OBAMA IS A MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD UNDERCOVER AGENT. THE FACTS EXPOSE HIM

Obama has Never been a Democrat: He is a Undercover MUSLIM MOLE


Now that the presidential election of last year is in the distant past, it appears that Obama may have abandoned his domestic agenda and is now squarely focused on the Middle East, or to be more accurate, the “Muslim Agenda”. What is this agenda? The answer is simple – the Caliphate. Obama is setting up the Caliphate as quickly as possible for his Sunni Muslim Brotherhood brethren and it appears to be a top priority as he only has just over three years before his second term ends. Most “moderate” political thinkers will scoff at our repeated advocacy that Obama is Muslim but there is so much evidence that would suggest this is the case.
Let us make the case logically for those who do have open minds and are willing to listen to reason:

Prior to Obama’s election in 2008, he interviewed with George Stephanopoulos and confessed to being a Muslim:
How many Christians do you know that would have made that mistake?


Ed Klein wrote a book about Obama called “The Amateur” and for the book, Klein interviewed Obama’s former Reverend, Jeremiah Wright (which was also recorded by Ed Klein). Wright stated that he guided Obama to accept Christianity without affecting his faith on Islam.
Here is the pertinent part of the interview with Klein and Sean Hannity, which discusses this:



Obama recited the call to prayer in classical Arabic perfectly and stated “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,” as quoted by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Prior to a scheduled speech he made at Georgetown University and shortly after Obama was inaugurated as President in 2009, he told his people to hide the crucifix that would be behind him while he was speaking.
If one cares to Google Obama and his critique of the Bible you will find a tremendous amount. Here is just one example of speech by Obama on the Bible:
Now ask yourselves a simple question: Is this someone who confesses the faith of Christianity? Not only will you will find no criticism of the Koran by Obama but he also praises the Koran and calls it holy. I do not recall him ever saying publicly that the Bible is Holy.
Now for his actions and policies.
The first major speech Obama made after his first inauguration was the speech in Cairo, which was the first indication of his fundamentalist Islamic faith. He insisted that members of the Muslim Brotherhood be invited, which ticked off Mubarak who did not attend the speech. Why invite the Muslim Brotherhood? Democratic principals? Really?
When the secular public in Iran rose up in rebellion against the Mullahs, Obama was silent and would provide no help either publicly or materially.
When the “Arab Spring” started, Obama supported and engaged the Muslim Brotherhood. In Egypt, he engaged with the Muslim Brotherhood and when they were overthrown with a huge outcry from the Egyptian public and the army intervened to stop the introduction of Sharia, he remained supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood threatening to remove US aid.

Does this look like a Democrat?

When the Arab Spring started, Obama immediately used the opportunity to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya without Congressional authority, which was propagandized in the USA by our government and the media. What most Americans were not told is the vast majority of Libyans supported Qaddafi, probably as much as ninety percent. The reason for this support – despite Qaddafi’s craziness and his past – is that he fought against the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda terrorists, including providing valuable intelligence to the U.S. Qaddafi also was very beneficial to his people. For example, when one got married in Libya, under Qaddafi, he provided subsidized mortgages. No matter what the purchase price of any house for a Libyan, the married couple was only required to pay 10% of their salary for ten years and then the house was there own. In America, if you get a free phone the people who will receive the free stuff will all vote for Democrats. I think getting a heavily subsidized mortgage will buy many peoples’ allegiances, do you not think? The Libyan war was a pure and classic deception by Obama to empower his Muslim Brotherhood brethren.
Your politicians in both parties lied to you big time.
Egypt has fallen back to the power of the secularist military, possibly only temporarily. The Muslim Brotherhood will lick their wounds and regroup; Obama has now turned his head to Syria. His political objective is not about weapons of mass destruction but to again empower his Sunni Muslim Brotherhood brethren in Syria and overthrow Assad. Political commentators in the U.S. believe that Obama is reluctant to take military action on Syria but based on his attack on Libya, this thinking is flawed. While it is not certain that an attack on Syria will happen, we believe the odds that Obama will eventually use military force against Syria are greater than fifty percent, especially if it will guarantee the Muslim Brotherhood’s objective.
Obama now does not care about his poll numbers or even his own party anymore; the Muslim agenda is now his only priority.
We know from the highly credible defense analyst Yossef Bodansky that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and our own U.S. intelligence services have been working together on Syria with troubling allegations that the Chemical attack may have been a setup.
Keith Ellison, the Muslim Hamas-supporting Congressman on the far left fringe of the Democrat Party from Minnesota who was against the Iraq war, is now one hundred percent in favor of going to war with Syria. It does not take a rocket scientist to work this out, does it? Just like Obama, he is a Sunni Muslim who also wishes to reestablish the Caliphate. It is just that simple!
The Emperor’s new clothes are still too hard for the average American to see.

