STUNNING Video Exposing The Mendacity Of The Islamist-in-Chief…In Relation To Israel’s Security…Adina Kutnicki

A former supporter of Barack HUSSEIN Obama…a Jewish liberal..lays it on the line…a must view!

Jews and liberals…separated at birth…some, but not nearly enough, are coming to their senses!

Spread it even further…h/t Jack WV

White House Mandates Aid To Morsi’s Islamist Egypt…In The ‘Best’ Interests Of The U.S…Addendum To: Coming Full Circle…The Planned Empowerment of The Muslim Mafia…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

The Islamist-in-Chief is Allah bent on continuing to aid his brothers in the Muslim Mafia. All signs are pointing in the same direction – towards their purposeful empowerment, clearly spelled out here –

While it was imperative to prop up Mubarak – hardly a perfect ‘democrat’ – simply because he kept the Muslim Mafia at bay, the opposite is the case with Egypt’s Prez Morsi, a Brotherhood Mafia Islamist. The aid to Mubarak shored up America’s interests in the region, therefore, aiding Egypt – separating the good from the bad – made ultimate sense

NOT any more. 

For once the bad actors have taken control – with more than a little assistance/nudging from the most radical regime in American history – there is nothing left to parse, unless one wants the anti-American side to win.

Bulls eye.

Therefore, the latest anti-American edict from the White House is of piece with their overall objective, all their blathering aside – ‘U.S. Move to Give Egypt $450 Million in Aid Meets Resistance’ –

By  – September 28, 2012

“The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The aid is part of the $1 billion in assistance that the Obama administration has pledged to Egypt to bolster its transition to democracy after the overthrow last year of the former president, Hosni Mubarak. Its fate, however, was clouded by concerns over the new government’s policies and, more recently, the protests that damaged the American Embassy in Cairo.

The United States Agency for International Development notified Congress of the cash infusion on Friday morning during the pre-election recess, promptly igniting a smoldering debate over foreign aid and the administration’s handling of crises in the Islamic world.

An influential Republican lawmaker, Representative Kay Granger of Texas, immediately announced that she would use her position as chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign aid to block the distribution of the money. She said the American relationship with Egypt “has never been under more scrutiny” than it is in the wake of the election of President Mohamed Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time,” Ms. Granger said in a statement that her office issued even before the administration announced the package.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking at a meeting of the Group of 8 nations in New York, said on Friday that the world needed to do more to support the governments that have emerged from the Arab Spring uprisings, including those in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

“The recent riots and protests throughout the region have brought the challenge of transition into sharp relief,” Mrs. Clinton said, without mentioning the assistance to Egypt specifically. “Extremists are clearly determined to hijack these wars and revolutions to further their agendas and ideology, so our partnership must empower those who would see their nations emerge as true democracies.”

The debate comes as the issue of foreign aid in general made an unexpected appearance in the presidential campaign.

In a speech in New York on Tuesday, Mr. Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, called for revamping assistance to focus more on investments in the private sector than on direct aid — a shift administration officials have said is under way.

While Mr. Romney did not address aid to Egypt directly, he cited Mr. Morsi’s membership in the Muslim Brotherhood as one of the alarming developments in the Middle East, along with the war in Syria, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the killing of the American ambassador to Libya.

“A temporary aid package can jolt an economy,” he said. “It can fund some projects. It can pay some bills. It can employ some people some of the time. But it can’t sustain an economy — not for long. It can’t pull the whole cart, because at some point the money runs out.”

The $1 billion in aid, announced by Mr. Obama in May 2011, was initially intended to relieve Egypt’s debts to the United States, though negotiations stalled during the country’s turbulent transition from military rule to the election of Mr. Morsi this summer.

In recent weeks, negotiations over the assistance picked up pace, and the administration decided to provide $450 million instead, including $190 million immediately, because the country’s economic crisis has become acute, with an estimated budget shortfall of $12 billion.

The assistance outlined in letters to Congress on Friday would be contingent on Egypt’s setting in motion economic and budgetary changes that the International Monetary Fund is now negotiating as part of a $4.8 billion loan.

The administration has also thrown its support behind that loan, and officials said they hoped it would be completed before the end of the year. A $260 million infusion would come when the much larger loan is completed, according to officials familiar with the package. By law, all assistance to Egypt is contingent on the country’s meeting certain requirements, including adherence to basic democratic values and the Camp David peace treaty with Israel.

The protests over an anti-Muslim video and the storming of the American Embassy in Cairo on Sept. 11 came even as senior White House and State Department officials led a large business delegation to promote economic assistance and trade in Egypt.

Mr. Morsi’s slow response to the protests raised concerns in Washington, although administration officials later cited improved cooperation over the embassy’s security.

The $1 billion in assistance has been cobbled together from funds already appropriated by Congress, but the administration is required to notify lawmakers of its intention to release any of the funds. Ms. Granger presumably can put a hold on that release and pursue legislation to reverse the appropriation.

Mrs. Clinton lobbied lawmakers last week during closed-door briefings that focused on the tumult across the region, including the attack at the American diplomatic mission in Libya that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

In addition to the $1 billion in assistance, the administration is working with Egypt to provide $375 million in financing and loan guarantees for American financiers who invest in Egypt and a $60 million investment fund for Egyptian businesses. All of that comes on top of $1.3 billion in military aid that the United States provides Egypt each year.

