Growing information being declassified, some of which suggests that Barack Obama was directly involved in attempts to derail Donald Trump's presidency, has given birth to the accusatory term "Obamagate." Will the truth about what has gone on behind the scenes in American politics finally prevail? We are a long way from being able to confirm or deny the substance behind Donald Trump’s current rallying cry “Obamagate!” However, one thing is pretty certain. In today’s polarized climate, a vast majority of right-leaning folks would give credence to the notion that Obama has committed serious malfeasance, while most who identify on the left consider the single-word accusation ludicrous. Whatever turns out to be true, if and when we get to the bottom of it American politics will never be the same. Let’s be clear right off the top that, unlike the majority of political commentaries in the mainstream and even in alternative news, I will be making an effort not to align with either side of the well-worn battle lines between Left and Right, Republican and Democrat.
The attempt here will be to rise above that artificial polarity and examine the known facts as objectively as possible, with the intention of informing the reader as to what has actually been going on behind the scenes. --Special: Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! Click here to register now! It is heartening to see that in this time of awakening, people are starting to reject this artificial polarity and the identities of a growing number of people are no longer defined by whether they are ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative.’ Certainly, one can say that there is a ‘real’ distinction between the two sides, but the only value in making this distinction is to realize that the human experience is optimized when these two polarities are in balance.
The notion that one will ultimately win over the other is what fuels the never-ending political divide. In effect, once we distance ourselves from identifying with one or the other of these polarities, we begin to see the whole political dichotomy as a control mechanism designed to keep us divided. So I’ll start with full disclosure: most of my life I identified with the Liberal party in Canada. When I turned my attention to American politics a few decades ago, I was an ardent supporter of Bill Clinton, a critic of George W. Bush and later was absolutely enamored with Barack Obama. In fact, in early 2008, I happened to be visiting my sister in Florida and Barack Obama had a rally scheduled less than an hour away. I felt that the Obama presidency might be historic and I wouldn’t have forgiven myself if I didn’t take this rare opportunity to see the man in person. I was not disappointed. Not only did I find him to be even more charismatic and articulate than I even thought he was, I was even more convinced that he was about to bring “Change We Can Believe In.” Here is the sign I held up at the rally all those years ago. The climax of the evening actually came after the rally was over, and Obama walked off the stage to rousing applause and outstretched hands.
There was no way of getting close to him to offer my hand, I thought. I was stuck at the front of some grandstands that sat far from the stage. Yet as fate would have it, his exit path ran directly past the grandstands that I was in. He started reaching up hand over hand with the people at the front. I squirmed through and somehow my left hand clasped his (extra special since we are both left-handed) and our eyes met at the same time.
The moment was electric, as it felt like I was seeing into the soul of one of the greatest and most sincere leaders the world has ever known. I may have been willing to give him my left arm right then and there if he asked for it. Twelve years later, much has changed–and it is not the ‘change we can believe in’ that Obama was touting in 2004. But it is a good change nonetheless, a change within me. As painful as it sometimes is, if our thinking is to continue to grow and evolve, we must always subject our own cherished beliefs to scrutiny, especially in the face of events that contradict them. While I found many of Obama’s early speeches to be inspiring and captivating, some of the policies coming out of his administration were a bit puzzling.
