By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

**EXPLOSIVE SHOEBAT EXCLUSIVE**

In a Shoebat.com EXCLUSIVE, a woman who starred in the controversial video that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton blamed for the attacks in Benghazi, has come to us with a STUNNING revelation that the man who produced the video recently confessed to her that he is a Muslim – twice. According to Cindy Lee Garcia, who is also the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Google and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the maker of the infamous “Innocence of Muslims” video, responded “Yes” both times after being asked by Garcia if he is a Muslim.

In a recorded phone call with Ben Barrack, Garcia said she contacted Nakoula approximately three weeks ago and twice asked Nakoula if he was Muslim. Both times, Nakoula said that he was. Listen to the interview below:

Lest one doubt the credibility of Garcia’s claims, once they are viewed in conjunction with a myriad of discoveries by Shoebat.com [here, here, here, here, here, and here], it constitutes the near completion of an intricate puzzle; everything fits.

Very soon after the Benghazi attacks, we had reason to believe that not only were administration officials lying to the American people about the video’s role in the attacks but that they were not telling the truth about the administration’s role in the production of the video itself.

Garcia’s revelation now confirms our suspicions about why Nakoula contacted Shoebat.com, requesting that we cease and desist from exposing the truth about this story [recorded]. At the time, Nakoula admitted to being in contact not just with Eiad but with an entire family of Muslim fundamentalists after the video, which should have caused him to be ostracized, not embraced.

As first revealed by Shoebat.com, when Nakoula was given a lesser jail sentence in 2009 in exchange for his help in securing the arrest of his partner-in-crime, Eiad Salameh, it couldn’t have been the true reason for Nakoula’s lighter sentence.

Why? Because in January of 2011, Eiad was arrested by the Canadian Peel Police and the FBI would not take him, despite multiple attempts by Canadian authorities to get them to do so. After several months, the Canadians put Eiad on a plane back to Palestine.

So, why was Nakoula given a lighter sentence if not to help arrest Eiad? As a Muslim who portrayed himself as a Christian filmmaker, Nakoula was acting deceptively while also pushing the agenda of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the group’s “Istanbul Process”, a series of meetings designed to create the climate for non-Muslim governments to enact laws that make criticism of Islam a criminal offense.

The Obama administration itself is on board with this agenda. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chaired the very first meeting in Istanbul on July 15, 2011, as Shoebat.com has reported.

Moreover, this was approximately the same point in time when Eiad was sent packing by the Canadians and Nakoula began casting for his video.

Eiad is a Muslim who is also Walid Shoebat’s first cousin. Shoebat knows Eiad well. The notion that Eiad would consort with a Coptic Christian doesn’t square with reality. This alone lends credibility to Garcia’s claim.

When taken together will all of our discoveries, Garcia’s claims do something far more damaging to the Obama administration. They even further bolster the possibility – now even strong likelihood – that Nakoula, in his capacity as an agent of the U.S. Federal government was commissioned by the Obama administration to produce the video.

Knowing what you know now, the biggest lies told by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama very well may be that the “United States Government had absolutely NOTHING to do with this video”.

This also confirms that…

Evidence reveals that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she conspired with President Barack Obama to snuff out criticism of Islam with a contrived and diabolical assault on the first amendment. Curiously unprompted, Obama and Hillary so vehemently insisted they had “nothing to do with” the anti-Muhammad video, but as it turns out, the opposite is true, they did play a role, counter to their claims.

On September 10th, Ambassador Christopher Stevens boarded a plane from Tripoli to the city from which he would never return alive. The meeting between Stevens and Turkey’s Consul General Ali Sait Akin that concluded little more than one hour prior to Stevens’ death has come to signify a troubling level of collaboration between the leadership of the countries both men represented.

Two days prior to Stevens’ arrival in Benghazi, a conference in Istanbul, Turkey that was all but ignored, was wrapping up. The conference was billed as an interfaith event entitled, “The Arab Awakening and Peace in the New Middle East: Muslim and Christian Perspectives” and was held on September 7-8, 2012. The final communiqué of the meeting included assaults on the first amendment:

Participants argued that discourses and languages used in the media, popular culture, schools and religious centers are extremely important. Religious leaders and decision makers should lead a process of reforming these areas.

One of the speakers at the conference was Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, whose relevance will be made known shortly.

