Why Polls are wrong on Clinton lead

Here is the Quinnipiac latest Poll.

First it does not show sample size.

2nd it is an ANTI Trump Poll.

Notice the NEGATIVE questions they ask:
8. As you may know, there is a recently released tape in which Donald Trump brags about
sexually assaulting women. Trump has since apologized and said that these comments were
simply “locker room talk”. In deciding your vote for president, is what Trump said in
that video a deal breaker, a big deal but not a deal breaker, or not a big deal?

9. As you may know, multiple women have recently said that Donald Trump groped or made
inappropriate sexual advances towards them without their consent. Trump has denied these
allegations, calling them lies. Do you believe that Donald Trump committed these actions,
or not?

10. In deciding your vote for president, are the allegations that Donald Trump groped or
made inappropriate sexual advances towards women a deal breaker, a big deal but not a
deal breaker, or not a big deal?

Please notice that there is not ONE question involving Clinton Emails, Lies, Clinton foundation illegal donations or Bills infidelities.

This poll also relied on HEAVY Democrat states.

This is the RIGGING of the election.

 

CLINTON TOPS TRUMP BY 7 POINTS,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS;
MOST VOTERS SAY MEDIA IS BIASED AGAINST TRUMP
Republican Donald Trump’s lead among men and white voters all but vanishes as Democrat
Hillary Clinton takes a 47 – 40 percent likely voter lead, with 7 percent for Libertarian Party
candidate Gary Johnson and 1 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, according to a
Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
This compares to a 45 – 40 percent Clinton lead in an October 7 survey by the
independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.
Today, men are divided with 43 percent for Trump and 41 percent for Clinton. Women
back Clinton 52 – 37 percent.
White voters go 45 percent for Trump and 41 percent for Clinton, while non-white voters
back Clinton 63 – 25 percent.
In a head-to-head, two-way race, Clinton tops Trump 50 – 44 percent.
The news media is biased against Trump, American likely voters say 55 – 42 percent,
including Republicans 88 – 8 percent and independent voters 61 – 37 percent. Democrats say
77 – 20 percent that the media is not biased.
American likely voters believe 51 – 31 percent that Trump assaulted several women.
Democrats believe it 84 – 5 percent and independent voters believe it 45 – 34 percent.
Republicans don’t believe it 56 – 22 percent.
“Donald Trump made the charge, and American likely voters agree: There IS a media
bias against the GOP contender,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac
University Poll.
“But does that explain his lackluster standing with his core base?”
-moreTim
Malloy, Assistant Director
(203) 645-8043
Rubenstein
Pat Smith (212) 843-8026
2
Quinnipiac University Poll/October 19, 2016 – page 2
Trump does not have a sense of decency, American likely voters say 59 – 36 percent and
he is not fit to be president, voters say 58 – 38 percent.
Clinton does have a sense of decency, voters say 55 – 42 percent, but they are divided on
whether she is fit to be president, as 47 percent say yes and 49 percent say no.
“Media bias or not, Trump’s character issues have ominous implications,” Malloy said.
“The consensus opinion is that Trump groped women and is neither fit enough nor a decent
enough person to be President.”
From October 17 – 18, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,007 likely voters
nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. Live interviewers call
landlines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts
public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida,
Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia and the nation as a public
service and for research.
Visit http://www.qu.edu/polling or http://www.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll
Call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.
3
1. If the presidential election were being held today, and the candidates were
Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine the Democrats, Donald Trump and Mike Pence the Republicans,
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld the Libertarians, and Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka the Green
party candidates, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As of today, do you lean more
toward Clinton and Kaine, Trump and Pence, Johnson and Weld, or Stein and Baraka?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Clinton and Kaine 47% 7% 91% 38% 41% 52% 46% 35%
Trump and Pence 40 80 4 42 43 37 42 49
Johnson and Weld 7 6 3 11 10 4 7 9
Stein and Baraka 1 2 1 2 1 2 – 2
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 – 1 – 1 1 –
DK/NA 5 4 2 6 5 4 3 5
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Clinton and Kaine 57% 47% 43% 46% 36% 45% 41% 63%
Trump and Pence 20 35 48 47 49 42 45 25
Johnson and Weld 19 8 4 1 10 6 8 4
Stein and Baraka 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 – – – 1 1 –
DK/NA 1 6 4 5 3 5 4 5
2. If the only candidates were Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine the Democrats and
