Obama’s Links to Pro-Terrorist Groups
We now have evidence of contacts between Saudi officials and some of the September 11 hijackers. An old classified document has been declassified. On an equally, if not more important and current matter, what about the evidence of contacts between the Obama White House and the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood? When will we be given a declassified copy of Obama’s Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11, regarding the secret White House backing of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has proposed a bill to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. It’s called the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act (S.2230).
On another equally, if not more important and current matter, what about Obama White House contacts with the Black Lives Matter movement (BLM), a support apparatus for cop-killers?
It would appear that the Obama administration may be implicated for its support for terrorism at home and abroad. This comes on top of the evidence that Obama and his then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported jihadist groups in Libya that killed four Americans in Benghazi.
We know BLM supports Assata Shakur, a cop-killer on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists who fled to Cuba and is being protected by the Communist regime there. Why didn’t Obama insist on her extradition to the U.S. in exchange for normal diplomatic relations? Why have Obama and White House official Valerie Jarrett met with members of Black Lives Matter?
While setting the record straight about a high-level cover-up of Saudi-backed terrorism on American soil, let’s get to the bottom of who’s behind terrorism on American soil right now.
The Obama administration and its far-left backers seem troubled that the Congress may hold hearings into White House links to the Black Lives Matter movement.
What we know so far is that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been crippled in its ability to investigate the BLM.
The far-left recently went into a state of panic over the fact that the FBI’s New Orleans Field Office circulated an alert to local law enforcement on July 7 titled, “Violence Against Law Enforcement Officers and Riots Planned for 8-10 July 2016.” One left-wing group complained that the document “consisted of a few unsourced and inflammatory images that appear to be screen grabs from random social media postings.”
Judicial Watch had obtained the July 7 document, noting that the alert warns that “multiple groups are calling for or planning riots and/or violence against law enforcement in Baton Rouge and Shreveport…”
The document was accurate in warning about threats to police. Yet, it was painfully short on details. The document serves as evidence that the FBI needs more information about the plans of the black radicals targeting police.
But how can the FBI investigate terrorist support groups like Black Lives Matter when the connections reach right up into the White House itself?
If FBI Director James Comey won’t indict former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a security risk, you can surmise that the FBI would shy away from investigating President Obama’s links to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Aware that his contacts with BLM are a proper area for investigation and hearings, Obama tried on Sunday to intimidate those who want the truth to come out. He said, “We don’t need inflammatory rhetoric. We don’t need careless accusations thrown around to score political points or to advance an agenda.”
The agenda is the truth, Mr. President.
Since the media have shown no interest in holding Obama accountable for encouraging racial polarization and even violence, it is up to Congress to do so.
It is simply incredible that, even after police officers are assassinated in Dallas and Baton Rouge, Obama is still supporting Black Lives Matter. We have evidence that the President consorts with known backers of a cop-killer.
Obama said, “I don’t think that you can hold well-meaning activists who are doing the right thing and peacefully protesting responsible for everything that is uttered at a protest site.” He went on to say that “…I think that the overwhelming majority of people who are involved in the Black Lives Matter movement—what they really want to see is a better relationship between the police and the community so they can feel that it’s serving them.”
If the group wants a “better relationship” between the community and the police, why does the BLM website honor a cop-killer?
Rather than hold Obama responsible for supporting this group, Shepard Smith of the “conservative” Fox News Channel chastised former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for using the phrase “All Lives Matter.” Smith, an out-of-the-closet liberal, said the term was “seen by many” as “derogatory” toward the BLM movement.
Over at CNN, it’s worse. The network hired Marc Lamont Hill, after he was fired by Fox. At one time, Hill was so devoted to Assata Shakur that the wallpaper of his Twitter page was plastered with police photos of her. To this day, Hill still has a “letter from Assata Shakur” on his blog, and he says, “Let us give thanks for her life and her sacrifice.”
Her sacrifice? Her victim, Trooper Werner Foerster, was a father who left behind a wife and two children.
On the anniversary of the FBI declaring her a terrorist, Black Lives Matter said its members should declare “why she is important to the current Black Lives Matter movement.”
Does Obama, too, regard this terrorist as a freedom fighter? It appears that way. If not, why doesn’t he condemn the movement for honoring a cop-killer?
In response to an online petition asking that Black Lives Matter be designated a terrorist organization, the White House said that it “plays no role in designating domestic terror organizations,” and that the U.S. government does not “generate a list of domestic terror organizations.”
Perhaps the Congress can fill the void. Where does your congressman stand?
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.