Tweet
Ambassador Stevens & the Scorpion
Canada Free Press
Doug Hagmann
9/17/2012
Excerpt:
"Most people have heard the fable about the frog and the scorpion, but in the event you haven’t, I’ll briefly recount it here. A scorpion asks a frog to carry him on his back to the other side of a stream. The frog initially refuses, telling the scorpion that he would likely sting and kill him along the journey.
The scorpion promises not to, pointing out that they would both die if the scorpion was to sting the frog in the middle of the water. The frog then said that the scorpion would sting the frog once they were on the other side. The scorpion scoffed, telling the frog that he would be too grateful to do something as sinister as that.
Like the story of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the tale does not have a happy ending. After the frog agrees to carry the scorpion, the frog gets stung in the middle of the stream, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion simply replies, “it is my nature.” Believe what you wish about America’s foreign policy, but Ambassador Stevens succumbed to the sting of the scorpion that is inherent in the nature of Islamic fundamentalism that exists under the pretext of what is termed “Arab Spring.”
The Obama doctrine
On June 4, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama made what many describe as a conciliatory speech in Cairo, which laid the foundation for his foreign policy in the Arab World. Thus began a doctrine of overt acquiescence and apology, followed by an active policy of engagement against certain Middle East dictators who were repressing democracy. At least that’s the way it was made to appear on the surface.
Obama’s actions by funding and arming the very element who promised not to “sting” us illustrates only one of two possibilities. Either inexplicable naiveté by Obama, or a deliberate course of action designed to create orchestrated chaos across the Middle East. While Ambassador Stevens might have adhered to the ideology that by helping our enemies, our actions would cause them to suddenly abandon their inherent nature and become our friends, it is unlikely that this was, or is Obama’s mindset. By all accounts and by his own admission, he is fully aware of that ideology as he lived it.
Given our experiences over the last fifty years and through multiple administrations, we must then ask what it is that Obama is actually attempting to do? The answer to this question, if one believes that he actually understands the Islamic mindset, is beyond troubling. It becomes exponentially more troubling as one digs far beneath the official narratives of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
It is here that one must have a very good understanding of history, and not the history shaped by the influx of Petrodollars into American academia. It is extremely important to understand that since the 1970s, our universities have been saturated with money provided by Arab and Muslim elites. By influencing the students and educators coming from these universities and redefining history, the whole of society, including politicians and journalists are thusly influenced. From the early 1970s forward, Middle East studies overtook schools and universities, teaching a false historical doctrine that eventually shaped our foreign policy and how the current generation of journalists report on Muslim and Middle East issues.
This, combined with the agenda of global elites, especially the Progressives and those on the far left, resulted in the stifling of any historical understanding of the global Islamic Caliphate. Understanding history and exploiting American’s intellectual paralysis, compliments of a media staffed by the new generation of journalists and infiltrated by globalist facilitators, the globalists saw 2008 as the time to roll out an already well-groomed Barack Hussein Obama, a self-proclaimed citizen of the world, as the leader of the free world. The actual and perceived failures of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, itself influenced by oil and the coziness that only Petrodollars could buy, set the stage for Obama. Finally, the events put into motion decades ago, propelled by the 9/11 attacks, could be cultivated to advance their idea of a New World Order, or a singular system of international rule.
To accomplish this system of global governance, it would be necessary to change the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Hold-outs for national independence and sovereignty would have to be removed, such as Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya. Without the preoccupation of a cold war enemy, the globalists and the Islamic fundamentalists united in a common goal: to usurp the sovereignty and independence of nations filled with Islamic fundamentalists held at bay by their despotic leaders. This was done under the thinly veiled pretext of advancing human rights and promoting democracy where none had ever existed and never could. The pretext is able to exist due to the lack of honest scrutiny by a complicit media. Moreover, few Americans have the ability to challenge the official narrative, thanks to the revisionist history taught in schools and universities, compliments of the Arab and Muslim elite.
With the promise of re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate in the region known as the Greater Middle East, or the area from Morocco to Afghanistan, Obama inked a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood as a means to clear the path for a global system of governance. He brought in the Muslim Brotherhood to all areas of our government to collude with the globalists and communists already firmly rooted in our government and our media. The allegiance of both the secular globalists and Islamic fundamentalists working to re-establish a Caliphate promises them all a seat at the globalist table, yet they fail to understand that they are dining with scorpions."