A senior State Department official said that the administration would consult with members of Congress in the days ahead “to make the case that this budget support is firmly in U.S. interests in seeing peace, stability and democracy in Egypt and the wider neighborhood”. – here too-

Once again, Representative Kay Granger comes to America’s rescue. Previously, she was featured at this blog, warning Americans of fomented chaos, in furtherance of unprecedented power grabs –

Currently, she is exhorting Congress ( and the American people ) to pay attention to an out of control POTUS’s demands; as he attempts to ram through aid to America’s enemies – the Islamist controlled government of Egypt.

As such, the morphing of an anti-American POTUS, with retrograde Islamist forces, is on full display, despite all the administration’s rhetoric. If left in place, they will destroy every fabric which glues Americans to their nation; a special blend of patriotic ethos – proud to be American…made in the U.S.A.

Ridding this albatross – the Obama regime – is an American imperative. A western one too.

Alcohol Addiction: Its Stranglehold On Anyone Unfortunate Enough To Succumb To Its ‘Lure’…Its Tentacle-Like Effects On Others Too…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

EVERY so often it is valuable to step outside ones regular sphere.

In this regard, blog postings at this site are (mainly, but not exclusively) dedicated to pressing issues germane to Zionist & Conservative ethos. Nevertheless, there are societal issues which similarly demand attention, even if geo-politics leaves little room for much else.

To catch the readership’s (hopefully) undivided attention, the following are recaps on a very lethal issue:

‘Teenage Murders Shock Israelis, Many Seek Answers’ was an op-ed at Israel National News (May 11, 2012) – contents links a causal relationship – of parental substance abuse – to aberrant behavior by their teenage charges.

Similarly, within ‘Alcoholism: The Wreckage In Its Wake‘ published in The Jewish Press (December 18, 2011), this blogger explains the often unreported phenomenon of ‘enabling’ and its impact on the merry-go-round of the addicted and their families –

In an eye opening piece, ‘The Underbelly of Substance Abuse & Its Crossing of All (Societal) Red Lines’ –, the reader is taken into gripping carnage, wrought by Diane Schuler’s drunk driving (an ‘average’ suburban mom from NY), killing her own child, plus several others in a horrific crash.

Heart rending.

With the above in mind it is incumbent to further the discussion, thus, adding some required context to the disease, via its clinical progression. It is called a ‘stealth’ killer, being that so many deaths are clinically attributed to alcoholism but are often reported otherwise. However, there is nothing stealthy about its very obvious effects – except to those stubbornly refusing to recognize them.

‘Stages of Alcoholism’ – –

Stages of Alcoholism: Denial Stage 1

“For some, drinking is an enjoyable and social activity. Whether it’s a cocktail in a stylish corporate watering hole in the downtown business district, or beers at the local sports bar, people gather for a few drinks and enjoy the crowd. However, for some, the drinks go beyond social contact, becoming not so much about social contact, but need. But if you were to ask them if they think they’ve had enough, the answer would be “no” and most likely followed by “There’s nothing wrong,” or “I don’t have a problem.” This is characteristic of the first of the stages of alcoholism.

Denial is a powerful enemy to well being. The problem may be obvious to others, but the one in the clutches of early alcoholism is either oblivious, or makes a conscious choice to ignore that is clearly before him/her. In the early stage of the disease, the person has enjoyed the effect of alcohol and desires to repeat the experience. If one drink is good, then two must be better. However, as the disease starts to progress, it will take greater amounts of the drug alcohol to achieve the same feeling. In this stage of the disease, it is often difficult to tell an alcoholic from a heavy drinker.

People build up a tolerance to alcohol and its effects, which is why people who progress to the other stages of the disease can drink their buddies under the table and may not even appear to be tipsy. They may even have a couple of drinks before going to a party or social event, just to make sure they can get a buzz without being too obvious about it. That leads to the next stage.

Stages of Alcoholism: The Cover Up Stage 2

Because people will develop a tolerance to alcohol, and because it will take more and more alcohol to achieve the desired effect, what used to be a couple of drinks after work turns into a drink at lunch as well. Drinking is no longer just a way to get a buzz and have a pleasurable experience, it becomes away to self-medicate and numb the pain.

As the disease progresses, a person might start drinking earlier in the day. Part of American culture is the proverbial “two martini lunch” which is sort of a twisted badge of courage, so to speak, as if being able to down alcohol at lunch makes one more of a player in the business world.

The real problem is that people will drink during the day because they have to. It’s not about some psychological relief, or a way to reduce stress, it’s about dependence. People slipping into this middle stage of the disease will experience cravings for alcohol.

When people “need” a drink, rather than merely wanting to enjoy a drink, it’s a sign of dependence. People may not perceive a loss of control, but they may see that the one losing control needs to “cut back.”

Husbands and wives, children, people at work all might notice that something is wrong. The drinker, who is still in denial, might make efforts to cover up his/her increasing habit. They may sneak into the washroom and have a drink, or in some other way cover up their need for alcohol. This is characteristic of the second of the stages of alcoholism.

There may also be some physical side effects that go beyond merely having a hangover after a party. That hangover becomes a regular occurrence. As the tolerance to alcohol increases, the quantity of alcohol consumed may cause blackouts.

People develop the “shakes” in the morning, hand tremors that others notice. They need a drink to calm down. Other health issues might arise at this second stage, such as stomach disorders. Blood pressure problems, etc.

