Stop the Coming Civil War: My Savage Truth (25 page)

My take is that we have an Islamically compliant administration.

And in February 2014, Barack Obama held a meeting in the White House with a Muslim Brotherhood member with connections to Hamas. He was ostensibly attending the meeting to serve as a translator for another attendee, but it’s difficult to see the need to let a man with such connections into the White House just so another Muslim can make himself understood.

When asked about the presence of a person who has strong
associations with the Muslim Brotherhood, the White House referred the question “to the Iraqi government.”
³⁷

There are at least four others working in the administration on sensitive antiterrorist projects who are alleged to support and associate with Islamist terrorist organizations.
³⁸

There is a great body of evidence that suggests the Obama administration gives preferential treatment to Muslim Brotherhood members when they travel to the United States. These people were given “port courtesy” at Minneapolis Airport and at New York’s John F. Kennedy and Washington’s Dulles airports. According to a State Department directive, these Muslim Brotherhood members could “not be pulled into secondary [screening] upon arrival at a point of entry.” In other words, they were not to be subjected to what any American might encounter when boarding a flight: TSA pat-downs, secondary screening of carry-on luggage, and hand inspection in order to uncover possible explosives.
³⁹

While Muslim Brotherhood members are granted free travel access anywhere in the U.S., the United States is rejecting Israeli applications for tourist visas and denying Israeli tourists membership in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. In 2013, nearly 10 percent of Israelis applying were rejected, almost double the 2012 level and nearly four times the number of rejections in 2007 during the Bush presidency. And Israel still hasn’t been granted the same rights as thirty-eight other countries who are members of the Visa Waiver Program have received. The reason Israel has been denied membership is because of the way it treats Arab-American travelers to its country and because the current administration feels Israel is slowing down progress in Middle East “peace talks.”
⁴⁰

This was made clear when an e-mail from White House
deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes explained the message the Obama administration would be sending out to the public in Susan Rice’s Sunday morning television appearances immediately after the Benghazi killings:

As the White House routinely plays host to people with Islamist radical ties and sympathies, its surveillance activities indicate that it’s redefined who our enemies are.

Do you need proof of this?

The U.S. secretary of state threatened to boycott Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. Doing the rounds on Sunday morning TV, Kerry insisted that a campaign to ostracize Israel would grow if peace talks with the Palestinians failed. In other words, if Israel refuses to give up its own borders, language, and culture and refuses to allow itself to be overrun and conquered by Arab neighbors who will never enter into a peace agreement with Israel.
⁴²

At the same time, Kerry admitted in a behind-the-scenes meeting with members of Congress that U.S. policy relative to Syria was a failure. In late December 2013, it was revealed that Syria was far behind schedule in its promised removal of chemical weapons that the Kerry-inspired “breakthrough” agreement promised.
⁴³

Given Kerry’s statements, should Israel consider the United
States its enemy? Our secretary of state has been decidedly one-sided in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians—and the side he’s on isn’t that of our longtime ally. “Does Israel want a third intifada?” Kerry said. Are these the words and policies of a friend?

Meanwhile, in Syria we know that forces fighting Assad are rife with terrorists who hate the United States. How do we know this? Because the administration admits it.

In February 2014, newly appointed DHS secretary Jeh Johnson declared that Syria had become a matter of homeland security. His rationale? U.S. and Canadian citizens are going to Syria in order to fight on the side of Syrian rebels against the Assad government.
⁴⁴

In other words, once they’re finished in Syria, they may return to the United States and Canada and try to stage terrorist attacks against us. Johnson is admitting that those fighting against Assad are likely to be Islamist terrorists.

When Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai was asked what he thought would be the best outcome of his country’s relationship with the United States, he replied, “It is favorable if they surrender to us.”
⁴⁵

Karzai’s contempt for and his refusal to cooperate with the current administration by immediately signing a status of forces agreement with the United States is an indicator of how far U.S. prestige has fallen among world leaders, whether they are enemies or friends.

“You’re not to be trusted” is the message we’re getting back from them.

It’s the message American citizens themselves are sending to the administration as they realize that they’re being treated with the same level of suspicion as known terrorists are treated.

But the corruption and ineptitude that mark what I see as this administration’s national security failures pale in comparison to how we handled Vladimir Putin’s Ukrainian aggression. Let me make it clear from the start: It was the United States, and not Russia, that engineered the uprising against the elected Ukrainian government. The Obama administration spent billions to enable radical right wingers to stage a phony revolution in Ukraine, then complained when Putin stepped in and drew a real red line in the sand, daring the United States to challenge him.

Let me make sense of what happened in Ukraine for you. The legitimately elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich was ousted and the country placed in the hands of rebel forces spearheaded by Chechen Islamist radicals.

Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, along with Obama advisor Susan Rice, are neoconservatives. The neocons don’t care which side you’re on, as long as they can work with you to create a political situation that they can grow into a war from which they will profit.

The Ukrainian “revolution” was fostered and encouraged by Nuland, Rice, and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. Over the weeks leading to the February 2014 uprising, these three were instrumental in staging a destabilization campaign. Working with Ukrainian rebels, they fostered the Ukrainian uprising that caused Yanukovich to flee from Kiev.