from http://shoebat.com/2013/09/13/obama-longer-democrat/

FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD. FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD.FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD. FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD. FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD. FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD. FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD. FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD. FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD. FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD. FACEBOOK BLOCKS PATRIOTS FOR USING THE WORD RAGHEAD.

FACEBOOK AND ALL LIBERAL PAGES SUCK .. BUT I STILL USE THESE AVENUES TO SPREAD THE WORD...


I WAS BLOCKED FROM POSTING ON FACEBOOK SO I DE ACTIVATE MY ACCOUNT JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT...


Look the RAGHEADS will kill these libtards too !!


ANYWAY .. I THOUGHT I WOULD POST THESE PICTURES!!

Why is Obama so vehement about bombing Syria? Why are the Arabs so keen to get rid of Assad? Why are they willing to pay the US to make our Military into a mercenary force? Why is Russia so keen of helping a non player like Assad? READ THIS AND YOU WILL GET IT... >>ITS ABOUT ..MONEY AND OIL AND WHO GETS THE PROFITS FROM IT!!

BINGO!! TOOK ME A WHILE TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER... NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE.... THIS IS A LONG LONG READ. IF IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU..SHARE IT!

Why is Obama so vehement about bombing Syria?
Why are the Arabs so keen to get rid of Assad?
Why are they willing to pay the US to make our Military into a mercenary force?
Why is Russia so keen of helping a non player like Assad?
READ THIS AND YOU WILL GET IT...
>>ITS ABOUT ..MONEY AND OIL AND WHO GETS THE PROFITS FROM IT!! <<<<<<<<<<

Here is a rhetorical question to ask....Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? The answer revolves, as usually is the case in the Middle East, around an oil pipeline and the money.

Here are some additional perspectives.

Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

And as we asked last week, why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.

Now Obama is getting directly involved in the conflict with direct ordesr from his handlers the SAUDI'S. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all. ( DUH!!! ) But if Obama gets it done he has a HUGE HUGE commission coming after his retirement or ejection from America!

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.

The article was found from 2009...

"Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas. NOW THAT'S WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THEIR SPECIAL INTERESTS COME IN.

"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

THATS THE REASON WHY OBAMA HAS BLOCKED THE KEYSTONE PROJECT AND BLOCKED ANY FRACKING, SHALE EXPLORATION IN THE US.. ITS OK FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD>...BUT AWFUL FOR THE US.

SAUDI ARABIA EVEN WENT TO WORK IN THE PROPAGANDA WAR FUNDING THE CORNY MATT DAMON MOVIUE ABOUT FRACKING. Called "Promised Land", or.

Last week, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation pointed out that in the trailer for film, one of the financial backers listed is Image Nation Abu Dhabi.

Image Nation Abu Dhabi is, in turn, owned by Abu Dhabi Media - a state media company for the United Arab Emirates. The UAE, an OPEC member, is the world's third-largest oil exporter.

- See more at: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/matt-damon-fracking/#sthash.P49HHXK5.dpuf

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...

In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia! THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS RACING TO TRY AND CONVERT AMERICA INTO A SOCIALIST OLIGARCHY SO THAT HIS CABAL CAN HAVE CONTROL OVER THIS HUGE RESERVE.

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.

Four points are worth making about these purposes.

First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).


Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”

Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).

Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline and Retirement MONEY for Obama and all those who support him like his Cabal and other Rino's like McCain, Graham and others. THERE IS HUGE MONEY INVOLVED... WE ARE TALKING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.... AND FOR THAT KIND OF MONEY OUR MILITARY AND WE TAX PAYERS ARE THE PAWNS!!

ITS THE OLD YOU SCRATCH MY BACK.. AND I'LL SCRATCH YOURS ROUTINE...

ITS PLAYED OUT ON A DAILY BASIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.. IN FACT ITS THEIR WAY OF LIFE!!!