media organizations.

The suit alleges that Gulen targeted the three men because they were critical of his religious teachings, which critics say are almost cult-like.

Gulen continues to live within the U.S. borders carefree, residing in rural Pennsylvania and in regular contact with his Muslim followers.

The Associated Press contributed to this article

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Syrian "Migrant" Terror Threat By The Numbers

From HERE and HERE:


Syria is a terror state. It didn’t become that way overnight because of the Arab Spring or the Iraq War.

Its people are not the victims of American foreign policy, Islamic militancy or any of the other fashionable excuses. They supported Islamic terrorism. Millions of them still do.

They are not the Jews fleeing a Nazi Holocaust. They are the Nazis trying to relocate from a bombed out Berlin.

These are the cold hard facts.

ISIS took over parts of Syria because its government willingly allied with it to help its terrorists kill Americans in Iraq. That support for Al Qaeda helped lead to the civil war tearing the country apart.

The Syrians were not helpless, apathetic pawns in this fight. They supported Islamic terrorism.

A 2007 poll showed that 77% of Syrians supported financing Islamic terrorists including Hamas and the Iraqi fighters who evolved into ISIS. Less than 10% of Syrians opposed their terrorism.

Why did Syrians support Islamic terrorism? Because they hated America.
Sixty-three percent wanted to refuse medical and humanitarian assistance from the United States. An equal number didn’t want any American help caring for Iraqi refugees in Syria.

The vast majority of Syrians turned down any form of assistance from the United States because they hated us. They still do. Just because they’re willing to accept it now, doesn’t mean they like us.

If we bring Syrian Muslims to America, we will be importing a population that hates us.

The terrorism poll numbers are still ugly. A poll this summer found that 1 in 5 Syrians supports ISIS.  A third of Syrians support the Al Nusra Front, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda. Since Sunnis are 3/4rs of the population and Shiites and Christians aren’t likely to support either group, this really means that Sunni Muslim support for both terror groups is even higher than these numbers make it seem.

And even though Christians and Yazidis are the ones who actually face ISIS genocide, Obama has chosen to take in few Christians and Yazidis. Instead 98.6% of Obama’s Syrian refugees are Sunni Muslims.

This is also the population most likely to support ISIS and Al Qaeda.

But these numbers are even worse than they look. Syrian men are more likely to view ISIS positively than women. This isn’t surprising as the Islamic State not only practices sex slavery, but has some ruthless restrictions for women that exceed even those of Saudi Arabia.  (Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front, however, mostly closes the gender gap getting equal support from Syrian men and women.)

ISIS, however, gets its highest level of support from young men. This is the Syrian refugee demographic.

In the places where the Syrian refugees come from, support for Al Qaeda groups climbs as high as 70% in Idlib, 66% in Quneitra, 66% in Raqqa, 47% in Derzor, 47% in Hasakeh, 41% in Daraa and 41% in Aleppo.

Seventy percent support for ISIS in Raqqa has been dismissed as the result of fear. But if Syrians in the ISIS capital were just afraid of the Islamic State, why would the Al Nusra Front, which ISIS is fighting, get nearly as high a score from the people in Raqqa? The answer is that their support for Al Qaeda is real.

Apologists will claim that these numbers don’t apply to the Syrian refugees. It’s hard to say how true that is. Only 13% of Syrian refugees will admit to supporting ISIS, though that number still means that of Obama’s first 10,000 refugees, 1,300 will support ISIS. But the poll doesn’t delve into their views of other Al Qaeda groups, such as the Al Nusra Front, which usually gets more Sunni Muslim support.

And there’s no sign that they have learned to reject Islamic terrorism and their hatred for America.

When Syrian refugees were asked to list the greatest threat, 29 percent picked Iran, 22 percent picked Israel and 19 percent picked America. Only 10 percent viewed Islamic terrorism as a great threat.