Donald Trump and Mike Pence the Republicans, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As
of today, do you lean more toward Clinton and Kaine or Trump and Pence?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Clinton and Kaine 50% 10% 93% 41% 44% 55% 49% 39%
Trump and Pence 44 86 4 49 48 40 46 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 – 1 – 1 1 –
DK/NA 6 4 3 8 8 4 4 6
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Clinton and Kaine 63% 51% 45% 46% 40% 48% 44% 65%
Trump and Pence 32 39 50 49 55 46 50 28
SMONE ELSE(VOL) – 1 1 – 1 1 1 –
DK/NA 4 8 4 5 5 5 5 7
*Results based on total sample, only asked of respondents who did not choose Clinton or
Trump Q1. Respondents who named Clinton or Trump in Q1 assigned to initial preference.
4
3. Compared to past presidential elections, how would you describe your level of
motivation to vote in this year’s presidential election; are you more motivated than
usual, less motivated, or about the same as usual?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
More 53% 56% 52% 54% 50% 55% 54% 52%
Less 17 21 14 17 19 15 13 20
About the same 29 22 34 29 30 28 33 27
DK/NA 1 1 – 1 – 1 – 2
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
More 46% 48% 55% 58% 51% 55% 53% 52%
Less 28 23 11 13 17 15 16 18
About the same 26 30 33 27 32 28 30 30
DK/NA – – 1 2 – 2 1 –
4. Would you say that Hillary Clinton is fit to be President of the United States or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 47% 11% 86% 41% 43% 51% 51% 36%
No 49 86 11 56 54 45 48 59
DK/NA 4 2 3 3 3 5 1 4
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 52% 50% 44% 47% 41% 47% 44% 56%
No 45 47 52 49 58 49 53 37
DK/NA 2 4 4 4 1 4 3 6
5. Would you say that Donald Trump is fit to be President of the United States or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 38% 71% 4% 42% 43% 33% 40% 46%
No 58 27 93 52 53 62 58 49
DK/NA 4 3 2 6 4 5 3 5
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 24% 33% 44% 41% 50% 36% 43% 24%
No 74 64 50 53 48 58 54 70
DK/NA 2 3 5 6 2 6 4 6
5
6. Would you say that Hillary Clinton has a sense of decency or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 55% 21% 92% 47% 49% 59% 52% 48%
No 42 75 7 50 48 37 46 49
DK/NA 3 5 1 2 3 3 3 3
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 73% 53% 48% 53% 45% 55% 50% 67%
No 25 44 48 44 52 43 47 28
DK/NA 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 5
7. Would you say that Donald Trump has a sense of decency or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 36% 64% 7% 40% 45% 28% 35% 43%
No 59 31 90 54 51 66 61 51
DK/NA 5 4 3 6 4 6 4 6
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 24% 31% 41% 41% 47% 31% 39% 28%
No 76 65 52 55 48 64 56 66
DK/NA – 4 7 4 4 5 5 6
8. As you may know, there is a recently released tape in which Donald Trump brags about
sexually assaulting women. Trump has since apologized and said that these comments were
simply “locker room talk”. In deciding your vote for president, is what Trump said in
that video a deal breaker, a big deal but not a deal breaker, or not a big deal?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Deal breaker 27% 5% 48% 24% 21% 31% 29% 21%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 35 36 34 36 36 34 34 33
Not a big deal 35 59 11 38 41 29 33 43
DK/NA 4 1 7 2 2 5 4 3
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Deal breaker 34% 29% 24% 23% 20% 30% 25% 31%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 47 36 32 30 34 32 33 37
Not a big deal 19 33 38 42 44 32 38 27
DK/NA 1 2 6 5 1 5 3 5
6
9. As you may know, multiple women have recently said that Donald Trump groped or made
inappropriate sexual advances towards them without their consent. Trump has denied these
allegations, calling them lies. Do you believe that Donald Trump committed these actions,
or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 51% 22% 84% 45% 44% 56% 50% 45%
No 31 56 5 34 37 26 31 37
DK/NA 19 22 11 21 19 18 19 18
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 64% 55% 44% 50% 42% 53% 48% 61%
No 20 28 37 31 40 29 34 22
DK/NA 16 17 19 19 18 19 18 17
10. In deciding your vote for president, are the allegations that Donald Trump groped or
made inappropriate sexual advances towards women a deal breaker, a big deal but not a
deal breaker, or not a big deal?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Deal breaker 28% 8% 52% 22% 22% 34% 30% 23%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 34 32 34 39 35 34 34 33
Not a big deal 33 59 10 33 39 28 33 42
DK/NA 4 1 4 6 4 4 3 3
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Deal breaker 46% 32% 22% 21% 20% 33% 26% 35%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 35 32 36 35 34 33 33 37
Not a big deal 15 32 38 40 43 32 37 23
DK/NA 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 5
11. Do you think that the news media is biased against Donald Trump or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes/Biased 55% 88% 20% 61% 61% 49% 51% 66%
No/Not biased 42 8 77 37 36 47 45 32
DK/NA 3 4 3 2 2 4 4 2
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes/Biased 60% 51% 56% 52% 66% 51% 58% 45%
No/Not biased 39 48 39 45 32 45 39 51
DK/NA 2 1 5 3 1 4 3 5

