Timothy Alexander Guzman, Silent Crow News – In my opinion, Hillary
Clinton will be President in 2017. Yes, Donald Trump will most likely be the
Republican presidential nominee but the Presidential elections are still 9
months away and anything can happen. You see, whoever occupies the White House
will have to follow the blueprint supplied by a political machine or the
system. What is the “machine”? John F. Kennedy’s address
before the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27, 1961 when he
spoke about how the system operates
“It is a system which has
conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly
knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.” Where
does Hillary Clinton fit in? Kennedy went on to mention “Its
preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not
headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is
questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”
Mistakes are
buried, its dissenters are silenced and no secret is revealed (except for
Hillary’s Email-Gate which revealed numerous secrets), it does sound like
Hillary Clinton may qualify for all of the above just mentioned. Make no
mistake; Hillary Clinton is a candidate for the political machine. Here are a
few reasons why I believe Hillary Clinton can possibly become the U.S.
president come this November.
Hillary’s ‘Benghazi-Gate’ and why she will NOT go to
Prison
No charges of supporting
terrorist cells with high-grade weaponry will be brought against Hillary
Clinton. No prosecution, no jail time, nothing. Clinton was summoned to testify
before a congressional committee and was questioned on her role as the
Secretary of State during the Benghazi attack which left 4 Americans and close
to a dozen injured. Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh
published an in-depth report exposing the reasons behind the Benghazi attack in
the London Review of Books titled ‘The Red Line and the Rat Line’:
The full extent of US
co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel
opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has
never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat
line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early
2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey
and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who
ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with
al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was
providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)
In January, the Senate
Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in
September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility
in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher
Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for
not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence
community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in
the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington,
with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up.
A highly
classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement
reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It
pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from
Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6,
was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number
of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really
employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation
was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it
became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for
Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)
The operation had not been
disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence
committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s.
The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the
mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that
for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA
not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a
finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written
document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress
for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who
wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic
and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and
Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly
constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to
gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they
receive.
The annex didn’t tell the
whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain
why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to
provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who
has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’
Washington abruptly ended
the CIA’s role in the transfer of arms from Libya after the attack on the
consulate, but the rat line kept going. ‘The United States was no longer in
control of what the Turks were relaying to the jihadists,’ the former
intelligence official said. Within weeks, as many as forty portable
surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands
of Syrian rebels. On 28 November 2012, Joby Warrick of the Washington Post
reported that the previous day rebels near Aleppo had used what was almost
certainly a manpad to shoot down a Syrian transport helicopter. ‘The Obama
administration,’ Warrick wrote, ‘has steadfastly opposed arming Syrian
opposition forces with such missiles, warning that the weapons could fall into
the hands of terrorists and be used to shoot down commercial aircraft.’ Two
Middle Eastern intelligence officials fingered Qatar as the source, and a
former US intelligence analyst speculated that the manpads could have been
obtained from Syrian military outposts overrun by the rebels. There was no
indication that the rebels’ possession of manpads was likely the unintended
Judicial Watch announced on
May 18, 2015 that they obtained documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA) regarding actions by the
Department of Defense
(DOD) and the Department of State from a 2014 court order through the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit is clear evidence that weapons were being
shipped to Syria VIA Libya:
Weapons from the former
Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the
Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during
late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers
missiles.
During the immediate
aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the
((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012,
weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya
were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the
Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount
of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the
weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of
cargo.
The weapons shipped from
Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm
howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500
Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400
howitzers missiles [200 ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]
There was evidence that the
Obama administration with Hillary Clinton as the U.S. Secretary of State at the
time was shipping weapons from Libya to the Syrian rebels which cost the lives
of 4 Americans including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and left
several others injured. After all, “What difference – at this point,
what difference does it make?” Hillary Clinton adamantly told the
Select Committee on Benghazi in a hearing last October regarding the Benghazi
attacks. There is no difference because Hillary Clinton will not be prosecuted
nor will she face any charges for any war crimes she committed during her
position as Secretary of State. If Hillary can get away with supporting
terrorists, she can get away with anything regardless what federal agencies who
are investigating Hillary’s actions including the FBI will not charge the
former first lady and Secretary of State who is on the road to the Whitehouse.
You can forget the “Hillary for Prison” slogan, it will not
happen. She is powerfully connected to big money and power just like the
bankers who never go to prison.
Follow the Money
Citigroup Inc, Goldman
Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Co, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley are major
banking institutions who contributed to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. DLA Piper
and Skadden, Arps et al are major corporate law firms who represent corporate
interests also contribute to Hillary. The Soros Fund Management run by
billionaire Zionist George Soros is a major contributor to Hillary Clinton.
Speaking of Zionist influence, major Zionist contributors to Hillary’s campaign
is Republican and Casino owner Sheldon Adelson, Media Mogul Haim Saban who also
sponsors AIPAC and owns Univision, a Spanish-language “propaganda” Media
Company, Herbert M. Sandler (known for his role in the 2008 subprime mortgage
meltdown). Influential people in Hollywood support Hillary Clinton including
Jeffrey M. Katzenberg, CEO of Dreamworks SKG, and director Steven Spielberg who
are also Zionists. Between major corporations, Hollywood and pro-Israeli
billionaires, Hillary Clinton will not fall short on cash donations to continue
her campaign for the White House. In Washington D.C., money is power which
Hillary has plenty of. 90% percent of Hillary Clinton’s contributions are from
corporations or law firms that provide services to major corporations. The rest
are influential Zionists who run the entertainment industry and major
corporations. U.S. elections are dominated by money (although Trump has his own
money) and that is something Hillary Clinton can take to the bank.