As the disease progresses into this stage, we begin to see just how cruel alcoholism is, as the person with the problem denies it and covers up, and may even turn on those who are trying to help. It’s their fault that the alcoholic has problems. They may agree to cut back just to get the other person to shut up about it, but they can’t. The disease has crept forward, beyond the point of their ability to control it.

Stages of Alcoholism: You’re Wrong, I’m Right Stage 3

My friend Chaplain Dwayne Olson states, “We use things, people, ideas, additively for our own pleasure.” When I first heard that I scratched my head and thought nothing of it. However, as I pondered its message, I soon realized that the operative word at the end of the statement was “additively.” Everything feeds the addiction. The alcoholic is losing control at this stage and alcohol becomes the center of his/her life.

What started out as the desire to have a couple of drinks, turns into several beyond that limit, mainly because the individual cannot stop drinking. By this time, the addicted person has probably had some warnings from family and friends that the drinking has gotten in the way. People miss work, or even begin to have some health problems directly linked to alcohol consumption.

People run into legal problems here, like DUI. People go to bars, get drunk, get into fights and maybe even commit felonies. By this stage, the alcohol is in control, not the person. He/she needs a drink in the morning or a drink in the afternoon, just to feel “normal.” This is characteristic of the third of the stages of alcoholism.

If you are at this stage, trying just to get by, your view of your behavior is doing what is necessary. To others, you have become manipulative, self-centered, out of control and are at risk of throwing your life away. The people in your life want you to get treatment, but you say that isn’t necessary. Maybe you don’t eat, or take care of yourself, but you push all that aside to get your drink.

Stages of Alcoholism: Out of Control Stage 4

In the previous stages of the disease of alcoholism people are able to function in their every day life. They are struggling with losing control over their drinking, but they can usually hold down a job, and even appear to be perfectly healthy to someone who does not know them well. However, as the disease of alcoholism progresses, the need for alcohol trumps all other desires or needs in life. The person has completely lost control.

The person may have been a “problem drinker” or may have had a couple too many from time to time, or may have been able to mask his/her disease by putting on an act, but as the disease tightens its grip in the neck of the alcoholic, any semblance of control is gone. They drink throughout the day, needing the alcohol to function. This is characteristic of the fourth of the stages of alcoholism.

In earlier stages, the alcoholic may have had a small measure of control, a choice, but that choice is now wiped away and replaced with dependence. Chaplain Dwayne says “One drink is too many and Lake Michigan isn’t enough.”

The statement illustrates the predicament the alcoholic finds him/herself in at the end stage of the disease. They can’t stop drinking. That little checkpoint in the brain that indicates enough is no longer functional. People go on benders, drinking uncontrollably, sometimes for days. They never reach that point of satisfaction they had when they first experienced that pleasurable buzz when they first began.

After several drinks, people may pass out on the couch. This is not necessarily true of the alcoholic who has slipped into the end stage of the disease. They continue to drink and “function” only they have to recollection if it. These are blackouts.

They may not remember going home, or having an argument with a friend, or sideswiping parked cars or even running over and killing a pedestrian. They cannot control their behavior and they lost any possible control with the first drink. These blackouts can occur during earlier stages of the disease, but are more common the longer the disease progresses.

If denied alcohol, the alcoholic in this stage will display serious withdrawal symptoms. The shakes they may have experienced earlier in the progression of the disease are now more severe. He/she may experience hallucinations along with the convulsions, known as the DT’s (delirium tremors).

When people are at this point, withdrawal can be fatal, and therefore medical intervention is necessary. Even with the medical intervention, the DTs are an extremely difficult experience for the alcoholic. Alcohol withdrawal is particularly nasty and ugly to witness.

Even after having the DTs, and needing a hospital stay to recover from the withdrawal, an alcoholic is very likely to go back to their drinking habit. They may nearly have killed themselves with the toxic drug, but they are still addicted. Even if they are “dry” they are still a “dry drunk.”

Treatment is necessary to place any kind of management component in their lives. They promise never to drink again, but without treatment, in most cases, they will surely start the cycle all over again, only this time going from stage one to stage four will be rapid. Left to their own devices, the alcoholics got into terrible, life-threatening trouble. Their own devices will not likely sustain them moving forward.

Stages of Alcoholism: Deterioration Stage 5

Alcohol, unlike other drugs, affects all areas of the body. It’s not just the brain, or the lungs, but also the heart, liver, kidneys, intestines, etc. Alcohol is extremely toxic, especially at this point, where a person drinks heavily and constantly.

We mentioned self-medicating earlier, which speaks to a psychological issue, but the damage done by the alcohol effects the organs as well, so the alcoholic at this stage may suffer from many conditions.

Think of alcohol as the common link. In speaking to the patient care manager of a medical respiratory intensive care unit at a large urban hospital, it was shared that in 50 to 75 percent of all cases that come through that unit, alcohol is a major player. This is characteristic of the fifth and final of the stages of alcoholism.

Still, in this serious stage, the alcoholic will continue to drink, unless prevented from doing so. While it seems “crazy” to some that a person would continue down this destructive path, by the time they reach this point, they are completely out of control, have no ability to reason through the problem and they probably are delusional.

In earlier stages, they are in denial, but in this stage, they are not capable of understanding what is happening to them. They crave the drug and they will do anything to get a drink. The addiction is in TOTAL control.

