How Obama and Clinton are Staging Another “Seasonal” Uprising… In America
It was late 2010 when Libya began to experience protests calling for a regime change. These protesters, eerily reminiscent of prior protests in other authoritarian countries, seemed oddly organized and democratically-motivated. They wanted leadership in place in Libya that represented them as people. They wanted to be heard and they wanted the old leadership out.
The term “Arab Spring” made its debut January of 2011 in an article inside of American political journal Foreign Policy. The term was a reference to many “Seasonal”-styled uprisings and overthrows that came before it. There was the “Springtime of Nations” in 1848 and the “Prague Spring” revolution in 1968. There were even similarities drawn between the Arab Spring and the “Autumn of Nations” in 1989. Al Jazeera stated that this term was actually structured around the U.S. strategy of controlling the aims and goals of the movement towards a “Liberal Democracy.” The scary part: The U.S. funded the Arab Spring movement via a relatively well known, government financed non-profit called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
As of 2009, after Obama took office, the National Endowment for Democracy had an operating budget of $135 million, all of which came from U.S. government agencies via appropriations from Congress. That’s a nice chunk of change for a non-profit. What do they do with all of their money? Well, that answer is complicated, especially considering the Obama Administration’s latest accusations of Russia “interfering with U.S. elections.”
Apparently, the NED uses their funding quite efficiently. In 2004, Venezuelan “President” Hugo Chavez published documents which showed NED involvement in Venezuelan politics. The evidence posed by Chavez showed that, between 2000 and 2001, NED tripled their funding for groups within Venezuela from $250,000 to $900,000 annually. Vitually all of this money went to journalists who worked for Chavez opposition outlets. In 2013, NED spent $1.8 million on programs inside of Venezuela, including programs for “Democratic Ideas and Values” and “Strengthening Political Institutions.”
In 2004, the NED invested nearly $3.4 million in the Ukraine during their election cycle. This money, interestingly enough, went to various programs, including two, titled “Strengthening Political Institutions” and “Democratic Ideas and Values.” Are you asking yourself, “Wait a sec… The U.S. interfered in a foreign election?” You should be.
In 2015, Russia banned the NED from operating any “Non Profit” organizations inside of country, citing interference in their political agenda. Russia specifically accused the NED of trying to “discredit service in the Russian Armed Forces.” This should ring a bell to you, if you’ve been paying attention to the news reports over the past week. On December 6, 2016, Obama gave a speech during which he stated, “each of us has the universal right to speak your minds and protest against authority; to live in a society that’s open and free; that can criticize our president without retribution.” This is directly in line with what the NED was trying to accomplish in Russia in 2014 and 2015 in delegitimizing the Russian military, which is why Putin banned them from Russia.
Let’s rewind to 2011. Hillary Clinton was at a conference in Lithuania and was giving a speech talking about the Russian elections. This speech was a very important political point in history, as it would turn out. Putin, as we all know, is former Russian Intelligence and he is very skilled at counter intelligence as well. Clinton was Secretary of State at the time and she had a very specific goal in mind while in Lithuania for that conference: To ensure that Putin would be forced out of power by questioning his legitimacy and the legitimacy of the election process in Russia. In this speech, Hillary Clinton said, “People deserve to have their voices heard and their votes counted, and that means that they deserve fair, free transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them.” This line was a calculated shot aimed directly at Putin and Putin knew it. In fact, Putin even responded to this statement, saying that he believed the statement, “People deserve to have their voices heard,” was a call to arms for dissidents within Russian society, some of which he accused of being funded and supported by American intelligence agencies. Putin would later be elected in 2012, despite the various protests that were taking place. Needless to say, Clinton’s speech did have an effect on the elections and was taken as direct interference by Putin.
Fast forward to November 9, 2016. Hillary Clinton gave her concession speech to Donald Trump’s Presidential Election victory. In doing so, and without the knowledge of American voters, Clinton would pull another trigger, setting off a major wave of violent protests across the nation. During her concession speech, camouflaged among the “thank you’s” and homages to women’s rights and glass ceilings, Clinton made two very specific statements which, if you believe Putin’s assertions, were a call to arms for American protestors and Trump dissidents.
Hillary Clinton’s first statement was as follows: “…I want everybody coming out from behind that and make sure your voices are heard going forward.” This is almost a direct quote from Clinton’s Lithuania speech in 2011 calling for Putins critics to question him. Keep in mind that, after Clinton gave that speech in Lithuania, Russian citizens immediately began to protest Putin, calling him corrupt and calling the election process “rigged.” Do you still think this is a coincidence?
The second statement made by Clinton during her November 9 concession speech has much darker and more sinister implications: “You know, scripture tells us, let us not grow weary of doing good, for in good season we shall reap. My friends, let us have faith in each other, let us not grow weary and lose heart, for there are more seasons to come and there is more work to do.”
At what point in the history of Hillary Clinton’s statements and speeches has she ever made a reference to Christian bible scripture, much less a focal point, for her supporters? I didn’t find any elongated reference to scripture in any of her prior speeches. I never found another reference where she used the word “Seasons” to describe work that has to be done. Previously, Clinton’s involvement with seasons has only been in the uprising in Libya during the Arab Spring (and subsequent Arab Winter). For those familiar with this political failure, Hillary Clinton urged the protesters in Libya to continue their mission in 2011. Hillary Clinton also gained the ear of Obama in this movement. In turn, Obama assisted the U.S. allies in bombing the uprising’s opponents, allowing the Arab Spring movement to prosper. Clinton later visited Libya and had a closed door meeting with what she believed to be the future leadership in support of regime change. Ultimately, Gaddafi was later killed and his body was paraded among the Arab Spring supporters. Hillary Clinton’s response: “We came, We saw, He died,” referring to Gaddafi. What she didn’t expect, whether she didn’t care or didn’t understand at all, was that Gaddafi’s death left a power vacuum in Libya that would later be filled by those the U.S. strongly opposed. Yep, you guessed it: Clinton’s policy in Libya and the NED’s investment ultimately failed the Libyan people and helped create a terror-supporting regime that would later kill four Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
As of December 12, 2016, President Obama has stated publicly that a “secret CIA assessment” has accused Russia of interfering in the U.S. election. At no point was the word “hacking” mentioned. At no point was there any accusation of cyber warfare. These are all terms that the media has chosen to use to describe this conjecture posed by the CIA (and refuted by the FBI and House Intelligence Committee). In releasing this “secret assessment” narrative, Obama has given a voice to those dissidents onthe left who are still angry from the Trump election victory. Obama, using his Alinsky-esque tactics, has helped to poke the festering wound of defeat within the Democratic party. Between Clinton’s speeches and Obama’s dangerous rhetoric, one can’t help but see that this is a coordinated operation set up by the left using conjecture from “Intelligence Agencies” in order to stage what could be a very dangerous uprising within the borders of our country. The fact that this is possible is scary enough. The idea that this could be happening makes Obama not only the most divisive President in U.S. history, but possibly the most dangerous for democracy as well.