https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us10192016_U29frgv.pdf

Advertisements

Proof Aliens visited earth a long time ago?

A piece of aluminium that looks as if it was handmade is being hailed as 250,000-year-old proof that aliens once visited Earth.

Metallic aluminium was not really produced by mankind until around 200 years ago, so the discovery of the large chunk that could be up to 250,000 years old is being held as a sensational find.

The details of the discovery were never made public at the time because it was pulled out of the earth in communist Romania in 1973.

Builders working on the shores of the Mures River not far from the central Romanian town of Aiud found three objects 10 metres (33 feet) under the ground.

They appeared to be unusual and very old, and archaeologists were bought in who immediately identified two of them as being fossils.

The third looked to be a piece of man-made metal, although very light, and it was suspected that it might be the end of an axe.

All three were sent together with the others for further analysis to Cluj, the main city of the Romanian region of Transylvania.

Ancient object

it was quickly determined that the two large bones belonged to a large extinct mammal that died 10,000-80,000 years ago, but experts were stunned to find out that the third object was a piece of very lightweight metal, and appeared to have been manufactured.

According to tests, the object is made of 12 metals, 90% aluminium, and it was dated by Romanian officials as being 250,000 years old. The initial results were later confirmed by a lab in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Other experts who conducted later tests said the dates were far alter, ranging between 400 and 80,000 years old, but even at 400 years old it would still be 200 years earlier than when aluminium was first produced.

The object is 20 centimetres (7.8 inches) long, 12.5 centimetres (4.9 inches) wide and 7 centimetres (2.8 inches) thick.

What puzzled experts is that the piece of metal has concavities that make it look as if it was manufactured as part of a more complex mechanical system.

Now a heated debate is going on that the object is actually part of a UFO and proof of visitation by an alien civilisation in the past.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/experts-believe-mysterious-aluminium-object-9086060

Previously Secret report shows Obama and Clinton aided in forming ISIS

The truth is coming out why we were in Benghazi. The question is WHO in the media will report the truth?

Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US “Created” ISIS As A “Tool” To Overthrow Syria’s President Assad

Tyler Durden's picture

From the first sudden, and quite dramatic, appearance of the fanatical Islamic group known as ISIS which was largely unheard of until a year ago, on the world’s stage and which promptly replaced the worn out and tired al Qaeda as the world’s terrorist bogeyman, we suggested that the “straight to beheading YouTube clip” purpose behind the Saudi Arabia-funded Islamic State was a simple one: use the Jihadists as the vehicle of choice to achieve a political goal: depose of Syria’s president Assad, who for years has stood in the way of a critical Qatari natural gas pipeline, one which could dethrone Russia as Europe’s dominant – and belligerent – source of energy, reaching an interim climax with the unsuccessful Mediterranean Sea military build up of 2013, which nearly resulted in quasi-world war.

The narrative and the plotline were so transparent, even Russia saw right through them. Recall from September of last year:

If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, LiveLeak reports that the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad’s forces, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Clearly comprehending that Obama’s new strategy against ISIS in Syria is all about pushing the Qatar pipeline through (as was the impetus behind the 2013 intervention push), Russia is pushing back noting that the it is using ISIS as a pretext for bombing Syrian government forces and warning that “such a development would lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa.”

But it’s one thing to speculate; it’s something entirely different to have hard proof.

And while speculation was rife that just like the CIA-funded al Qaeda had been used as a facade by the US to achieve its own geopolitical and national interests over the past two decades, so ISIS was nothing more than al Qaeda 2.0, there was no actual evidence of just this.

That may all have changed now when a declassified secret US government document obtained by the public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.

According to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed in Medium, the “leaked document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to “isolate the Syrian regime.” 

And not just that: as we reported last week, now that ISIS is running around the middle east, cutting people’s heads of in 1080p quality and Hollywood-quality (perhaps literally) video, the US has a credible justification to sell billions worth of modern, sophisticated weapons in the region in order to “modernize” and “replenish” the weapons of such US allies as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq.

But that the US military-industrial complex is a winner every time war breaks out anywhere in the world (usually with the assistance of the CIA) is clear to everyone by now. What wasn’t clear is just how the US predetermined the current course of events in the middle east.

Now, thanks to the following declassified report, we have a far better understanding of not only how current events in the middle east came to be, but what America’s puppermaster role leading up to it all, was. 

From Nafeez Ahmed: Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as strategic asset Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to ‘isolate’ Assad, rollback ‘Shia expansion’, originally posted in Medium.

Hypocrisy

 

The revelations contradict the official line of Western government on their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on civil liberties at home.

Among the batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, released earlier this week, is a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document then classified as “secret,” dated 12th August 2012.

The DIA provides military intelligence in support of planners, policymakers and operations for the US Department of Defense and intelligence community.

So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.

Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria.

Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said:

“Given the political leanings of the organisation that obtained these documents, it’s unsurprising that the main emphasis given to them thus far has been an attempt to embarrass Hilary Clinton regarding what was known about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. However, the documents also contain far less publicized revelations that raise vitally important questions of the West’s governments and media in their support of Syria’s rebellion.”

The West’s Islamists

The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies.

Noting that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the document states that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition,” while Russia, China and Iran “support the [Assad] regime.”

The 7-page DIA document states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the precursor to the ‘Islamic State in Iraq,’ (ISI) which became the ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,’ “supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media.”

The formerly secret Pentagon report notes that the “rise of the insurgency in Syria” has increasingly taken a “sectarian direction,” attracting diverse support from Sunni “religious and tribal powers” across the region.

In a section titled ‘The Future Assumptions of the Crisis,’ the DIA report predicts that while Assad’s regime will survive, retaining control over Syrian territory, the crisis will continue to escalate “into proxy war.”

The document also recommends the creation of “safe havens under international sheltering, similar to what transpired in Libya when Benghazi was chosen as the command centre for the temporary government.”

In Libya, anti-Gaddafi rebels, most of whom were al-Qaeda affiliated militias, were protected by NATO ‘safe havens’ (aka ‘no fly zones’).

‘Supporting powers want’ ISIS entity

In a strikingly prescient prediction, the Pentagon document explicitly forecasts the probable declaration of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.”

Nevertheless, “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” fighting to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar)”:

“… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran. Crucially, Iraq is labeled as an integral part of this “Shia expansion.”

The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”

Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.

The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, it says, would create “the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.” Last summer, ISIS conquered Mosul in Iraq, and just this month has also taken control of Ramadi.

Such a quasi-state entity will provide:

“… a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of territory.”

The 2012 DIA document is an Intelligence Information Report (IIR), not a “finally evaluated intelligence” assessment, but its contents are vetted before distribution. The report was circulated throughout the US intelligence community, including to the State Department, Central Command, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, among other agencies.

In response to my questions about the strategy, the British government simply denied the Pentagon report’s startling revelations of deliberate Western sponsorship of violent extremists in Syria. A British Foreign Office spokesperson said:

“AQ and ISIL are proscribed terrorist organisations. The UK opposes all forms of terrorism. AQ, ISIL, and their affiliates pose a direct threat to the UK’s national security. We are part of a military and political coalition to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and are working with international partners to counter the threat from AQ and other terrorist groups in that region. In Syria we have always supported those moderate opposition groups who oppose the tyranny of Assad and the brutality of the extremists.”

The DIA did not respond to request for comment.

Strategic asset for regime-change

Security analyst Shoebridge, however, who has tracked Western support for Islamist terrorists in Syria since the beginning of the war, pointed out that the secret Pentagon intelligence report exposes fatal contradictions at the heart of official pronunciations:

“Throughout the early years of the Syria crisis, the US and UK governments, and almost universally the West’s mainstream media, promoted Syria’s rebels as moderate, liberal, secular, democratic, and therefore deserving of the West’s support. Given that these documents wholly undermine this assessment, it’s significant that the West’s media has now, despite their immense significance, almost entirely ignored them.”

According to Brad Hoff, a former US Marine who served during the early years of the Iraq War and as a 9/11 first responder at the Marine Corps Headquarters in Battalion Quantico from 2000 to 2004, the just released Pentagon report for the first time provides stunning affirmation that:

“US intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset.”

Hoff, who is managing editor of Levant Report — ?an online publication run by Texas-based educators who have direct experience of the Middle East?—?points out that the DIA document “matter-of-factly” states that the rise of such an extremist Salafist political entity in the region offers a “tool for regime change in Syria.”

The DIA intelligence report shows, he said, that the rise of ISIS only became possible in the context of the Syrian insurgency?—?“there is no mention of US troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits.” The report demonstrates that:

“The establishment of a ‘Salafist Principality’ in Eastern Syria is ‘exactly’ what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as ‘the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey’) in order to weaken the Assad government.”

The rise of a Salafist quasi-state entity that might expand into Iraq, and fracture that country, was therefore clearly foreseen by US intelligence as likely?—?but nevertheless strategically useful?—?blowback from the West’s commitment to “isolating Syria.”

Complicity

Critics of the US-led strategy in the region have repeatedly raised questions about the role of coalition allies in intentionally providing extensive support to Islamist terrorist groups in the drive to destabilize the Assad regime in Syria.

The conventional wisdom is that the US government did not retain sufficient oversight on the funding to anti-Assad rebel groups, which was supposed to be monitored and vetted to ensure that only ‘moderate’ groups were supported.

However, the newly declassified Pentagon report proves unambiguously that years before ISIS launched its concerted offensive against Iraq, the US intelligence community was fully aware that Islamist militants constituted the core of Syria’s sectarian insurgency.

Despite that, the Pentagon continued to support the Islamist insurgency, even while anticipating the probability that doing so would establish an extremist Salafi stronghold in Syria and Iraq.

As Shoebridge told me, “The documents show that not only did the US government at the latest by August 2012 know the true extremist nature and likely outcome of Syria’s rebellion”?—?namely, the emergence of ISIS?—?“but that this was considered an advantage for US foreign policy. This also suggests a decision to spend years in an effort to deliberately mislead the West’s public, via a compliant media, into believing that Syria’s rebellion was overwhelmingly ‘moderate.’”

Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer who blew the whistle in the 1990s on MI6 funding of al-Qaeda to assassinate Libya’s former leader Colonel Gaddafi, similarly said of the revelations:

“This is no surprise to me. Within individual countries there are always multiple intelligence agencies with competing agendas.”

She explained that MI6’s Libya operation in 1996, which resulted in the deaths of innocent people, “happened at precisely the time when MI5 was setting up a new section to investigate al-Qaeda.”

This strategy was repeated on a grand scale in the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, said Machon, where the CIA and MI6 were:

“… supporting the very same Libyan groups, resulting in a failed state, mass murder, displacement and anarchy. So the idea that elements of the American military-security complex have enabled the development of ISIS after their failed attempt to get NATO to once again ‘intervene’ is part of an established pattern. And they remain indifferent to the sheer scale of human suffering that is unleashed as a result of such game-playing.”

Divide and rule

Several US government officials have conceded that their closest allies in the anti-ISIS coalition were funding violent extremist Islamist groups that became integral to ISIS.

US Vice President Joe Biden, for instance, admitted last year that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Turkey had funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamist rebels in Syria that metamorphosed into ISIS.

But he did not admit what this internal Pentagon document demonstrates?—?that the entire covert strategy was sanctioned and supervised by the US, Britain, France, Israel and other Western powers.