As Shoebat.com has reported, joining Davutoğlu in Istanbul were two Muslim Brotherhood spies. One is former chairman of perhaps the most notorious mosque in the U.S., Bassam Estwani and the other a man named Rateb Al-Nabulsi. In the photo below, Estwani can be seen in front of a banner that displays the date “September 7-8, 2012” (see photo below) of the conference ignored by western media:

As the conference was taking place in Istanbul, a Muslim fundamentalist in Egypt named Wisam Abdul Waris who prior to the fiasco in Egypt stated the plan to attack the first amendment called for the criminalization of any defamation of Islam and then publicly denounced the anti-Muhammad video which the Obama administration would blame for the Benghazi attacks as Shoebat.com reported.

A little more than one year earlier, another conference was held in Istanbul. It was chaired by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Secretary-General of the OIC, and Turkey’s Foreign Minister. It would come to be known as the very first meeting of the “Istanbul Process”. Was the meeting in Istanbul two days before Stevens arrived in Benghazi part of the “Istanbul Process” remains to be discovered.

The location, the theme, and the syncronized efforts in Egypt and Turkey all help make that case; Turkey played behind the scenes and Egypt was the first to spark the riots against U.S. Embassy in Cairo. But there is more to tie our argument.

The Istanbul Meeting that Kicked off the “Istanbul Process”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) had been pushing for criminalizing criticism of Islam for years, as far back as 1999. However, the objective of the OIC – to make illegal “defamation of religions” – needed a moderation makeover, which led to the “Istanbul Process”, kicked off officially in the city of its namesake, little more than one year prior to the Benghazi attacks. The agenda was intended to give a facelift to UN Resolution 16/18, which was adopted earlier that year by the Human Rights Council.

Hillary Clinton attended and Co-chaired this event with then Secretary General of the OIC – Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu – and Foreign Minister Davutoğlu – on July 15, 2011.

(Note: For reasons that will be made relevant shortly, this meeting took place in the same month that the maker of the anti-Muhammad video began casting)

In her speech, Hillary said:

…together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs. Under this resolution, the international community is taking a strong stand for freedom of expression and worship, and against discrimination and violence based upon religion or belief… we now need to move to implementation. The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, Clinton foreshadowed what would happen a little more than one year later in Benghazi and at home:

In the United States, I will admit, there are people who still feel vulnerable or marginalized as a result of their religious beliefs. And we have seen how the incendiary actions of just a very few people, a handful in a country of nearly 300 million, can create wide ripples of intolerance. We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

Hillary’s Co-chair, İhsanoğlu – himself a Turk – echoed this sentiment, saying:

“We continue to be particularly disturbed by attitudes of certain individuals or groups exploiting the freedom of expression to incite hatred by demonizing purposefully the religions and their followers. Though we respect their freedom of opinion and expression, we find these attitudes politically and ethically incorrect and insensitive.”

The meeting in Istanbul would essentially be the precursor to a series of annual summits that would constitute “The Istanbul Process”. The first convened in Washington and was hosted by Clinton in December of 2011, at a time when a certain anti-Muhammad video was being produced.

The second took place in London, less than three months after the Benghazi attacks and one month after the anti-Muhammad filmmaker was sent to prison.

At the time of the London summit, the optics of the filmmaker being locked up were no doubt supposed to impress the OIC. However, in the U.S., Nakoula couldn’t be imprisoned for speech; Americans wouldn’t stand for it. Instead, he was jailed for violating parole. The perception that he was jailed for speech was allowed to fester.

The most likely option is that the Obama administration was attempting to play both sides of the fence.

Anti-Muhammad Video Produced by Federal Informant / OIC Agent

As Shoebat.com has gone to great lengths to demonstrate, the maker of the anti-Muhammad video, a man known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was a U.S. federal informant at the time of Clinton’s speech. Based on the public statements of both Hillary and Obama’s envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, Nakoula would have made a perfect OIC agent as well because he represented a face of the public, not the government.

In 2009, Nakoula was given a lesser sentence after pleading guilty for his role in a bank fraud scheme. In return, he was to help authorities catch the ringleader of that operation – my cousin Eiad Salameh.

That’s right, as the new language found in the “Istanbul Process” facelift was being presented, Nakoula was an agent of Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department. In exchange for having one year taken off his sentence, Nakoula was supposed to help the feds nab Salameh.

We now know that was NOT the reason Nakoula became an informant.

