As the clock runs down on the Obama “presidency” and as the Clinton candidacy is becoming more fragile by the day, the information I received from two intelligence sources in 2012 is being validated. We are on the precipice of a World War that will begin in Syria and pit the U.S. against Russia, fueled by Barack Hussein Obama’s policy of arming, aiding and supplying Muslim terrorists throughout the region, and specifically in Syria.
It is being reported today that the U.S. bombed Syrian troops inside Syria, killing 62 troops. This is a dangerous and overt escalation of the war that has been boiling beneath the surface for the last six years. Additionally, Russia has made it clear that they will blame the U.S. should the fragile truce that exists within Syria collapse.
I warned about this in my 2012 column Death Race Damascus – 13 Days in October. In that report, I postulated that World War III will begin in Syria and not in Iraq, Afghanistan or even Iran. I wrote that US forces are waging a proxy war against Russia on behalf of Saudi Arabia, which provided the context for not just historical moments such as Benghazi, but can explain and define the entire Obama “presidency.”
Now with just a few months remaining for Obama to complete his objectives and under the threat of a complete reversal of foreign policy should Hillary Clinton become sidelined, it appears that a deliberate escalation inside Syria is in progress.
In response to the U.S. led air strikes inside Syria, Maria Zakharova, speaking for the Russian Defense Ministry on the Rossiya-24 TV station, said that the air strikes jeopardized a Russian-US agreement on Syria. What was also stated confirmed, at least in part, the information of my 2012 report:
“We are reaching a really terrifying conclusion for the whole world: That the White House is defending ISIS. Now there can be no doubts about that,” the RIA Novosti news agency cited Zakharova as telling.
From my 2012 report:
The status of relations is now being changed by external influences, namely the United States via the Obama-Muslim Brotherhood alliance and Saudi Arabia. Today, the Syrian Ambassador to Tehran stated that Turkey, in collusion with others, is attempting to revive the Ottoman Empire.
It is for this reason that Russia has upwards of 100,000 “advisers” in Syria. Despite their presence and warnings from Russia, we have been actively arming the anti-Assad rebels so that the Assad regime can be overthrown and replaced by a government sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Putin has directly and indirectly warned Obama not to meddle in Syria or risk direct conflict with Russia. Despite such warnings, Obama has continued his foreign policy of using al Qaeda backed rebels, supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, to install leaders affiliated with the Saudi-backed Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Why would Obama place billions of people in jeopardy in a world war by his attempts to reshape the Middle East? What is pushing this agenda?
Despite the claims of many right-wing politicians and conservative media pundits, it is not a failure of foreign policy, but because of the Obama foreign policy that we find ourselves at the precipice of World War III. More importantly, though, the Obama administration and his spokespeople are deliberately misrepresenting the events that occurred in Libya to cover-up a clandestine operation that encompasses the entirety of the so-called Arab Spring. Libya is the Obama CIA’s weapons hub for the region. It is where the weapons are being collected and shipped for use in Syria, to topple the Assad regime.
Unlike the more palatable and readily acceptable goals of the government backed operations a half-century ago (i.e. fighting the expansion of communism), the goals of this administration reveal something entirely different. It is through this prism of understanding that all of the most recent historically significant events begin to make sense. Could answers to such basic questions concerning the background and meteoric rise of Obama, his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, his deep bow to the Saudi King be found in Benghazi? Might this covert agenda, if exposed, reveal that we are actually engaged in a proxy war with Russia on behalf of Saudi Arabia?
It’s been nearly four years since I wrote that column, and the anticipated transition of power from Barack Hussein Obama to Hillary Clinton appears to be in jeopardy. Considering such high stakes that this election holds for the United States domestically as well as abroad, is it possible that this escalation is serving an even greater purpose?
Copyright © Douglas J. Hagmann and Canada Free Press
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Their new website is The Hagmann & Hagmann Report.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Older articles by Doug Hagmann
I don't understand it..........but..........if Obama is against it, there must be good in it.
The United States is preparing to “end diplomatic engagement” with Russia and preparing military options over the continued bombing of Aleppo by Russian forces.
Reuters is reporting that the U.S. is expected to tell Russia Thursday that they have officially ended their diplomatic engagement with Syria. U.S. officials have said they’re looking at “tougher” responses to the Russian-backed Syrian government, including “military options.”
The discussions were being held at “staff level,” Reuters reports, and have yet to produce anything concrete to present to President Obama, who has been reluctant to order military action in Syria.
But now that diplomacy seems to have ended, it gives the “green light” for Obama to send US trips into Syria. If that happens, ZeroHedge reports, Vladimir Putin is likely to do the same thing, leading to the biggest military escalation in the proxy war in Syria since the war began almost six years ago.
Even administration advocates of a more muscular U.S. response said on Wednesday that it was not clear what, if anything, the president would do, and that his options “begin at tougher talk,” as one official put it.
