High Treason in America

In the past several months a considerable degree of attention has been placed on the emergence of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) as a transnationalist extension of a burgeoning Islamic Fundamentalist Empire - the barbarity of its rise to prominence chronicled at length by telecommunications agencies around the world, as geopolitical luminaries pledge their resilience in combating what they so often characterize as an ‘unpredictable’ menace to the safety and security of their nation states. This inability to act - they would have you believe - more indicative of an absence of familiarity with the mindset and tendencies of Wahhabist fanaticists, rather than evidence of interadministrative collaboration as a means of regional destabilization - a sequence of events that, in theory, was designed to culminate in the ouster of Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria under the guise of humanitarian interventionism. 

This brief cinematic presentation - a syndicated news segment entitled, ‘Reality Check,’ airing on WGCL-TV (CBS 46), and hosted by Ben Swann - as well as the 7-page declassified DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) document immediately following, offers insight into the role the U.S. Federal Government played in the manufacture of what has become a global crisis of exigency.



Figure 1. 7-Page DIA document released by Judicial Watch affirming the Obama Administration’s use of ISIS as an integral component of a broader, more comprehensive strategy of foreign policy designed to mitigate the influence of the Assad regime in Syria.

Judicial Watch’s publication of the 2012-issue DIA documentation lent more credence into assertions by members of the independent media regarding the possible involvement of the U.S. Federal Government with Islamic extremist organizations throughout the Middle East. These claims were further bolstered during the course of the last several days as reports of leaflets being distributed to ISIS subjugated regions of Syria and Iraq 45 minutes prior to aerially conducted tactical offensives by the U.S. military were made public in both pictures, as well as in print:

Figure 2. Purported leaflets that are alleged to have been distributed to loyalist factions of ISIS militancy contingents 45 minutes prior to the deployment of incendiary weapons by U.S. operated warplanes.

LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:

Advanced Warnings in the Form of Leaflets Distributed to ISIS Militants 45 Minutes Prior to U.S. Military Bombing Raids on Oil Tankers and Fuel Platforms by Order of the President

This, however, isn’t the only development in the virtual indictment of the acting President's questionable scope of allegiance, as yet another release of information - a written publication from bizpac review - highlights the issuance of command directives by high ranking government officials prohibiting the use of explosive ordnance in 75 percent of the U.S. Navy and Air Force’s assigned target areas.
This article, as it appears in its entirety, offers detailed analysis into the Obama Administration’s rationale behind this course of action:

The Obama Administration has blocked 75 percent of military strikes against the Islamic State group, according to the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif.

Pilots returning from the battlefield said that the targets are often blocked by the administration for fear of collateral damage and civilian casualties, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” the representative said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”

A retired four-star general called the policy absurd.

“This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” retired Gen. Jack Keane said, responding to questions from Royce, according to the Free Beacon. “The president personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”

“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane said. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”

The general said Obama’s response was,  “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero.”

Obama’s stance on the possibility of civilian casualties resulting from preemptive air strikes on selected targets is laughable, considering the fact that under the current administration the use of unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicles, predominantly in areas of Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia resulted in the deaths of nearly 2,500 during the course of his political tenure.

A fact later celebrated by members of the mainstream media as justifiable recourse, as well as the President himself, during the White House Correspondents Association event of 2010.

CONCLUSION: This serves as yet another instance where the U.S. Federal Government has aided and abetted radical extremist organizations in the Middle East through the misappropriation of funds acquired by a compulsory system of earned income confiscation, and the majority of Americans could care less.