............................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49575
Canada Free Press
Doug Hagmann
9/17/2012
Excerpt:
"Most people have heard the fable about the frog and the scorpion, but in the event you haven’t, I’ll briefly recount it here. A scorpion asks a frog to carry him on his back to the other side of a stream. The frog initially refuses, telling the scorpion that he would likely sting and kill him along the journey.
The scorpion promises not to, pointing out that they would both die if the scorpion was to sting the frog in the middle of the water. The frog then said that the scorpion would sting the frog once they were on the other side. The scorpion scoffed, telling the frog that he would be too grateful to do something as sinister as that.
Like the story of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the tale does not have a happy ending. After the frog agrees to carry the scorpion, the frog gets stung in the middle of the stream, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion simply replies, “it is my nature.” Believe what you wish about America’s foreign policy, but Ambassador Stevens succumbed to the sting of the scorpion that is inherent in the nature of Islamic fundamentalism that exists under the pretext of what is termed “Arab Spring.”
The Obama doctrine
On June 4, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama made what many describe as a conciliatory speech in Cairo, which laid the foundation for his foreign policy in the Arab World. Thus began a doctrine of overt acquiescence and apology, followed by an active policy of engagement against certain Middle East dictators who were repressing democracy. At least that’s the way it was made to appear on the surface.
Obama’s actions by funding and arming the very element who promised not to “sting” us illustrates only one of two possibilities. Either inexplicable naiveté by Obama, or a deliberate course of action designed to create orchestrated chaos across the Middle East. While Ambassador Stevens might have adhered to the ideology that by helping our enemies, our actions would cause them to suddenly abandon their inherent nature and become our friends, it is unlikely that this was, or is Obama’s mindset. By all accounts and by his own admission, he is fully aware of that ideology as he lived it.
Given our experiences over the last fifty years and through multiple administrations, we must then ask what it is that Obama is actually attempting to do? The answer to this question, if one believes that he actually understands the Islamic mindset, is beyond troubling. It becomes exponentially more troubling as one digs far beneath the official narratives of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
It is here that one must have a very good understanding of history, and not the history shaped by the influx of Petrodollars into American academia. It is extremely important to understand that since the 1970s, our universities have been saturated with money provided by Arab and Muslim elites. By influencing the students and educators coming from these universities and redefining history, the whole of society, including politicians and journalists are thusly influenced. From the early 1970s forward, Middle East studies overtook schools and universities, teaching a false historical doctrine that eventually shaped our foreign policy and how the current generation of journalists report on Muslim and Middle East issues.
This, combined with the agenda of global elites, especially the Progressives and those on the far left, resulted in the stifling of any historical understanding of the global Islamic Caliphate. Understanding history and exploiting American’s intellectual paralysis, compliments of a media staffed by the new generation of journalists and infiltrated by globalist facilitators, the globalists saw 2008 as the time to roll out an already well-groomed Barack Hussein Obama, a self-proclaimed citizen of the world, as the leader of the free world. The actual and perceived failures of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, itself influenced by oil and the coziness that only Petrodollars could buy, set the stage for Obama. Finally, the events put into motion decades ago, propelled by the 9/11 attacks, could be cultivated to advance their idea of a New World Order, or a singular system of international rule.
To accomplish this system of global governance, it would be necessary to change the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Hold-outs for national independence and sovereignty would have to be removed, such as Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya. Without the preoccupation of a cold war enemy, the globalists and the Islamic fundamentalists united in a common goal: to usurp the sovereignty and independence of nations filled with Islamic fundamentalists held at bay by their despotic leaders. This was done under the thinly veiled pretext of advancing human rights and promoting democracy where none had ever existed and never could. The pretext is able to exist due to the lack of honest scrutiny by a complicit media. Moreover, few Americans have the ability to challenge the official narrative, thanks to the revisionist history taught in schools and universities, compliments of the Arab and Muslim elite.
With the promise of re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate in the region known as the Greater Middle East, or the area from Morocco to Afghanistan, Obama inked a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood as a means to clear the path for a global system of governance. He brought in the Muslim Brotherhood to all areas of our government to collude with the globalists and communists already firmly rooted in our government and our media. The allegiance of both the secular globalists and Islamic fundamentalists working to re-establish a Caliphate promises them all a seat at the globalist table, yet they fail to understand that they are dining with scorpions."
............................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49575