Then as his second term wore on, his actions in the world appeared contradictory to his promise of peaceful collaboration, while his rhetoric, always measured, became more serious and less heartening. During his presidency, though, I went along with the popular theory that Obama was highly compromised, as all presidents are, and that he had to ‘play ball’ with the powerful forces behind American politics instead of really doing what he wanted if he was to avoid the fate of JFK. Today, I can’t say that I know for sure who Barack Obama is, or ever was. But in my eyes, evidence seems to be growing that he has been part of criminal activity like massive illegal domestic surveillance, unjust violence abroad under the fog of war and terrorism, a reduction of protections for whistleblowers, and huge coverups of the illegal activities of people connected to his administration. Was he a manchurian candidate from the start, or was he an idealistic community organizer who rose to great heights only to get the hammer of reality dropped on him when he was inaugurated? Did he succumb to threats, bribes, and other such enticements to become ideologically and morally aligned with dark forces? Or is he in fact exactly as he currently portrays himself, as a good person and a great president whose administration, in his words, ‘didn’t have a scandal’? Let’s see what the evidence suggests. It must be said that ‘Obamagate’ presupposes the existence of a ‘Deep State’, a cabal that has placed or bribed/blackmailed a great number of people in powerful and influential positions in all branches of government, the military, intelligence, and mainstream media. Further, unlike previous presidents including Barack Obama who were part of or have been willing to go along with the Deep State, Donald Trump is seen as having been supported by a military/intelligence axis that opposed the Deep State, and who sought to employ Trump to help them ‘drain the swamp’ (i.e. remove Deep State players from power and, where possible, prosecute them for their crimes). I’m not asking you to just take my word on this, but you have to admit that if it’s true, it would really explain the relentless motivation to denigrate Donald Trump in the public eye at every turn, and ultimately try every trick in the book to remove him from power. Please note that the belief in the existence of a ‘Deep State’ based on the evidence available is not participating in ‘far-right’ conspiracy theories, much as the mainstream media would want it characterized that way. In fact, the Deep State is seen as having had control over powerful people on both sides of the political aisle for a very long time. It was certainly in control during the George W. Bush administration, and his father George H. W. Bush was known as a high-ranking member. John F. Kennedy, probably the last president truly opposed to the Deep State, recognized its presence a lot more clearly than most people realize: We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. Today, the Deep State is doing most of its damage through the Democratic party because Donald Trump has not aligned with them, or their minions within the Republican party. Many such players have already been removed from power. For me, this is not a testament to Trump as much as it is a testament to the power and cohesion that the military/intelligence axis that supports him has finally reached, an endeavor that has been going on at least since JFK was murdered. It’s not within the scope of this article to provide evidence of the existence of the Deep State, but some of my previous articles here, here, here, here, and here should help to satisfy those who are looking for more concrete examples of the Deep State’s activities and modus operandi. Now ‘Obamagate’ itself centers on claims that officials in then-President Barack Obama’s administration went after a number of Trump officials as early as Trump’s nomination in order to prevent him from winning the 2016 election, and then through his early presidency to get him removed from office.
The narrative holds that Obama, along with his then-Vice President Joe Biden, former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and agents from multiple intelligence services in both the US and abroad, knowingly planted a phony theory that Trump was colluding with Russia in order to win the 2016 election. This theory, supported by virtually no ‘evidence’ except the now-dismissed ‘Steele Dossier,’ was used as the basis to get FISA warrants to spy on select members of Donald Trump’s inner circle who could be tied in any way to Russia, in order to further build on the narrative of Russian collusion. Wherever possible, those spied upon were prosecuted in order to amplify suspicion of Trump’s wrongdoing, despite the fact that none of the prosecutions that took place were actually related to the theory that there was Russian collusion in the 2016 election. Among those spied upon through questionable FISA warrants were foreign policy advisor Carter Page, foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos, campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was prosecuted by the Mueller Special Counsel for a number of unrelated crimes, and National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn, who was indicted for lying to the FBI by the Mueller Counsel as well. While each of these four, and many others, have their own detailed story to tell that allege they were wrongfully targeted by the Obama administration, we would require a full article for each person in order to examine their complex story properly. So for the purposes of this article we will focus on the person who is currently in the news, General Michael Flynn, and dive into the facts surrounding his experiences and see what we can extrapolate from that. Here I will attempt to use the pertinent facts in the Michael Flynn case in order to see if these facts give any support to the ‘Obamagate’ narrative. I have to honestly note here how difficult it is to try to walk the line between two opposing narratives while objectively presenting the points of view in good faith. Here goes. FACT: Barack Obama had issues with General Michael Flynn’s pushback on Obama’s attempts to remove Syria’s president. Under President Obama, Flynn became director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in July 2012.