The Main-Stream Media Supports Hillary
The Main-Stream Media (MSM)
supports Hillary Clinton and that is an important fact to consider. Time Warner
has contributed more than $500,000 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign for some time
according to Opensecrets.com. Time Warner owns New Line Cinema, HBO, Turner
Broadcasting System, CNN and Castle Rock Entertainment to name a few.
The editorial board of The
New York Times endorsed Clinton this past January:
For the past painful year,
the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with
empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the
least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world.
Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over
real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply
qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
Hillary Clinton would be the
first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major
state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on
the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President
Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for
federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential
primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm
The New York Times admits
Clinton’s hawkish stand although they are a propaganda mouthpiece for the
establishment:
Mrs. Clinton can be more
hawkish on the use of military power than Mr. Obama, as shown by her current
call for a no-fly zone in Syria and her earlier support for arming and training
Syrian rebels. We are not convinced that a no-fly zone is the right approach in
Syria, but we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power
effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading
Republican contenders
Mrs. Clinton will use “more
care and wisdom” with America’s military power? I guess Libya and
Syria is a good example for the New York Times where death, destruction and
chaos are out of control. The online political news source thehill.com
published an interesting article titled ‘Is the mainstream media in the tank
for Clinton?’ which states that in The Times, Clinton was praised while Sanders
was criticized:
The Times’ main news story
called it “a dominant performance.” The story commended Clinton’s “agility” and
her “assertiveness” and found her critique of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.) “forceful,” her assessment of his logic “stinging.” Plus, she laughed,
smiled and joked, which never hurts, especially when there are concerns about a
candidate’s “likability.” The accompanying “News Analysis” characterized
Clinton’s performance as “commanding” and said she was “blunt” and “effective.”
Even the adverbs in the two reports favored Clinton: “aggressively,” “crisply,”
“emphatically,” “energetically.” Sanders, by contrast, was “exasperated,”
“unsure,” “sheepish” and “reactive.” One of his only positive moments was when
he “zestfully defended” Clinton against attacks on her use of private email
while secretary of State. Over on the op-ed side, meanwhile, columnist Frank
Bruni described Clinton as “energetic,” “buoyant,” “effervescent” and “poised.”
The MSM will continue to
promote Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be criticized heavily as his
popularity continues to dominate the campaign trail. The MSM is a weapon that
will push the Clinton agenda while propagandizing the masses and that is
something that the MSM is very good at. Look for the MSM to demonize Donald
Trump as Clinton’s “mistakes are buried, not headlined.”
Robert Kagan and the Neocons
The New York Times published
an opinion piece in 2014 claiming that there is a strong possibility that the “Neocons” are
ready to support a Hillary Clinton Presidency. The article titled ‘The
Next Act of the Neocons: Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally with Hillary
Clinton?’ about Robert Kagan’s support for Hillary Clinton. Kagan is
the Husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State under the Obama
administration who was responsible for the Coup that took place in the Ukraine
in 2014:
After nearly a decade in the
political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil
in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement’s
interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era
Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Even as they castigate Mr.
Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves
with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to
return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy
According to The New
York Times, the article claims other Neocon psychopaths followed Mr.
Kagan’s lead to back Clinton due to her hawkish stance:
Other neocons have followed
Mr. Kagan’s careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic this year
that “it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice
for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge
or the intervention in Libya.”
And the thing is, these
neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending
arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf
Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting
democracy
Kagan recently made it
official in a Washington Post article by supporting Hillary Clinton and at the
same time criticizing Trump as the “GOP’s Frankenstein Monster” when
he said “For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only
choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be
saved, but the country still can be.” The Neocons in Clinton’s corner
does solidify support from pro-Israel organizations and lobbyists including
AIPAC with various warmongers from the Bush administration. Clinton will also
gain support from the Israeli-government including its Prime Minister Benjamin
Natanyahu who she promised that she will meet in her first month in office.
Zionist power in America (New York, Illinois and California) supports Hillary
Clinton and that is a force that can put her into the Whitehouse.
U.S. President Hillary Clinton?
I hope I am wrong about
Hillary Clinton becoming U.S. President because she would no doubt lead the
World towards more war and poverty, but to set the record straight, I don’t
think Donald Trump would make a better president either although he is less
hawkish than Hillary. But Hillary Clinton has the support from powerful people
in Hollywood, banking institutions; the Military-Industrial Complex, Women’s
rights organizations, AIPAC, Israel and multinational corporations to elevate
her to the throne. Trump will most-likely be the Republican nominee (if of
course, Michael Bloomberg or Mitt Romney don’t enter the race and steal Donald
Trump’s votes) and that won’t change a thing when the elections take place in
November. The establishment is looking to stop Donald Trump at any costs which
I believe can happen, even if it means stealing the election through fraud.
So to the Alternative media
including citizen journalists, bloggers and to the rest of the world, Hillary
Clinton, a war hawk and a Neocon has a real good chance of becoming the first
female U.S. president. A Clinton presidency will bring more wars, corporate
power and more government control over the American people and to the rest of
the world.
So is the world ready for
Hillary Clinton presidency that will run a collapsing empire that will stop at
nothing to maintain its imperial power? Just the thought of it, America has a
pretty bleak future if another Clinton is elected to the White House and not
that “Freebee” Bernie Sanders would be any better although he is somewhat the
lesser of two evils in at least in terms of U.S. foreign policy to a point.
Trump the torturer and his two Latino (Marco Rubio is a full blooded Cuban born
in the U.S. and Ted Cruz is half Cuban and American from Canada) rivals or
any other GOP nominee will not win. The MSM and all of Hillary’s supporters
will make sure of that. With major backers controlling the media, Hillary
Clinton’s chances are pretty strong. Hillary Clinton as U.S. President is an
idea that the world might have to get used to. I
really hope that I am wrong.
NOTE FROM THE POSTER:
NOTE FROM THE POSTER:
 | |||||||
| |||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment