By Ben Barrack
There is a reason both political parties and the media have allowed Barack Obama to keep his Columbia days secret
It is not a conspiracy theory that Barack Obama refuses to release his Columbia University transcripts; it is a reality. It is Obama who has made the ground fertile for alleged conspiracy theories because one thing is certain; he is hiding something.
His propensity for lying only further undermines his credibility.
That is why it is not the least bit ridiculous to make the case based on solid, tangible data points, that Obama was an intelligence asset in his early adult years. Make no mistake; there are plenty. The onus is on Obama, not the American people at this point.
Was Obama hired to work for the U.S. in the latter’s effort to utilize the Mujahideen (Muslim Brotherhood) to defeat the Soviet Union in the 1980’s? Is that why his Columbia years are so sketchy?
Available evidence more than helps to make the case. Much of it could easily be debunked or disproven by a White House that refuses to do so; that is a red flag.
For starters, did a young Barack Obama fit the profile of such an asset? What would such an asset look like?
Ideally, a liaison between the U.S. and the Mujahideen would need to speak Arabic and English. As someone who once told a New York Times writer that the Islamic call to prayer was the “prettiest sound on earth” while reciting it with a “first-rate accent”, Obama certainly qualifies there.
How about an individual who understood the ideology of the Soviet Communist enemy? Obama qualified there as well. His childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), the Soviet Union’s arm in the U.S. As such, a young Obama was marinated in Soviet ideology from approximately 1971 until he left for California to attend Occidental Community College in the fall of 1979.
In the U.S., Davis was under FBI surveillance from 1944-1963 and was subsequently allowed to live freely until his death in 1987.
Being able to speak Arabic and understanding the Soviet mindset would have placed Obama on an extremely short list of candidates for such a role.
Obama would have been a perfect fit. Then 25 years later – thanks to a pliant media and a gutless Congress – he became this country’s most reckless President after keeping all that time hidden from public view. Magically, Obama then became President of the United States who relied on advisors that were integral to the covert strategy in Afghanistan that began in the 1970’s and extended into the 1980’s.
On July 3, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed a presidential finding at the behest of his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. That finding set the wheels in motion for the U.S. to fund the efforts of the Mujahideen guerillas, who were attempting to overthrow the Soviet-backed communist government of Afghanistan. Once the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December of that year, the U.S. aid to the Mujahideen increased dramatically, to include weapons, according to Brzezinski.
Barely one month after Carter signed that presidential finding, Obama turned 18; he was soon saying good-bye to Davis and hello to the radical, liberal college experience. If anyone would be interested in Obama as an intelligence asset in Pakistan, it would have been Brzezinski.
Coincidentally or not, Obama would rely on Brzezinski as a close foreign policy advisor when the former was elected President in 2008 and then throughout both of his terms. Even former Reagan National Security Advisor Robert “Bud” McFarlane joined Brzezinski in the Situation Room to counsel Obama (in 2013, McFarlane was caught attempting to help terror state Sudan negotiate with the U.S., which was covered in Part 2 of this series).
A few short months after Obama began attending Occidental, the stakes in the Soviet-Afghan war were significantly raised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in late December of 1979.
Nearly two months earlier – on November 4th – 52 Americans were taken hostage in Iran. 444 days later and minutes after Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural speech on January 20, 1981, Iran announced the hostages would be released. The timing of this announcement, coupled with what would later become known as the Iran-Contra scandal – a component of which included trading arms for hostages – led to speculation that the Reagan administration may have negotiated with Iran in an election year. One publication – the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) – suggested such a deal may have helped to create the “bizarre alliance” between the U.S. and Iran in the 1980’s.
Brzezinski also served as an advisor to the Reagan administration relative to the effort to help convince Congress to arm the Nicaraguan Contras.
College Student or Intelligence Asset?
In 1981, Barack Obama began attending Columbia University, not even two years after the U.S. had begun aggressively supporting the Mujahideen in Pakistan with arms in response to the Soviet invasion in late 1979. Obama graduated in 1983, the same year that a covert and illegal CIA operation was said to have been run out of Mena, Arkansas – with the approval of then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton – that both armed the Nicaraguan Contras and brought cocaine back into the U.S.
The transcripts of Obama’s days at Columbia have never been released. If the White House were interested in debunking or disproving speculation that Obama was really a CIA asset at the time, a release of the transcripts would go a long way in doing so. The other possibility is that a President who has been elected and funded by the American taxpayers, would like to keep those taxpayers guessing. This too is unacceptable.
This leads us to a figure named Wayne Allyn Root, a man from the same graduating class as Obama at Columbia. In 2013, Root attended the 30th 1983 Columbia class reunion. Here is part of what he wrote about his experience:
I am a graduate of Columbia University, Class of 1983. That’s the same class Barack Obama claims to have graduated from. We shared the same exact major- Political Science. We were both Pre Law. It was a small class- about 700 students. The Political Science department was even smaller and closer-knit (maybe 150 students). I thought I knew, or met at least once, (or certainly saw in classes) every fellow Poly Sci classmate in my four years at Columbia.
But not Obama. No one ever met him. Even worse, no one even remembers seeing that unique memorable face. Think about this for a minute. Our classmate is President of the United States. Shouldn’t someone remember him? Or at least claim to remember him?
Again, a refusal on the part of Obama to release his transcripts fuels speculation instead of putting an end to it. Obama is either hiding something by not releasing those transcripts or he is being unnecessarily coy.
His college transcripts are not the only things Obama refuses to relinquish. His passport records are also off limits. In the months prior to the 2008 election, the State Department revealed that the passport files of Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain had been breached. Within two weeks – while at a fundraiser in San Francisco – Obama inadvertently reinforced his bonafides as a prime candidate for Muslim Brotherhood liaison in the 1980’s while admitting that he traveled to Karachi, Pakistan in the same year he began attending Columbia:
“I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college–I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee…”
In the days that followed, ABC News cited the Obama campaign as revealing that Obama traveled to Karachi in 1981 for three weeks. His passport records have not been revealed so the American people are left wondering how many trips Obama did take to Pakistan.
Upon allegedly graduating from Columbia, Obama took a job with Business International Corporation (BIC), a company that had been home to stealth CIA operatives according to a 1977 New York Times article by John Crewdson. In it, he identified BIC as one of a handful of publications that secretly used CIA assets:
…at least 22 American news organizations had employed, though sometimes only on a casual basis, American journalists who were also working for the C.I.A…
…Among the lesser known organizations were the College Press Service, Business International, the McLendon Broadcasting Organization, Film Daily and a defunct underground newspaper published in Washington, The Quicksilver Times.
At the end of the article, Crewdson quoted an unnamed, former senior intelligence official who was more than convinced that the practice of the CIA hiring reporters would one day continue:
“The pendulum will swing,” said one man who held a senior position in the C.I.A. for many years, “and someday we’ll be recruiting journalists again.”
When that day comes, he added confidently, “I will have no problem recruiting. I see a lot of them, and I know they’re ripe for the plucking.”
Was one of those recruits a young Barack Obama? If so, it would have happened during the Reagan administration. Would such a scenario help to explain the refusal of the Republican establishment to go after Obama?
Barack Obama’s Brother Malik Obama
Then there is the matter of Barack Obama’s brother Malik Obama, who founded the Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF), named after Barack Obama, Sr. The BHOF was founded in 2008 inside the home of a one Alton Ray Baysden, a registered Republican. None of the paperwork was filed for years.
Then in 2011, presumably in response to a request from the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) to have the IRS investigate BHOF, Malik went to work filing illegally back-dated paperwork. Malik retroactively filed four years worth of 990EZ’s (2008-2011) and was ultimately approved in less than 30 days.
The 2008 and 2009 Forms – appearing to have been signed by Malik Obama – identify Baysden as the Executive Director, a position Baysden implies he never held. He also admitted he didn’t even know how to register a charity. In articles published at the time, he also appeared a bit reticent to talk about his role.
The 2010 and 2011 990’s list a man named Andrew Mboya as the Director of BHOF:
“Mboya” is an interesting name because in 1959, with the assistance and urging of then U.S. Senator John Kennedy, a man named Tom Mboya organized an airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the U.S. to attend college. During Kennedy’s presidential campaign, Mboya met with him.
One of those students was none other than Barack Obama’s father, Barack Obama, Sr., who was a good friend of Mboya. According to the JFK Library:
At a key point in the 1960 presidential campaign, a dynamic young leader from Kenya named Tom Mboya visited Senator John F. Kennedy. Mboya led a campaign of his own that would eventually bring hundreds of African students to America for higher education, including Barack Obama Sr., President Obama’s father. Kennedy’s decision to support the effort became an issue in the election and possibly a factor in his narrow victory.
As the Guardian once put it, if not for Mboya, Barack Obama likely never would have been born.