One official said that before any action could be taken, Washington would first have “follow through on Kerry’s threat and break off talks with the Russians” on Syria.
But the heavy use of Russian airpower in Syria has compounded U.S. distrust of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical intentions, not only in the 5-1/2 year civil war, but also in the Ukraine conflict and in what U.S. officials say are Russian-backed cyber attacks on U.S. political targets.
The U.S. officials said the failure of diplomacy in Syria has left the Obama administration no choice but to consider alternatives, most of which involve some use of force and have been examined before but held in abeyance.
Other options to military troops include allowing America’s Gulf allies to supply the rebels with more sophisticated weaponry and, a U.S.-led airstrike on an Assad-controlled air base, which would cause fewer Russian casualties.
With only four months left in office, Obama is loath to commit to any large-scale commitment of U.S. Troops.
Critics of Obama’s policy in Syria argue that he set a goal – Assad’s departure – without providing sufficient means to achieve it by arming the rebels earlier and more extensively, allowing U.S. allies to do so or using U.S. military might to tip the scales in the conflict.
Further, foreign policy experts inside and outside the administration have said Obama erred when he pulled back from launching air strikes on Syria to enforce a “red line” he set against the Assad government’s use of chemical weapons. The result, they argued, was to diminish U.S. credibility in Moscow, Damascus and elsewhere because the perception took hold that Obama would not keep his word and follow through on his threat.
I would agree with Harry Riley.....it is hard to understand some of these bills...so much stuff in there and hard to understand, but if Obama is against it, like Harry said it has to be good. I don't trust these Congressmen anymore though and doubt I will ever trust them again either. In fact, don't see how I can trust much of anyone in the Federal Government anymore or ever again. I cannot understand it and I used to work as a paralegal for attorneys.
We desperately need the 'Convention of States' (article 5 Constitution) to get our federal government back in control before it is too late.
I believe we need something for this Country to turn around....I have my doubts that this election will be fair at all and we will be stuck with Hillary Clinton...TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FAKE BALLOTS FOUND IN WAREHOUSE IN FRANKLIN CO., OHIO, THE SWING STATE: take a look at this, and I got this article which was posted on Trey Gowdy's Facebook page, so he is aware of this, as well as requesting an investigation with the Federal Elections Committee for the earpiece that Hillary had in her ear on debate night. He even posted pictures of the earpiece....something should be done about this...this article explains the fake ballots just sitting and waiting in a warehouse for election time, all marked for Hillary Clinton for President....http://christiantimesnewspaper.com/breaking-tens-of-thousands-of-fr...
Patricia, be wary of this site - I did a search when this first popped up on FB and can find nothing anywhere else. This is the same site that claimed Guccifer had died. Not credible, in my experience. As for the earpiece, another possibility is something called a "Speech Easy," which is used by those with Parkinsons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c-fg_gudkc
As for the debate, there were multiple issues, such as "The Cleaner," who has been identified as an ex-NBC employer who now freelances and was hired by Killary's camp.
Hillary Caught Using Hand Signals (audio removed due to copyright)
https://imgur.com/gallery/WxsAR (click on 24 more images for more pics)
Are you talking about my link for christiantimesnewspaper? I actually got this straight from a Community Page here: https://www.facebook.com/Rep-Trey-Gowdy-for-Speaker-of-the-House-28... ....the Christiantimesnewspaper has had many articles and they are not fake.
The earpiece, I believe could be what you said above...used by those with Parkinsons...either way, if she has Parkinson's what she is doing running for President.
I would not be in such a rush to say she had a teleprompter. First at her age and her medical conditions. I do not believe she could read anything on a prompter that small. I believe again we fall into the compensate for Hillary's medical conditions. The word is she does have Parkinson's disease which is probably why she had the something running up her back. It was a device delivering her medication to keep her hinged and from having any of her seizures or stumbling. If they were going to cheat in helping her with answers all they would need is a small bug device in her ear with small unnoticeable wire lying over her ear. They have these devices. I have seen them. They are no bigger than an in the ear hearing aid. As far as keeping her from being president. FDR had polio; which killed him in his final term I believe. It is alleged that Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's throughout his second term. As far as the light I think it may have been nothing more than helping her to focus. Now I will clarify again; I do not support Hillary. I do not support Trump. I believe they are both wrong for this country. Both would be disastrous. I think that we need a thorough cleansing and removal of all elected and appointed fed officials. People need to remember. We were not supposed to elect the president or the senate. They are not supposed to have governing power over us.
No way - far too dangerous - besides which, they don't follow the Constitution now - what makes you think more amendments would make a difference? On top of that, this is something none other than George Soros, Van Jones and Cass Sunstein have advocated. No, no, no!!!
I would have to agree with Judith on this one. Say no to convention of states.
I joined in on that. I believe I have found convention of states could spell the doom of all. Depending on who the states send it is possible to rewrite the entire constitution. The convention of states has the possibility of totally rewriting the constitution. Do you risk who your state government may send to represent.