Benghazi

On September 11, 2012, the United States embassy in Benghazi, Libya, was overrun and American lives were lost.  American personnel, including the United States ambassador to Libya, were murdered.  President Obama (Democrat) and members of the U.S. State Department, including Hillary Clinton (Democrat), could have intervened but instead made the decision to abandon their own citizens.  The United States military could have responded but were ordered to stand down despite vocalizing a willingness to respond.

Since that ill-fated day on September 11, United States politicians have made little to no headway bringing those responsible to justice.  Instead, the Benghazi incident has been used to further divide the people using partisan politics.  This article will help the reader understand what events led up to the Benghazi attack and why the political leadership in both the Democratic and Republican parties fear a proper investigation.

The American Government was illegally running weapons to rebels in both Libya and Syria using the Benghazi embassy as a staging point for said weapons.  The actions were part of a plan that was intended to destabilize two sovereign nations, Libya and Syria.  Not only were these actions illegal acts of war but these actions created the ISIS threat currently facing the civilized world.

The actual embassy attack served two purposes in the political arena.  First, the attack resulted in many military grade weapons being put into rebel hands which allowed for a further destabilization of the region.  Secondly, it gave the United States Government a reason to further market war in the region when the American people had already been clear in their desire to avoid any conflict in the region.  Prior to the attack the American public was very vocal in their condemnation of figures such as John McCain (Republican), Mark Kirk (Republican), and Adam Kinzinger (Republican) for advocating a war with Syria.

At this point the astute reader will be asking, why in the world would the United States Government want to further destabilize the Middle East?  The answer of course boils down to money and power.  To understand this one needs to ask another question, who benefits from such a conflict?  Members of the military industrial complex and members of the central banks run by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are the prime beneficiaries.

United States politicians are renowned for being duplicitous in nature.  Politicians such as Nancy Pelosi (Democrat) have built their fortunes through their association with arms dealers while simultaneously denouncing the wars upon which their fortunes were built.  Politicians such as John McCain (Republican) have profited greatly from war while simultaneously denouncing the military industrial complex.  Politicians such as Bill and Hillary Clinton (Democrats) have received vast sums donated to their non-for-profit foundation after authorizing weapons deliveries from United States Government agencies.  Politicians such as Adam Kinzinger (Republican), who originally headed the Benghazi investigations, built a substantial power base by burying the Benghazi investigations and turning the investigation into a bipartisan circus.  None of these individuals want Benghazi properly investigated as it would undermine not only themselves but a vast number of politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

This, however, pales in comparison to the financial benefits reaped by the central banks run by the IMF.  With very few exceptions in recent history the result of each foreign conflict has been the implementation of an IMF central bank in each country where a conflict has occurred.  For those not familiar with IMF central banks, the United States Federal Reserve is one such example.  The United States Federal Reserve, despite its name, is not actually part of the United States Government but is part of the IMF.  Libya and Syria were attempting to distance themselves from the control of central banks prior to the conflict.

Once implemented a central bank prints and manages the currency of the respective “host” nation.  The central banks then charge the respective country interest on all currency created.  Since not enough currency exists to repay the central banks for creating money the “host” nations can only repay the banks by providing tangible items such as gold, oil, and land.  Furthermore, since the banks are not owned or run by the “host” nations the central banks can further manipulate economies as their parent, the IMF, controls the exchange rates for the currencies created by each respective central bank.  This model has resulted in a very few individuals controlling the majority of global wealth as well as being able to force their will on individual countries.

Once created, supplied, and trained, radical organizations such as ISIS allow this paradigm to continue.  ISIS is not controlled by the United States Government nor by the IMF.  ISIS is a very real and growing global threat.  What the reader must understand is that ISIS now gives governments such as the United States a reason that can be marketed to ramp up military involvement (more money for the military industrial complex and the IMF) and further oppress the citizens in each country by restricting their freedoms in the name of security (more power for the military industrial complex and the IMF).  This creates a cyclical effect which will only continue to grow the divide between the working class and the ruling class.

If Benghazi were actually investigated and the results were presented to the citizens of America in layman’s terms the result could be devastating to U.S. political leadership.  Imagine how the citizens of the United States would respond if they learned their own children were being sent to war for profit.  Imagine how the citizens would respond if they learned their own Government was funding terrorism.  This is why Benghazi investigations have resulted in nothing more than mudslinging between the Democrats and Republicans.  The respective party leadership simply uses the mudslinging to distract from the deep-seated corruption and to further divide the citizenry.

To quote Lord Bryon Acton, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

 


Questions every American should be asking:

Why was John McCain (Republican) meeting with ISIS leadership prior to the Benghazi embassy attack?

Why didn’t President Obama (Democrat) or Secretary State Hillary Clinton (Democrat) respond immediately to the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya?

Why was the United States military ordered to stand down?

Why didn’t Representative Adam Kinzinger (Republican) investigate John McCain (Republican) during the Benghazi investigations?

Why was Adam Kinzinger (Republican) touring with John McCain (Republican) after the initial investigation of Benghazi?

 

Leave a Reply