It is not known whether Andrew Mboya is related to Tom but one thing is certain; the “Mboya” name is extremely significant relative to the Obamas’ family history.
Student Obama Benefits From Saudis as His Father Benefited From U.S.
In 2008, Percy Sutton, the former attorney for Malcolm X inadvertently revealed something he shouldn’t have when he told a television interviewer that a man named Khalid al-Mansour approached him to write a letter of recommendation to Harvard Law School for a then young Barack Obama in or about 1988. Al-Mansour was a close advisor and attorney for Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal; Sutton even appeared to reference Alwaleed, though not by name, when he mentioned al-Mansour’s lobbying on behalf of Obama.
That al-Mansour would know about – let alone lobby for – Obama at that time is significant, especially in light of the connections of Obama’s father to Mboya, who was a friend of JFK. Alwaleed represented the pinnacle of Saudi Royalty, not to mention the alliance between the U.S. and the Saudis over what was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan during Iran-Contra.
In fact, it appears that the younger Obama may have benefited from a program similar to one his father benefited from as part of the Kenyan airlift. In a 1979 article based on an interview with al-Mansour, the father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett (the same Valerie Jarrett that would become President Obama’s closest advisor), Vernon Jarrett wrote the following:
Al-Mansour, 39, for several years has urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students.
In September, Al-Mansour said, he presented a proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz when he visited OPEC headquarters in Vienna. Al-Mansour urged the establishment of a fund that would provide $20-million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians, and native Americans.
Any coincidences between al-Mansour, Obama and Alwaleed are further solidified as less than coincidences when Vernon Jarrett’s daughter-in-law is brought into the loop; she is Barack Obama’s most trusted advisor.
In 1988, the Mujahideen was seeing great gains in Afghanistan. If Obama had been an asset earlier in the 1980’s, the Saudis very well could have been aware of it. They were heavily invested in the defeat of the Soviets as well. Was Obama being rewarded? Or was he being groomed as a Manchurian candidate?
U.S. Alliance with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran to Defeat Soviet Union
The stage for a U.S. alliance with Pakistan was set in 1977 when a man named Zia al-Haq was the beneficiary of a coup in that country. The rise of al-Haq also endeared him with Saudi Arabia. Though al-Haq became known as a ruthless Muslim fundamentalist, he helped lead the Mujahideen in its defeat of the Soviets. That was enough for the U.S. to choose him as an ally. That alliance started during the Carter administration and continued under the Reagan administration.
In 2010, Wikileaks revealed – via TIME Magazine – how the Saudis sought to spread Islam around the globe while aligning with the U.S. against the Soviets; it was quite the trade-off:
Saudi Arabia was a major backer of the military regime of General Zia ul-Haq, which seized power in 1977, embarked upon an Islamization campaign throughout Pakistan and was also a key U.S. ally.
To demonstrate just how close the alliance between the Saudis and Pakistan was at the time, consider the formation of the Rabita Trust in 1988. A wealthy Saudi and al-Qaeda financier named Abdullah Omar Naseef founded the Rabita Trust with al-Haq, who was the organization’s founding chairman. Al-Qaeda founder Wael Hamza Julaidan was the executive director of Rabita.
Halfway around the world and one year before al-Haq came to power in Pakistan, future close Hillary Clinton adviser Huma Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan on July 28, 1976. Two years later, the young Huma moved to Saudi Arabia with her family. That family included her Pakistani mother Saleha Mahmood Abedin, who would become a leader within the Muslim Sisterhood.
The same year Huma was born, Naseef met with her father in Gary, Indiana. Dr. Zainul Abedin would help found the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) with Naseef. This whole arrangement was commissioned by the Saudi Royal family. In fact, Huma herself served as an IMMA editor for over a decade. During that time, Naseef served on the advisory board.
Historians and policy buffs will debate whether it was the right decision for the U.S. to align with such forces to overthrow the Soviet Communist scourge. The problem is that such decisions do not take place inside a vacuum.
As the U.S. was practically single-minded in its desire to defeat communism, the Muslim fundamentalists were thinking longer term; that thinking included the spread of Islam itself. Ironically, that’s precisely what the IMMA was founded to do. As the U.S. was aligning with the Mujahideen, the Mujahideen’s puppet masters and apparatchiks were hard at work, doing just that; they were spreading Islam. Huma Abedin – the woman who would find her way into then first lady Hillary Clinton’s inner circle in 1996 – had much bigger fish to fry.
On June 13, 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann sent five letters to five separate Inspectors General (IG) expressing concern about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government. Bachmann named names. Huma Abedin was one of those names and it was her name that caused a backlash even Bachmann wasn’t prepared for. The mainstream media, liberal Democrats, and establishment Republicans all came forward to denounce Bachmann and defend Abedin.
The controversy got so charged that even Obama felt compelled to intervene. On August 10, 2012, he openly embraced and supported Abedin against the charges.
It wasn’t just Democrats who defended Abedin. It was also establishment Republicans like Senator John McCain who did so. Fox News was far from fair and balanced on the issue, giving former Reagan campaign manager and Fox News contributor Ed Rollins – a platform to denounce Bachmann. Yet, Bachmann’s point of view on Abedin was not given voice on that network.
The reticence of Fox News to provide that platform can be explained in part, by the network’s allegiance to the Republican establishment. Roger Ailes ran the George H.W. Bush media campaign in 1988 and Prince Alwaleed was the second largest shareholder of Fox News parent company Newscorp. at the time. In light of Bush’s embrace of the Mujahideen’s political operatives in 1990, coupled with the subsequent, stealth havoc those operatives have wrought in the decades since, the powers that be at Fox News can’t afford to have the ugly truth told.
The vitriol of Rollins toward Bachmann was particularly off-putting; Bachmann raised legitimate concerns. Why would the former manager of Reagan’s 1984 Presidential campaign so smear the woman whose campaign he managed nearly 30 years later? As it turns out, Rollins is identified as a Senior Advisor for Teneo Holdings. This is the same Teneo Holdings that Abedin has done extensive work for. Douglas Band, the founder of Teneo, is largely considered to be as close a confidante to Bill Clinton as Huma is for Hillary. As such, Abedin and Band know each other quite well.
The silence of politicians from both political parties relative to Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood connections – save for Bachmann in 2012 – has been deafening. Consider Naseef’s Rabita Trust, co-founded with al-Haq and led by an al-Qaeda founder. Abedin has had access to the halls of U.S. power since 1996 and is an underling of Naseef. Going after her now would implicate many, for their decades of silent complicity.
Speaking of 2012, the Republican nominee for president – Mitt Romney – took a dive on many fronts. One of them was the issue of Abedin, a topic he completely avoided. Bachmann’s findings were presented to Romney on the campaign trail and – as he did in his third debate with Obama – Romney took a dive.
It’s worthy of note that one of the voices in the Romney campaign’s ear was John Sununu. In 2013, Sununu rubbed elbows with stealth jihadists at the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP). Many of them were sympathetic to Abedin.
As the Carter and Reagan administrations were using Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Mujahideen to defeat the Soviets, it was the U.S. that was being played in many ways, not overtly but by long-term planning. Seeds were being planted that would one day release toxic spores for U.S. policy makers who couldn’t see past the wet dream that was the fall of the Soviet Union.
All the while, the Muslim Brotherhood operatives were busy, working to neuter U.S. power brokers by putting them in check mate.
History Repeating Itself
The behavior of leaders in America closely resembles that of a disgraced French General named Henri Philippe Pétain. In World War I, Pétain was regarded as a French war hero. Then, as the Nazis grew in strength and began conquering France in World War II, an aging Pétain was essentially called out of retirement to save his country once again.
That’s not what happened. Pétain betrayed his country and was convicted of treason after the war; he died in prison. Very revealing – in light of the behavior of today’s leaders – was Pétain’s defense. At trial, he insisted that while he outwardly collaborated with the Nazis, he inwardly wanted to help France and do the right thing. In the news report below about the trial, the narrator says something very salient.
As the trial proceeded, it became apparent to those who watched that it was more than Pétain who was on trial. Instead, an entire “way of thinking” was on trial. That way of thinking insidiously infected the leaders of France who preferred being perceived as incompetent than cowardly. They were so complicit in their own country’s demise that they feared the consequences of treason more than they feared the consequences of defeat:
Here is perhaps the most important audio excerpt from the above news report:
In Pétain’s day, the Nazis were the enemy he acquiesced to. In the early 21st century, western leaders are acquiescing to the Islamic world, which was aligned with the Nazis during World War II. The side of human nature displayed by Pétain is on display in no small order today.
Increasingly clear is that today, an “indifference to defeat” exists among the political establishment. If that indifference is similar to Pétain’s, it means there are many who prefer an authoritarian state over being held accountable for what they’ve done.
It’s a way of thinking held by a brood of vipers in Washington, DC.