The strategy appears to fit a policy scenario identified by a recent US Army-commissioned RAND Corp report.

The report, published four years before the DIA document, called for the US “to capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”

The US would need to contain “Iranian power and influence” in the Gulf by “shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.” Simultaneously, the US must maintain “a strong strategic relationship with the Iraqi Shiite government” despite its Iran alliance.

The RAND report confirmed that the “divide and rule” strategy was already being deployed “to create divisions in the jihadist camp. Today in Iraq such a strategy is being used at the tactical level.”

The report observed that the US was forming “temporary alliances” with al-Qaeda affiliated “nationalist insurgent groups” that have fought the US for four years in the form of “weapons and cash.” Although these nationalists “have cooperated with al-Qaeda against US forces,” they are now being supported to exploit “the common threat that al-Qaeda now poses to both parties.”

The 2012 DIA document, however, further shows that while sponsoring purportedly former al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq to counter al-Qaeda, Western governments were simultaneously arming al-Qaeda insurgents in Syria.

The revelation from an internal US intelligence document that the very US-led coalition supposedly fighting ‘Islamic State’ today, knowingly created ISIS in the first place, raises troubling questions about recent government efforts to justify the expansion of state anti-terror powers.

In the wake of the rise of ISIS, intrusive new measures to combat extremism including mass surveillance, the Orwellian ‘prevent duty’ and even plans to enable government censorship of broadcasters, are being pursued on both sides of the Atlantic, much of which disproportionately targets activists, journalists and ethnic minorities, especially Muslims.

Yet the new Pentagon report reveals that, contrary to Western government claims, the primary cause of the threat comes from their own deeply misguided policies of secretly sponsoring Islamist terrorism for dubious geopolitical purposes.


Dr Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author and international security scholar. A former Guardian writer, he writes the ‘System Shift’ column for VICE’s Motherboard, and is also a columnist for Middle East Eye. He is the winner of a 2015 Project Censored Award, known as the ‘Alternative Pulitzer Prize’, for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for his Guardian work, and was selected in the Evening Standard’s ‘Power 1,000’ most globally influential Londoners.

Nafeez has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, New Internationalist, Counterpunch, Truthout, among others. He is the author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010), and the scifi thriller novel ZERO POINT, among other books. His work on the root causes and covert operations linked to international terrorism officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner’s Inquest.

What has Obama done or Why Ferguson went down as it did……

To understand President Obama and his actions we need to start with where he came from. He called himself a community organizer but what if he is a community agitator? What if he thinks that the Government can lift Blacks out of poverty by causing a social revolution as in socialism?

When Obama came into office there were “welfare to work” programs established by President Clinton. For some unexplained reason Obama signed these out of existence.  Now these programs were actually working.

Obama had ran on a platform of helping the blacks, making things equal. He told them that they were “entitled” to things.

Then he was elected and gave out welfare checks, disabilities and free “Obama Phones”.

The poor Black communities thought that they hit the gold mine. The Government spigot was turned on and they were filling their proverbial pot ‘o Gold. But they wanted more. Soon the news was full of stories of flash mobs, where mobs of black youth invaded stores and took whatever they wanted. Stealing everything.
Now Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton wanted their pot of Gold so they waited on an opportunity to take advantage of.

They got it one evening in Florida when Treyvon Martin met a community patrol officer named Zimmermann.

Even though the shooting was deemed legal it was presented to the world by Jesse, Al and Barrack, as a white on black hate crime, when in essence it was a case of an over zealous guard and a aggressive entitled youth who had been taught that all things can be resolved through violence. Even when black on white murder was increasing sharply and black on black crime in Chicago skyrocketed, the media and government focused on the isolated white on black crimes.

How is this related to Ferguson? Michael Brown had watched and listened to the propaganda floated by Obama, Jackson and Sharpton. He felt entitled, that everything was his for the taking and if anyone resisted violence was acceptable. Why not? The flash mobs were never punished, everything else in his life came for free. He was entitled.
So when he and his buddy went to the local store he thought nothing of stealing some cigars. When confronted by the store owner who was just trying to make a living we saw Michael Brown on video using violence, force, threats and intimidation to get his way.