Denial, once again, is a strong enemy. Had it not been for denial, the progression of the disease might have stopped long before the person’s body starts to shut down or fall apart. Any spiritual or psychological issues might have been addressed. Problems in life might have been solved. Sadly, even with intensive and expert medical intervention, if a person has been down the path for too long, the alcohol may win the war and kill the person.”

Like a beckoning lover, the refuge of alcohol holds an irresistible allure, especially to those who are prone to risky and compulsive behavior. Complicating the equation is the steady availability of liquor, in most every setting. Adding fuel to the addictive fire, those who are seeking quick relief from problems (often in the throes of depression), hope to chase away their demons in the (initial) warm embrace of alcohol, for as long as possible. 

But like other addictive substances, alcohol enslaves the drinker to its succumbing effects, with little or no warning. Lest anyone dares think this disease mainly grips the less educated – skid row bum types – think again. Far from it.

The following should serve as a double wake up call, especially since its tale is told by a leading American cardiologist who was not too far from an early grave due to alcoholism –

Most significantly, how scary is it to realize that people in positions of life and death responsibility may often operate ( some literally ! ) under impaired conditions? So is this just someone else’s problem, or one of society at large?





PM Netanyahu’s “Red Line” Graph At The UN…Why “Grace” Period Moved Another 6 Months…& Iran’s Response…Adina Kutnicki

DEBKAfile Intelligence is on the job; sifting through the muck of the latest revelations, regarding the titanic struggle between Israel ( with the U.S. “leading from behind” ) and the Iranian Hitlerite regime.

Millions of lives hang in the balance. This blogger and her family too.

‘Fordo sabotage enabled Netanyahu to move Iran red line to spring 2012’

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report September 29, 2012

The sabotage of the Fordo uranium enrichment facility’s power lines on Aug. 17 gave Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu extra leeway to move his original red line for Iran from late September 2012 – now – to the spring or early summer of 2013. The disruption of the underground enrichment plant’s power supply caused several of the advanced IR-1 and IR-4 centrifuges producing the 20-percent grade uranium to burst into flames. Work was temporarily halted and the accumulation of 240 kilos for Iran’s first nuclear bomb slowed down by at least six months, DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report.
Hence Netanyahu’s new red line timeline of “late spring, early summer” – before which preventive action is imperative – in his speech to the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept. 27.
Our military sources report that the advantage gained is already proving short-lived. Iran has pounced back fast with two aggressive counter-moves on Israel’s doorstep:
1. Thousands of elite Al Qods Brigades officers and men are being airlifted into Lebanon and Syria and deployed opposite Israeli borders (as DEBKAfile has reported);

2. Shortly before the Israeli Prime Minister rose to speak in New York, Syrian President Bashar Assad again removed chemical weapons out of storage. Some were almost certainly passed to the incoming Iranian units. The weapons’ movements were accounted for as a precaution for “greater security,” but in practice they will be ready for use against Israel when the order is handed down from Tehran.

Friday, Sept. 28, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was specifically asked by a reporter if it was believed that “Iran’s Revolutionary Guards or Syrian rebels had been able to get possession of any of the chemical weapons” which the secretary had just disclosed were on the move. He left the door open, saying only that he had “no firm information to confirm this.” That sort of question never comes out of thin air.

It was also the second time in three weeks that the defense secretary mentioned the movements of Syrian chemical weapons out of storage. This time, he said, ‘‘There has been intelligence that there have been some moves that have taken place. Where exactly that’s taken place, we don’t know.” But he did not rule out the possibility that they were being made ready for use.

This non-denial tied in closely with the words heard that day from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:  “Iran has left no doubt that it will do whatever it takes to protect the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Tehran’s staunch ally,” she said.
Syrian chemical weapons movements out of storage, the presence of crack Iranian fighting units on Israel’s borders and Tehran’s determination to keep Assad in power “whatever it takes” hung in menacing silence over Netanyahu’s powerful cartoon presentation of the Iranian nuclear peril.
Already on Sept. 16, the Revolutionary Guards chief Gen. Ali Jafary announced publicly that al Qods Brigades personnel had landed not only in Syria but also Lebanon. The chemical weapons may therefore have already reached Hizballah or be on their way there unbeknownst to US intelligence.
Both Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have repeatedly stated that the transfer of chemical weapons to Hizballah would necessitate Israeli military action.
The IDF’s large-scale military call-up and firing exercise on the Golan of Sept. 19 failed to deter the Iranian military buildup opposite Israeli northern borders in Syria and Lebanon. The Iranian airlift continues and US intelligence has not denied that some al Qods arrivals may now be armed with chemical weapons.
The Iranian threat to Israel is therefore far from static; it is gaining substance and menace, keeping two IDF divisions on call in northern Israel after the exercise was over.
Netanyahu’s red line for preventing Iran achieving a 240-kilo enriched uranium stockpile does not cover an Iranian preemptive attack on the Jewish state before then – as threatened explicitly by the Iranian missiles Corps chief Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizade on Sept. 24.

Neither had Israeli officials anything to say about the Hamas leaders’ trips to Beirut and Tehran this month to sign military accords with the Revolutionary Guards and Hizballah pledging the Palestinian extremists’ participation in an attack on Israel.
The red line on the cartoon bomb which Netanyahu held up so effectively at the UN Thursday covered only one segment of the peril Tehran poses for the Jewish state. A more immediate danger lurks in the north”.

There is no doubt that Israel has deeply hidden assets within Iran’s hideaways. But make no mistake. There is only so much that can be done to delay their genocidal project, therefore, pre-emption is a given.