How do we know this?

In January of 2011 – just six months prior to Clinton’s speech – I was contacted by Jeffrey Mason of the Canadian Peel Police. I was told that my cousin was in their custody. Canadian authorities attempted to hand Salameh over to the FBI for seven months but to no avail. Ultimately, Salameh was put on a plane back to Palestine.

Nakoula began casting for his video in July of 2011. Not only was this the same month that the conference in Istanbul took place but it’s about the same time Canadian authorities stopped trying to hand over the guy Nakoula was given a lighter sentence to help the feds apprehend!

Logically, Nakoula was still on the hook with the feds because the stated reason for his lighter sentence was not the real reason for it. After the Benghazi attacks, Nakoula would do that year in prison, just like Hillary promised Charles Woods – the father of murdered Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods – three days after the Benghazi attacks.

House Select Committee on Benghazi

As was recently detailed by Shoebat.com, one of the U.S. Congressmen who understands what the “Istanbul Process” is really all about sits on the House Select Committee on Benghazi. His name is Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) and he will have no excuse if this dynamic is not part of the Committee’s investigation.

In a letter sent to the Deputy Inspector General (IG) at the State Department exactly 90 days prior to the Benghazi attacks, Westmoreland wrote in part (as a co-signatory):

The State Department and, in several cases, the specific direction of the Secretary of State, have taken actions recently that have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests. These include: A succession of meetings with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – a multinational group that is, like the Muslim Brotherhood, determined to impose shariah worldwide. These are now known as “the Istanbul Process” and we are aimed at finding ways to accommodate the OIC’s demands for restrictions on freedom of expression guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, so as to preclude “blasphemy” against Islam and its adherents.

Deputy IG Howard Geisel was given 90 days to respond to these concerns. On the 90th day, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi without a response from Geisel.

Obama’s Islamic Envoy to the OIC

When it comes to Rashad Hussain, as Shoebat.com has demonstrated, the mask is off. Hussain – a State Department employee – is an infiltrator whose allegiances lie with the OIC, not the U.S. Constitution he swore an oath to uphold. As such, Hussain’s agenda is one that ultimately seeks the criminalization of criticism of Islam.

Earlier this year, Hussain was at the fourth annual “Istanbul Process” summit, held in Doha, Qatar. During his speech, he actually boasted about working with a confirmed Muslim Brotherhood front group that seeks the destruction of the United States from within:

Over the past couple of years I have been involved with an initiative lead (sic) by the Islamic Society of North America and Islamic scholars in the Muslim world to issue a declaration articulating standards and protocols for the protection of full citizenship rights of minorities in the Muslim world.

Also in his speech, Hussain picked up on Hillary Clinton’s meme that governments are limited with regard to criminalizing forms of expression and that it must be done via other means. Hussain continued:

Relying on governments to ban certain speech often ignores the root causes of bigotry, and many religious communities have found that improving education, interfaith dialogue, and media awareness are effective tools for combatting (sic) intolerance. The Istanbul Process that we are here participating in today is meant to promote implementation of those important measures.

There you have it. The “Istanbul Process” is about using the people and movements to push the agenda. In reality, however, governments are by definition the entities responsible. This sets up perfectly, the conditions for an agent of a government to do something so outrageous that he creates the climate for popular opinion to do what the government could not.

Using a government agent to masquerade as a private citizen who produces an anti-Muhammad video that would cause riots in the Middle East is a perfectly fitting puzzle piece.

One year earlier, in 2013, the “Istanbul Process” summit was held in Geneva. A detailed account of the proceedings included this observation:

The US and several European states emphasised their preference for social and cultural measures over legal ones. These states argued that criminalisation is often inappropriate, ineffective, and even counterproductive. “Good speech” is what defeats intolerance and hate, rather than restrictions on speech itself. OIC states, on the other hand, presented criminalisation as “a matter of vital concern”, imperative to the full implementation of Resolution 16/18.

In order to play both sides of this fence, the Obama administration would have to:

1.) Find someone who was beholden to the administration.

2.) Create the perception that said individual was acting as a private citizen.

3.) Have this private citizen produce something viewed as incendiary by the Muslim world.

4.) Provide a platform for the production of this material to be delivered to the masses.

5.) Point to this material as inflammatory and something people should “abhor”.

Nakoula was the poster child of a figure who could thread this needle.

print