Gee, ya think?

Libya is still arguably one of the least understood results from team Clinton/Obama. So here’s a quick recap summary.
During the 1990’s the globalists were making great strides in the elimination of nationalist sentiment. The European Union was the culmination of years of effort from the left-wing globalists. Europe obviously with enough generational momentum toward a “collective” view.

The U.S. on the other hand was a more difficult challenge. State’s rights, individual liberties and the pesky framework of the U.S. constitution was always a thorn in the side of the globalists.
But where the formation of the EU was an end, NAFTA was a crack worthy of leverage toward a beginning.   The ideological threat to any pure open-border globalist (think Clinton before Obama) is always a sense of nationalism.
As the EU formed the U.S. heartland was essentially blind to the broader goals. We were all caught up and distracted with the DotCom Boom. However, when Al Gore lost the 2000 election the North American Globalist team was furious. They doubled their efforts ultimately resulting in Obama 8 years later.
However, during the decade that preceded the Hope and Change U.S. election, the multi-cultural crisis in the EU was building as a result of the policy advancement within the global parliamentary systems. The 9/11/2001 terror attack provided additional distraction to keep the broader electorate’s focus away from the horizon.
As soon as the economies of the world started to suffer from the financial market collapses, the substantive policy issues within each of the EU governments began to surface. Monetary systems began to collapse and financial dependency on government became a problem for the multi-cultural economic societies which are dependent on government spending to exist.
One by one European leaders began to accept the problems in front of them. Nationalism, which was previously riciduled, and nationalists who were previously marginalized, began to make their case and people were paying attention. The EU leaders had to admit the policy positions of the nationalists; they soon began to speak of the failure of multiculturalism. People like Germany’s Merkel and U.K’s Cameron primary among them.

However, the U.S. ambassador to France, Charles Rivkin, a Clinton policy specialist – had already begun a program within France to embed multiculturalism against the will of the nationalists like Marine Le Pen. Rivkin and the globalists had given Sarkozy a lot of money to insure his reelection and the globalists ability to push back against the rising nationalist sentiment.
The Nationalists however, pressured EU leaders into paying Libya’s Gadhafi (€5 billion) to close the immigration gates from North Africa. This infuriated the globalists, but the internal populations were now split with a significant number supporting the nationalist sentiment – so the globalists had to work carefully.
Meanwhile the North American contingent had successfully advanced Obama upon the U.S. electorate, and his first goal was to head to Egypt to support the globalist/anti-colonial sentiment. Obama delivered his famous Cairo speech in Feb 2009.

Simultaneous to the advancement of the Obama global framework, and using the same social media methods deployed to hoodwink the U.S. electorate, team Obama enlisted FaceBook’s Mark Zuckerberg to their uber-cool hope and change cause. The structurally put them in position to use social media to push the continued global program – this was also part of the Rivkin Project in France.
The open-border team needed to remove Gadhafi because he was doing what he was paid to do, shut down the immigration gates.
Enter, France’s Sarkozy who had to take lead position because everyone else was on record as admitting the failure of multi-culturalism, and it would look conspicuous if Obama/Clinton was leading this effort.
Sarkozy was already committed to, and in debt to, the lefty globalists so he did what was needed.
Ben Ali in Tunisia fell easily because Tunis was already backed up with North Africans and Ali was not as strong. Libya’s Gadhafi -on the other hand- had four decades of control, and framework in place to retain it; so his removal was going to be more difficult. It would take a military effort.


The Clinton/Obama Team really didn’t have a plan AFTER Gadhafi because they really didn’t need one. They only needed to remove the blockage; once that was accomplished everything else fell down on the list of concerns.
Consequences easily ignored once the goal was achieved.
Chaotic immigration patterns from North Africa re-established, and open border flow once again underway to undermine societal constructs permitting large scale social engineering. (See Charlie Hebdo) It’s essentially large scale use of crisis to achieve a broad objective.
In a similar fashion, you can understand the objectives when you consider what North Africa is to the EU, so too is Central America to the United States. The U.S. version of the global strategy is underway with the visible policies of President Obama allowing mass immigration from Central America and Mexico.
In a larger sense this is what the Clinton Global Initiative is all about.

North African Immigrants in Cyprus 2013

Central American Immigrants in Texas 2014