By way of comparison, twice as many Iraqis see Islamic terrorism as a threat than Syrians do and slightly more Palestinian Arabs view Islamic terrorism as a threat than Syrians do. These are terrible numbers.

Thirty-seven percent of Syrian refugees oppose US airstrikes on ISIS. 33% oppose the objective of destroying ISIS.

And these are the people whom our politicians would have us believe are “fleeing an ISIS Holocaust.”

Seventy-three percent of Syrian refugees view US foreign policy negatively. That’s a higher number than Iraqis. It’s about equal to that of Palestinian Arabs.

They don’t like us. They really don’t like us.

Obama’s first shipment of Syrians will include 1,300 ISIS supporters and most of the rest will hate this country. But unless they’re stupid enough to announce that during their interviews, the multi-layered vetting that Obama and other politicians boast about will be useless.

It only took 2 Muslim refugees to carry out the Boston Marathon massacre. It only took 19 Muslim terrorists to carry out 9/11.

If only 1 percent of those 1,300 Syrian ISIS supporters put their beliefs into practice, they can still kill thousands of Americans.

And that’s a best case scenario. Because it doesn’t account for how many thousands of them support Al Qaeda. It doesn’t account for how many of them back other Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas that had widespread support in Syria.

While the media has shamelessly attempted to exploit the Holocaust to rally support for Syrian migrants, the majority of Syrians supported Hamas whose mandate is finishing Hitler’s work. The Hamas charter describes a “struggle against the Jews” that culminates in another Holocaust. Bringing Hamas supporters to America will lead to more Muslim Supremacist violence against Jews in this country.

But all of this can be avoided by taking in genuine Syrian refugees.

While Obama insists on taking in fake Syrian refugees, mainly Sunni Muslims from UN camps who support terrorism and are not endangered in Jordan or Turkey, both Sunni countries, he is neglecting the real refugees, Christians and Yazidis, who are stateless and persecuted in the Muslim world.

Instead of taking in fake refugees who hate us, we should be taking in real refugees who need us.

Obama and Paul Ryan have claimed that a “religious test” for refugees is wrong, but religious tests are how we determine whether a refugee is really fleeing persecution or is just an economic migrant.

The Sunni Muslims that Obama is taking in do not face persecution. They are the majority. They are the persecutors. It’s the Yazidis and the Christians who need our help. And these real refugees, unlike the fake Sunni Muslim refugees, are not coming here to kill us. They truly have nowhere else to go.

Syria is a disaster because its rival Muslim religious groups are unable to get along with each other. Bringing them to this country will only spread the violence from their land to ours. Instead of taking in the religious majority that caused this mess through its intolerance, we should take in their victims; the Christians and Yazidis who are being slaughtered and enslaved by ISIS.

During the entire Syrian Civil War, Obama has only taken in 1 Syrian Yazidi and 53 Christians.

It’s time that we had a refugee policy that protected the persecuted, instead of their Muslim persecutors. It’s time that we listened to Syrian Christians in this country who oppose bringing tens of thousands of Syrian Muslims to terrorize their neighborhoods the way that they are already terrorizing Syrian Christians in Germany.

Syrian Muslims are a nation of terrorist supporters. They destroyed their own country. Let’s not let them destroy ours.

It’s time that we kept our nation safe by doing the right thing.

Let’s take in the real Christian and Yazidi refugees and let the fake Sunni Muslim refugees and terrorist supporters stay in their own countries. 

– See more at:

CIA testifies Obama and Hillary ran guns to ISIS through Turkey

From HERE:

Benghazi Commission: Obama Admin Gun-Running Scheme Armed Islamic State

The Obama administration pursued a policy in Libya back in 2011 that ultimately allowed guns to walk into the hands of jihadists linked to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda (AQ) in Syria, according to a former CIA officer who co-authored a report on behalf of the Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi (CCB), detailing the gun running scheme.