However, with Syria’s chemical arsenal on the loose ( never mind what the U.S. says about “this or that” ), coupled with Iran’s airlift of thousands of fighters, DIRECTLY on Israel’s northern borders, this much is for sure – “this date or that date” is little more than shifting sand. 

Spit in the wind.

Don’t believe for a nanosecond that Jerusalem doesn’t feel the same.

Battening down the hatches…in a few month’s time…


Under What Circumstances/Pretexts Will Disarming American Citizens Happen & How Will They Accomplish It?…Adina Kutnicki

Americans who adhere to the the bedrocks of the U.S. Constitution – the true laws of the land – must take this video clip VERY seriously, and certainly internalize its grave implications. Its contents will eventually unfold, as the new ‘law of the land’. No one, but those in power know when the sh-t will hit the fan, and that is how the authorities want it.

But believe it.

And the above is precisely why this blogger, a stalwart believer in Constitutional Rights, issues alarm bells. It is not for nothing. For heavens sake…the Middle East is burning…and yours truly is living in the eye of the Islamic storm…more than enough to angst over…yet still….when second amendment…pro life supporters bear watching…Americans are entering a ‘Brave New World’ –

And what happens when a Thug-in-Chief tasks his Racialist AG to turn up the heat? – This is what happens – fomented chaos becomes the catalyst to the issuance of executive orders, leading to ultimate power grabs –

Their game plan includes hunting down vets, having already labeled/tarred right wing patriots as domestic terrorists, yet Muslim recruits remain untouchable –

Are you wondering…why is DHS stockpiling UNPRECEDENTED amounts of ammo? – . The answers are in front of you. 

Questioning…why are Black Hawks swirling overhead U.S. cities…what is really going on? – . The answers are contained within.

Clearly, DHS has a plan…if ordered to secure the election results…or whenever a power grabbing scenario is mandated –

Thus, what was previously implemented under a national emergency directive (evidenced in the clip), would obviously become part of the blueprint utilized by radical forces, and conveniently derived from a tailor made Marshall Order edict.

These power grabbing plans didn’t start with the Radical-in-Chief, but they were absolutely ratcheted up under his directives. Of course, for the benefit of the American citizens. Law and order…and all that jazz.

Take it to the bank. Forewarned IS forearmed. Once your guns are confiscated you ain’t getting them back!

Valerie Jarrett…Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s Communist/Hidden Hand…Familial & Ideological Ties That Bind…Addendum To: Valerie Jarrett’s Communist Leanings…Why She Matters…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Little attention was paid when “The One” selected Valerie Jarrett as his chief adviser. Heck, the main chatter, regarding her appointment, revolved around the inclusiveness of the POTUS, as he deigned to choose a woman to be his joined-at-the-hip-mate – politically speaking.

What a guy…a thoroughly modern first dude…unafraid to check his manhood at the door. You can’t make this crap up.

Never mind. Political sleighs of hand are often nothing more than smoke and mirrors. In fact, they are specifically designed to prop up the contrived media narrative. Therefore, the authentic ties that bind, the Radical-in-Chief to his Numero Uno political helpmate, demand the utmost scrutiny. Better late than never.

Having reported on their nexus through ‘Valerie Jarrett’s Communist Leanings & Why She Matters…’ – – it was patently clear that her background, and her closer than close relationship with the POTUS, was/is deeply relevant.

As such, the following article sharpens the focus, even more glaringly. 


Vernon Jarrett was close friend of communist Frank Marshall Davis’

“The recently discovered 1979 newspaper article by Vernon Jarrett – the father-in-law of senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, opens a new dimension to understanding Obama’s youth, as Vernon Jarrett was a close friend of Obama’s Communist Party-activist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

The connections were not lost on Joel Gilbert, the filmmaker whose documentary “Dreams from My Real Father” argues Davis, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, was the biological as well as ideological father of Barack Obama, not the Kenyan who came to the University of Hawaii in 1959

In the column, which originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune Nov. 2, 1979, Jarrett reported a proposal by Islamic radical and former Black Panther Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Monsour, the lawyer previously known as Donald Warden, to work on behalf of Saudi Arabia and OPEC to provide $20 million for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year.

Davis and Vernon Jarrett were close friends in Chicago and colleagues at the Chicago Defender and the Chicago Star, two communist-run newspapers in the 1940s.

In early 1948, Davis and Jarrett served together on the publicity committee of the Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers, a communist-organized labor union that represented workers in the meatpacking industry.

“Very possibly Vernon Jarrett’s path crossed that of Frank Marshall Davis when Barack Obama, Frank Marshall Davis’ son, needed financing to attend Harvard,” Gilbert said.

“Remarkably,” he continued, “Obama was in Chicago at the time, and Jarrett was on the scene to find politically favorable funding from a former Black Panther turned Black Muslim in the person of Khalid Al-Monsour, who had a convenient relationship with one of the richest men in the world – Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.”

Gilbert carried the relationships full circle. As a former colleague of Davis in Chicago, he said, Jarrett had reason to want to connect Obama with al-Mansour’s funding program.

“But it doesn’t end there,” Gilbert continued. “Very possibly, Jarrett helped finance Frank’s son, possibly explaining why Obama would later return to use the connection once again, when he sought to get his wife, Michelle Obama, hired into Chicago Mayor Harold Washington’s office by none other than Valerie Jarrett, daughter-in-law of Vernon Jarrett.”