But the store owner believed in the system. He called to Police to report the theft. But the black community have been taught to not trust the police. So even if officer Wilson was correct is using deadly force to protect his life, the liberals in this country will blame him, because they have been taught by Obama that the blacks in the US have been discriminated against so they should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

So what did the community do? First they rioted and used it as an excuse to rob their local businesses.

Ferguson Burns

Then when the verdict was issued (correctly in my mind) they looted and then burned down their community. They got their free beer and tennis shoes, then set fire to the local businesses their community depended on. They even looted the market where Michel Brown started this destruction.

They have been programmed to act this way. They know they will not be prosecuted, they know Obama will send cash to rebuild. They know that Obama will keep them down on the plantation and voting for the Democrats.

After all they live in an Obama socialist community and everything will or should be free because they are entitled to it.

 

Obama Praises Muslim Cleric Who Backed Fatwa on Killing of U.S. Soldiers

 

Obama Praises Muslim Cleric Who Backed Fatwa on Killing of U.S. Soldiers

President Barack Obama addresses the United Nations General Assembly / AP

President Barack Obama addresses the United Nations General Assembly / AP

BY:
September 24, 2014 1:40 pm

President Barack Obama favorably quoted and praised on Wednesday in his speech before the United Nations a controversial Muslim cleric whose organization has reportedly endorsed the terror group Hamas and supported a fatwa condoning the murder of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Obama in his remarks offered praise to controversial cleric Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah and referred to him as a moderate Muslim leader who can help combat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL or ISIS) radical ideology.

However, Bin Bayyah himself has long been engulfed in controversy for many of his views, including the reported backing of a 2004 fatwa that advocated violent resistance against Americans fighting in Iraq.

This is not the first time that the Obama administration has extoled Bin Bayyah, who also has served as the vice president of a Muslim scholars group founded by a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader who has called “for the death of Jews and Americans,” according to Fox News and other reports.

The State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau (CT) was forced to issue multiple apologies earlier this year after the Washington Free Beacon reported on its promotion of Bin Bayyah on Twitter.

“This should not have been tweeted and has since been deleted,” the CT Bureau tweeted at the time after many expressed anger over the original endorsement of Bin Bayyah.

However, it appears that Obama and the White House are still supportive of Bin Bayyah, who, despite his past statements, is still hailed by some as a moderate alternative to ISIL and al Qaeda.

“The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day,” Obama said before the U.N., according to a White House transcript of his remarks.

“Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies—Sheikh bin Bayyah described its purpose: ‘We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace,’” Obama said, quoting the controversial cleric.

Concern over the administration’s relationship with Bin Bayyah started as early as 2013, whenoutrage ensued after he was reported to have met with Obama’s National Security Council staff at the White House.

While Bin Bayyah has condemned the actions of groups such as Boko Haram and ISIL, he also has taken controversial positions against Israel.

He issued in 2009 a fatwa “barring ‘all forms of normalization’ with Israel,” according to a Fox report on the White House meeting.

Additionally, the notorious 2004 fatwa permitting armed resistance against U.S. military personnel in Iraq reportedly stated that “resisting occupation troops” is a “duty” for all Muslims, according to reports about the edict.

Patrick Poole, a reporter and terrorism analyst who has long tracked Bin Bayyah, expressed shock that the Obama administration would endorse the cleric on the world stage.

“It is simply amazing that just a few months ago the State Department had to publicly apologize for tweeting out it’s support for Bin Bayyah, only to have Barack Obama go before the leaders of the entire world and publicly endorse Bin Bayyah’s efforts,” Poole said.

“It seems that nothing can stop this administration’s determination to rehabilitate Bin Bayyah’s image, transforming him from the Islamic cleric who issued the fatwa to kill Americans in Iraq and calling for the death of Jews to the de facto White House Islamic mufti,” he said.

This type of mentality has contributed to the administration’s foreign policy failures in the region,” Poole said.

“This is a snapshot of why this administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East is a complete catastrophe,” he said. “The keystone of their policy has been that so-called ‘moderate Islamists’ were going to be the great counter to al Qaeda. But if you take less than 30 seconds to do a Google search on any of these ‘moderate Islamists,’ you immediately find they are just a degree or two from the most hardcore jihadis and have little to no difference when it comes to condoning violence.”

A White House official said that the president’s remarks speak for themselves and declined to add anything further.