They clashed heads over foreign policy in the Middle East and particularly in Syria. Flynn announced his retirement from the military on April 30, 2014, about a year earlier than he had been scheduled to leave his position. As noted in Wikipedia: [Flynn] believed he was pressed into retirement for questioning the Obama administration’s public narrative that Al Qaeda was close to defeat. Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that “Flynn confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings... about the dire consequences of toppling [Syrian President] Assad.” According to Flynn, these reports “got enormous pushback from the Obama administration,” who he felt “did not want to hear the truth.” According to former DIA official W. Patrick Lang: “Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria... they shoved him out. He wouldn’t shut up.” There is a lot of information supporting the notion that the Obama administration and his CIA were facilitating the rise of (if not downright building, supplying, and training) Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups in the Middle East. This coincided with a primary objective for the Deep State in the Middle East, the removal of Syrian president Bashar al Assad. We have written extensively about the Deep State propagation of false-flag chemical attacks through their mainstream media arm, falsely blaming the Syrian president for ‘gassing his own people’ to sway public opinion against him here, here, here, here and here. If someone has as their agenda the removal of a sitting president in a foreign country, and they have become aware of the Deep State’s previous commerce-centered strategy which John Perkins so comprehensively describes in his book Confessions of an Economic Hitman, then the next strategy is to build up local opposition groups with money, training, and supplies in order to fight the proxy war, with promises of untold rewards if the objectives are met. This appears to be why ISIS and other Middle East terrorist groups gained steam during the Obama administration. If General Michael Flynn was blowing the whistle on this powerful operation, and was not willing to shut up despite pressure being applied, then he would certainly be seen as a dangerous impediment to their plans and would get labeled an ‘Enemy of the [Deep] State’ in the eyes of the Obama administration. FACT: Barack Obama warned president-elect Trump about Flynn Still in the aftershocks of Trump winning the 2016 election, Obama must have felt it important enough to stress in their first post-election meeting how much of a bad idea it would be to have Michael Flynn on his national security team, as per this New York Times article: President Barack Obama warned Donald J. Trump against hiring Michael T. Flynn to be part of his national security team when Mr. Obama met with his successor in the Oval Office two days after the November election, two former Obama administration officials said on Monday. Mr. Obama, who had fired Mr. Flynn as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Mr. Trump that he would have profound concerns about Mr. Flynn becoming a top national security aide, said the administration officials, who were briefed on the Oval Office conversation. So one way of looking at this, to give the mainstream narrative its due, is that Barack Obama sincerely felt that Michael Flynn would be a detriment to Trump’s administration, and wanted to help Trump out. But are we really that naive? How often does someone from one party actually help out someone from the other party? Is it not more likely, given the general polarization we see in American politics, that there was an ulterior motive here? I will be presenting evidence later that demonstrate that the outgoing Obama administration did little to nothing to help Trump out during the transition. Here is what I consider a more plausible explanation for Obama’s warning: if the election of Donald Trump was, as the narrative goes, big trouble for the past administration, since Trump was not one of ‘them,’ then Michael Flynn, a man who ‘knew where the bodies were buried,’ as they say, would be very damaging to them if he had Trump’s ear on national security. Certainly, Obama going to Trump and chumming up to him in order to dissuade him from hiring Flynn would be one of many strategies the Deep State would consider using if they wanted to delay the uncovering of their crimes, until such time as they could find a way to remove Trump from power. And hasn’t removing Trump from power been the focal point of the Democratic Party/mainstream media axis the whole time? Whether it be by digging up potential scandals from the past, having bought-and-paid-for celebrities graphically wishing him dead, organized campaigns accusing him of racism, misogyny and xenophobia, pushing the Russia Collusion narrative all the way to the East Siberian Sea, and filling the news cycle with insubstantial articles of impeachment, we have been inundated by a perceived need in the mainstream to get him out of office any which way we can. Beyond just hating Trump for being a pompous reality-TV buffoon, there must be a serious reason for all the commotion we’ve seen. If in fact he was such a buffoon and incapable of handling the rigors of being president and commander-in-chief of the biggest armed forces in the world, as the mainstream media continues to suggest, the opposition likely would have sat back and let the fruits of his actions speak for themselves. But rather than do that, the mainstream media is working hard to characterize every one of Trump’s actions in a bad light before people even have a chance to evaluate the actual impact of what he is doing. This smells like panic and fear evoked by threats to one’s self-preservation more than anything else. This article has reached its limit and we haven’t even gotten into the timeline of the case against General Michael Flynn! I guess that’s a consequence of diving deep into the details. Instead of continuing here, I will work on a second article that will serve as Part 2 of this analysis of why ‘Obamagate’ could become the biggest political scandal in history.
The full timeline and details of Michael Flynn’s prosecution are sure to continue providing some interesting insights. The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important. Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up! Click here to register now!.
Read the full article at the original website