Gilbert noted the 1979 article also sheds light on the claim that veteran New York power broker and well-known attorney Percy Sutton intervened at the request of al-Mansour to write a letter of recommendation to get Obama into Harvard Law School.

“All it would have taken was for Vernon Jarrett to introduce Obama, the son of Frank Marshall Davis, to Al-Monsour,” Gilbert continued.

As WND reported in 2009, Sutton, then an octogenarian, explained on the New York-produced “Inside City Hall” television show that al-Monsour brought Obama to his attention.

Sutton said al-Mansour told him about Obama in a letter: “There’s a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends left there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”

Gilbert said al-Monsour might have known he could fund Obama through the Saudi prince, but first Obama had to get accepted into Harvard Law School for the plan to work. Al-Monsour realized Sutton had the necessary connections to make his recommendation credible to the Harvard Law School admittance committee, Gilbert said.

Gilbert also noted the 1979 article explains why Obama was so well accepted in the Chicago-based Muslim community, including by pro-Palestinian professor Rashid Khalidi and Syrian-born Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko, who is now serving a prison sentence for fraud and bribery.

“Rezko and his many Arab-American partners funded Obama’s political campaigns, his state Senate races, his failed congressional race and his U.S. Senate campaign,” Gilbert explained. “It appears Obama’s academic career funders handed him off to Rezko’s Arab network to advance Obama’s political career. To what ends?”

Gilbert wondered if financial indebtedness to the Saudis might explain why Obama was so deferential as to bow to the Saudi king upon meeting him for the first time, at the G20 meeting in London in 2009.

“What did the Arab funders expect in return from Obama in return for the academic and political funding?” Gilbert asked.

“Is Barack Obama and the United States itself subject to blackmail, revealing the source of his academic funding, from those Arab funders if he does not follow their wishes?”

Gilbert continued speculating.

“Does the Jarrett-Al-Monsour connection dating from the time Obama went to Harvard explain why Obama has conducted an open-door policy for the Muslim Brotherhood to penetrate the White House, the State Department and even the U.S. military? How about Obama’s hostility toward Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu? Maybe the roots there go back to 1979 as well.”

WND reported the testimony of Allen Hulton, a U.S. Postal Service carrier who delivered mail to the home of Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers’ parents in suburban Chicago. Hulton says he was told by Mrs. Ayers that she and her husband helped finance Obama’s education at Harvard Law School.

“One thing is certain,” Gilbert concluded. “Obama comes out of a nexus of people in Chicago that includes not only Frank Marshall Davis and Vernon Jarrett but also Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett and the Bill Ayers family.”

He said the 1979 article “strongly suggests Obama used all of these connections to advance himself politically, and none of these connections were accidental.”

In reference to just one of the many mysteries surrounding the POTUS – “who’s Obama’s daddy?”- rest assured, this question is germane to the ties that bind him to Jarrett. This is because even if one believes that ‘Uncle Frank’ was really a family friend ( or possibly his birth papa ), it is beyond a shadow of a doubt their symbiotic relationship is revealed ( in many ways ) from the Radical-in-Chief’s own childhood narrative. Namely, that “Uncle Frank” was the most influential adult in his life – bar none. That ship has sailed.

Thus, extrapolating further, there is also little doubt that the path of Vernon Jarrett became intertwined with the Radical-in-Chief, at some point in his childhood. Naturally, when Valerie joined Vernon’s clan, she too entered the Radical-in-Chief’s personal orbit.

Most intrinsically, no one should dare be fooled by the diminutive stature of Valerie Jarrett, presupposing that she is a little bitty thing, hardly likely to cause much harm. Yes, people still ascribe such inanities of physical appearance to a person’s power, or lack thereof.

In a nutshell, Valerie Jarrett is as lethal as a poisonous snake, having ‘made her bones’ in the cesspool of Chicago power politics. Her real estate holdings are so vast; her power so out sized; many men, towering over her, are terrified of crossing swords with her – and this was before she became “The One”s’ alter ego! 

The White House buck starts (and stops) at Jarrett’s communist door.

ANOTHER Arab Leader Spills The Beans – The “Palestinians” (as a “separate” people) Do NOT Exist!…Adina Kutnicki

EVER since the PA “people” asserted their “separate” identity, this blogger has contended the opposite. In fact, in friendly audiences, as well as not so friendly ones, ample historical evidence has been brought forward to prove the case. Most incredibly, said thesis has been shored up by similar affirmations, from quite a few Arab leaders.

Manna from heaven. Yet still…world leaders – as well as Israel’s appeasers – pretend to be deaf, dumb and blind to the facts.

NOW, along comes another Arab honcho – a Hamasnick ! – backing up our Jewish case. 

Never mind…the anti-Zionist/anti-semitic left ( including Jewish appeasers) will pooh pooh this one too.

But, that doesn’t mean the rest of cyberspace shouldn’t become privy to the truth; eviscerating a falsehood of global proportions, which has incited to murder and mayhem against Israel/Jews for decades! 

Intifadas anyone? (

‘Video: Hamas leader admits ‘Palestinians’ do not exist’

by  on SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 in BLOGGENERAL

There’s nothing quite like getting the truth from the horse’s mouth.

“Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis.”

Our work is done here…

Oh, wait. You mean even this isn’t enough to convince the liberal media?”

here too –

And more of the same, concerning the so called “Palestinians” as a “separate” Arab people –

They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom.