In fact, it was Nuland herself who selected the new Ukrainian prime minister. She had this lined up three weeks before the insurrection in Ukraine started. Nuland’s famous “f——the EU” was leaked early in February, and it was a covert admission made public that we were on the side of the
insurgents. That recording revealed that the administration favored installing Vitali Klitschko—referred to as “Klitsch” in Nuland’s phone conversations—as their choice to be deputy prime minister of Ukraine, with Arseniy Yatseniuk—“Yats” as they referred to him—being their choice as Prime Minister.
⁴⁶

Arizona senator John McCain was also part of this duplicity. McCain went to Kiev in December 2013 and helped incite the mobs who would ultimately overthrow the legitimately elected president. If there were such a thing as a Nobel Anti-Peace Prize, McCain would win it hands down for his work in Egypt and Syria, topped off by what he’s done in Ukraine. McCain was proposing nothing less than that we stage a military intervention in Ukraine, as he’s done many times before. McCain was in Syria, secretly backing rebels there, rebels who turned out to be Islamist radicals, supposedly our sworn enemies. McCain also made a covert trip to Libya, where he received an award from the military. This happened on the very day Shariah law was declared in that country, the same day McCain arrived. While he was in Ukraine, he met with a number of rebels who were intent on regime change in that country, and he expressed regret that he wasn’t having success, saying, “I do not see a military option and it’s tragic.”
⁴⁷

The U.S.-supported insurgents took over Kiev and held the Ukrainian people hostage as the United States stood down and Putin amassed forces on the Russia-Ukraine border. As this was happening, Barack Obama mouthed the emptiest of words—there would be “costs” to Russia for military action against the insurgents—while the United States found that its hands were tied.

In the early days of the rebellion, former Ukrainian president Yanukovich met with the rebels staging the uprising,
and the two parties agreed to stop the violence and make an orderly transition to a new government chosen in a new set of elections. Instead, the right-wing rebels ignored the agreement and took over Kiev by force, with their armed patrols maintaining control through violence.

The situation in Ukraine has been painted as a conflict between Vladimir Putin’s Russia (the so-called bad guys) and Ukrainian rebels (the so-called good guys) who seek to oust Russia from a position of influence in Ukraine and install a new government that will be responsive to the Ukrainian people.

Don’t believe a word of it.

The Ukrainian nationalists are fascists. Washington’s original purpose for staging a coup in Ukraine was to move Ukraine away from Russia and bring Ukraine into the EU. In other words, the neocons and the bought-and-paid-for “moderates” in the Obama administration wanted to wrest control of Ukraine from Putin’s hands and gain economic and energy control over the country. As one commentator has pointed out, Western nations, with the United States leading the way, have been provoking Putin for decades. We’ve expanded NATO to include former Soviet states—Ukraine looks like the next target—and we’ve attacked allies of Russia, including Libya and Iraq. The United States, along with other Western nations, through our incursions into the politics, economics, and national security of Russia and several of its allies, has effectively caused the situation that resulted in Putin standing ready to invade Ukraine militarily if necessary.
⁴⁸

Putin is certainly not a good guy, but he is not the villain in this. The Jews have always been the canaries in the coal mine of human rights in Russia, and Putin has been better to Russian Jews than any other Russian leader in the past century.
With the elected government now driven out of Ukraine, the anti-Semitic U.S.-backed fascist thugs who have assumed control are vandalizing synagogues and threatening the lives of Jews in Ukraine.

Do you know what Obama did only a week after his administration succeeded in engineering the takeover of the Ukrainian government by Islamist radicals? First, he made the empty gesture of restricting the ability of a dozen Russians to travel to the United States. In answer to this, Putin mocked Obama by restricting the rights of several U.S. politicians to travel to Russia. But more important, at the same time Obama has been relaxing the requirements on Islamist terrorists to travel to America, he’s increasing his rejection of Israelis who want to travel to the United States.

Do you understand that?

Obama is increasing our ability to be infiltrated by terrorists while he’s denying our allies, the Israelis, the ability to travel here.

It began when the United States restricted the rights of young Israelis who had completed their military service in Israel to travel here. By 2012, the ban had extended to all Israeli students. Even Sen. Charles Schumer complained, saying in a letter to John Kerry that the “State Department policy of categorically denying young Israelis tourist visas makes it nearly impossible for any young Israeli to visit the U.S.”
⁴⁹
For once, Schumer was right.

Obama’s attempts at thwarting Putin have essentially forced him to deploy military assets to Crimea and to annex that country. Crimea is an important region that Russia ceded to Ukraine in the 1950s, when the USSR was reaching the height of its power and Ukraine was one of its puppet states.

Let me give you some background that will help you understand what went on in Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. After Ukraine achieved independence and Crimea was ceded to Ukraine, state-owned assets of the Soviet Union were privatized. This is where the term
oligarchs
, which you hear used so often in discussions about the Ukrainian conflict, comes into play. Those state-owned business and utilities were transferred into the hands of a small group of powerful, politically connected individuals, who effectively took control of Russia’s economy. Russia became a capitalist country in one sense of the word, but the private ownership of the country’s assets was transferred to a small group of cronies who quickly became among the richest and most powerful businessmen in the world. The Russian oligarchs continue in that role today.

The Russian oligarchs are a critical component in determining the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine situation, because they essentially monopolize the precious metal, chemical, and energy industries in Ukraine. While their power was weakened in Russia as the country’s government became more and more centralized, especially under Putin, no such thing happened in Ukraine. In that country, the oligarchs still hold tremendous power and can sway the country politically. Every major political hopeful, from presidential candidates to those hoping for seats in parliament, are connected closely to one or more of the oligarchs. Among the first people Ukrainian presidential candidate “Klitsch” Klitschko met with was Rinat Akhmetov, the richest man in Russia.
⁵⁰