In Congress, the then-bipartisan group known as the “Gang of Eight,” at a minimum, knew of the operation to aid and abet America’s jihadist enemies by providing them with material support. So says Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer and the primary author of CCB’s interim report, titled How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror, speaking with Breitbart News.
The ripple effects of the illegal policy to arm America’s enemies continue to be felt as the U.S. military is currently leading a war against ISIS and AQ terrorists in Iraq and Syria, according to Lopez.
In late October, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that the U.S. would begin “direct action on the ground” against ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria who may have reaped the benefits from the gun-running scheme that started in Libya.
“The Obama administration effectively switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror [GWOT] when it decided to overthrow the sovereign government of our Libyan ally, Muammar Qaddafi, who’d been helping in the fight against al-Qaeda, by actually teaming up with and facilitating gun-running to Libyan al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood [MB] elements there in 2011,” explained Lopez. “This U.S. gun-running policy in 2011 during the Libyan revolution was directed by [then] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and [the late Libya Ambassador] Christopher Stevens, who was her official envoy to the Libyan AQ rebels.”
To avoid having the funds tracked back to the Obama administration, the arms flow to Libya was financed thru the United Arab Emirates, while Qatar served as the logistical and shipping hub, she noted.
“In 2012, the gun-running into Libya turned around and began to flow outward, from Benghazi to the AQ-and-MB-dominated rebels in Syria,” Lopez added. “This time, it was the CIA Base of Operations that was in charge of collecting up and shipping out [surface-to-air missiles] SAMs from Libya on Libyan ships to Turkey for overland delivery to a variety of jihadist militias, some of whose members later coalesced into groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS [also known as IS].”
Jabhat al-Nusra is al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.
“The downstream consequences of Obama White House decisions in the Syrian conflict are still playing out, but certainly the U.S. – and particularly CIA – support of identifiable jihadist groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, the Islamic State and other [jihadists] has only exacerbated what was already a devastating situation,” declared Lopez.
Some of the other weapons that eventually ended up in Syria included thousands of MAN-Portable-Air-Defense-System (MANPADS) missile units, such as shoulder-launched SAMs, from late dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s extensive arms stockpiles that pose a threat to low-flying aircraft, especially helicopters.
“It’s been reported that President Obama signed an Executive Order on Syria in early 2012 [just as he had done for Libya in early 2011], that legally covered the CIA and other U.S. agencies that otherwise would have been in violation of aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war and providing material support to terrorism,” notes Lopez. “Still, such blatant disregard for U.S. national security can only be described as deeply corrosive of core American principles.”
Libya Amb. Stevens was killed by jihadists in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, along with three other Americans.
Echoing a Benghazi resident who provided a first-hand account of the incident, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Dennis Haney, a CCB member, suggested to Breitbart News that Hillary Clinton’s State Department armed some of the al-Qaeda linked jihadists who may have killed the four Americans in Benghazi.
“The reason the U.S. government was operating in Libya is absolutely critical to this debacle because it reflects where America went off the tracks and literally switched sides in the GWOT,” points out Lopez. “This is about who we are as a country, as a people — where we are going with this Republic of ours.”
“There can be no greater treason than aiding and abetting the jihadist enemy in time of war – or providing material – weapons, funding, intel, NATO bombing – support to terrorism,” she continued. “The reason Benghazi is not the burning issue it ought to be is because so many at top levels of U.S. government were implicated in wrong-doing: White House, Pentagon, Intel Community-CIA, Gang of Eight, at a minimum, in Congress, the Department of State, etc.”
The State Department and the CIA did not respond to Breitbart News’ requests for comment.
The Democratic presidential frontrunner claimed she was not aware of any U.S. government efforts to arm jihadists in Libya and Syria.
Clinton did admit to being open to the idea of using private security experts to arm the Qaddafi opposition, which included al-Qaeda elements, but added that it was “not considered seriously.”
The 2011 “Gang of Eight” mentioned in this report was comprised of a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both chambers.
Lopez is the vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and the Canadian Meighen Institute.