– Pilar Rahola, Spanish journalist

The appearance of the Palestinian national personality comes as an answer to Israel’s claim that Palestine is Jewish.

– Hussein bin Talal, late king of Jordan

The existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel.

– Zuheir Muhsin, late member of the PLO Executive Council

For good measure, how many know that the godfather of modern terrorism (a Nobel “peace prize” recipient…a man with so much blood on his hands he was awash in it…no matter…), “Chairman Arafat”, was an Egyptian, hardly qualifying as the progenitor of the “Palestinian people”?

Exactly. B’diyuk!

Looking Back at Constant Error: Understanding the Tangled Narrative of Middle East “Peace” Louis René Beres – Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs – Adina Kutnicki

It is an honor to present the indispensable analysis of Professor Louis René Beres. This blogger would be intellectually poorer without his mentoring.

‘Looking Back at Constant Error: Understanding the Tangled Narrative Of Middle East “Peace” – Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs (

(Louis René Beres is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and is the author of numerous books and articles dealing with international relations and international law. In the United States, he has worked for over forty years on international law and nuclear strategy matters, both as a scholar and
as a lecturer/consultant to various agencies of the US government. In Israel, he has lectured widely at various academic centers for strategic studies, at the Dayan Forum, and at the National Defense College IDF)
From the very start of the Middle East Peace Process, beginning at Oslo in 1993, all Palestinian “peace partners” have sought to excise Israel
from the map. For these Palestinians—Fatah, Hamas, it has made no
real difference—the objective of every written agreement with “the Jews” has been clear. Up until the present, in fact, all Palestinian factions
have held one core idea in common, that is, that every inch of Israel,
in addition to all of the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Gaza, is,
irremediably and incontestably, an integral part of “Palestine.” In other words, for all Palestinian factions, there is no Jewish land or
Jewish State in the Arab Middle East.
More than one year ago, at the end of April 2011, Fatah (or the Palestinian
Authority) and Hamas initiated a formal détente. At that time, Hamas leader Mahmoud Azhar duly noted the still-unchanged Islamic Resistance Movement platform: “No recognition of Israel, and no negotiation.” This refractory position also became the de jure and de facto policy of Fatah.
Currently, even the very best case “peace process” scenario for Israel is manifestly intolerable. In such a case, Fatah would announce publicly that it is not bound by relentless Hamas’ rejectionism, but would still proceed unilaterally toward full Palestinian statehood, and to UN membership. In this connection, assorted official statements issued by spokesmen for Palestinian President Abbas (that the now codified rapprochement between Palestinian factions represents only “internal Palestinian issues”) remain, prima facie, disingenuous.
Also significant is the fact that the inter-faction agreement was formally signed in Cairo, where forces of the Muslim Brotherhood, the “parent” and active mentor of Hamas, are now continuing to fill the post-Mubarak power vacuum in Egypt.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu originally sought to blunt the security consequences of any eventual Palestinian state by making such sovereignty contingent upon Palestinian “demilitarization.” Not unexpectedly, that strategy was stillborn. Skirting bilateral diplomacy with their deferential bid for statehood in the UN, both Palestinian factions already knew that Netanyahu’s demilitarization contingency was inherently naïve. After all, the right to “self defense” is peremptory under international law, and cannot be diminished by any pre-independence concessions or commitments.
From Israel’s basic survival standpoint, there is no meaningful difference between Fatah and Hamas. Both the Fatah Charter and the Hamas Covenant call openly for Israel’s liquidation.
To be sure, active anti-rocket defenses and other high-technology weaponry have their proper place in defending one’s country. However, hiding behind active defenses, including the longer-range Arrow system, can never save Israel. From Sun-Tzu to Clausewitz, military thinkers have understood that over time, even partial or incremental substitutions of defense for offense are destined to fail.
Historically, Israeli territorial concessions, beginning with the transfer of Sinai to Egypt, have only weakened the Jewish State. According to the Hamas Covenant, this has happened, in large measure, due to a persistently hardening resolve “to raise the banner of jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they may rid the land and the people of their [Jewish] uncleanness, vileness, and evils.”
Slowly, but incontestably, new waves of Palestinian terrorism are surfacing. Just before the April 2011 Fatah–Hamas pact, the March 2011 slaughter of nearly an entire Jewish family by Palestinian terrorists revealed another early warning about Israel’s “peace partners.” To suggest, as some peace process advocates in Israel and the United States have routinely done, that the murderers in this case
were culturally and/or psychologically aberrant, and thereby adequately outside of the Palestinian mainstream, would be factually incorrect. As in previous murders perpetrated by Palestinians against entire Israeli families, these latest Arab killers, who lacked even the faith-based aspiration of becoming martyrs, were widely praised by their respective communities.
What about Israeli “settlement?” Doesn’t this enterprise kindle Palestinian hatred and spark anti-Israel terror? Hardly. Sanctimonious objections to “settlements” are always a smokescreen. For the Palestinians, whether Hamas, Fatah, or any other faction, openly grotesque violence against Jewish civilians remains a lasciviously “sacred” objective. Oddly enough, for the Palestinians, any new state of “Palestine” must necessarily be “free of Jews,” yet the State of Israel is already being ordered to grant over one million Arabs full Israeli citizenship.
Credo quia absurdum [I believe because it is absurd].
From the unmistakably asymmetrical inception of the Oslo Accords, the Middle East peace process has never offered Israel even a hint of evenhandedness. Animated by a relentlessly aggressive and generalized Arab will to exploit law and diplomacy in order to produce Israel’s elimination by increments (“lawfare”), this campaign remains, ironically, an easily recognizable Trojan horse.
In reality, the Road Map represents considerably more than a convenient or benign “detour.” Oslo I, known generally as the Declaration of Principles, was concluded and signed in Oslo on August 19, 1993, and re-signed in Washington, DC on September 13, 1993. Oslo II was signed in Washington on September 28, 1995. If gauged in terms of the intensified activities of Palestinian terrorist movements against Israel, and also the total number of Israelis killed and maimed by suicide bombers and other terrorists since August 19, 1993, the Middle East
peace process has been a resounding failure.
Exeunt omnes? [All exit?]
From Yitzhak Rabin onward, all of Israel’s prime ministers have seemingly felt more or less obligated to honor the Oslo Accords. This delusionary obligation was never supported by authoritative norms or expectations, but only by the gratuitously popular notion that such signed documents were prima facie valid,and, ipso facto, binding.
The law of nations has always required abrogation, not compliance, with regard to invalid agreements. Moreover, as Israel’s position on Oslo has profoundly affected its overall nuclear security posture, we must now also understand the way in which law and power are critically interrelated.
The Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO have always expressed a codified violation of international law. Israel, therefore, has always been obligated to abrogate these non-treaty agreements. A comparable argument could be made regarding PLO/PA obligations, but this argument would make little jurisprudential sense in light of that non-state party’s inability to enter into any equal legal arrangement with Israel.
Taken by itself, the fact that the Oslo Accords did not constitute authentic treaties under the Vienna Convention, because they linked a state with a non-state party, did not call for automatic abrogation. But, as the non-state party in this case just happened to be a terrorist organization, the leaders of which must be punished for their documented egregious crimes, any agreement with this party that offered rewards rather than punishments was immediately null and void. In view of the peremptory expectation known in law as nullum crimen sine poena [no crime without a punishment],11 the state party in such an agreement, here the State of Israel, violated international law by honoring the illegal agreement.
Little about this has been understood by politicians and pundits. According to Principle I of the binding Nuremberg Principles: “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore, and liable to punishment.” It is from this principle, which applies with particular relevance to hostes humani generis [common enemies of humankind], and which originates in three separate passages of the Jewish Torah, that each state’s obligation to seek
out and prosecute terrorists derives. Hence, for Israel to honor agreements with terrorists, agreements that sometimes required, among other pertinent violations, the release of thousands of other terrorists, was always to defile the core meanings of international law. An additional and particularly shameful irony should also be noted here, as Israel has repeatedly released large numbers of terrorists by its own
During his later years, after Oslo had already entered into force, considerable attention was focused expressly on Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. Was he a terrorist? Although the answer is perfectly clear to anyone who thinks (there is nothing exculpatory about being a Nobel Peace laureate), it can also be supported in accessible legal terms: In the US case of Klinghoffer v. Palestine Liberation Organization (1990), for example, the US court formally answered the question of whether Arafat was a terrorist in the affirmative.
In the Israeli courts, a petition to charge Arafat with terrorist crimes was submitted to Israel’s High Court of Justice in May 1994. This petition, filed by Shimon Prachik, an officer in the IDF reserves, and Moshe Lorberaum, who was injured in a 1978 bus bombing carried out by the PLO, called for Arafat’s arrest. The petition noted correctly that Arafat had been responsible for numerous terror attacks in Israel and abroad, including murder, airplane hijacking, hostage taking, letter bombing, and hijacking of ships on the high seas.
The petitioner’s allegation of Arafat’s direct personal responsibility for terrorism was seconded and confirmed by Dr. Ahmad Tibi, then Arafat’s most senior advisor: “The person responsible on behalf of the Palestinian people for everything that was done in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is Yasir Arafat,” said an uncharacteristically truthful Tibi on July 13, 1994, “and this man shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin.”
But what of the argument that international law may sometimes allow insurgent force that is directed toward legitimate support of fundamental human rights and rules? It is correct that international law has consistently proscribed particular acts of terrorism. Yet, at the same time, it has also entitled insurgents to use certain levels and types of force against any regime that represses their peremptory human rights, especially “self-determination,” “independence,” and “national liberation.”
Fatah, therefore, at least according to this argument, might have represented an authentic national liberation movement, one that had been operating within the boundaries of permissibility under international law.
To address this position, two essential jurisprudential criteria must first be
examined: just cause and just means. These criteria allow us to distinguish a lawful insurgency from terrorism. The principle of just cause maintains that in certain cases, insurgents may exercise law-enforcing measures under international law.
To qualify as lawful insurgents, such groups must also display appropriate respect for humanitarian international law—i.e., just means. It follows that in order to determine whether a specific group actually satisfies the requirements of a lawful insurgency, its resort to force must first be measured against the established expectations of discrimination, proportionality, and military necessity.
Terrorism is necessarily underway whenever a group engages in campaigns of force that are deliberately directed against broad segments of the general population, campaigns that blur the always-essential distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Similarly, the group becomes terroristic whenever it begins to apply force, to the fullest possible extent, restrained only by the limits of available
weaponry. The current policy implications of these legal expectations for any proper evaluation of Palestinian insurgency are manifest and straightforward.
National liberation movements that fail to meet the settled and codified restraints of the laws of war are never protected as legitimate or permissible. Under international law, the ends can never justify the means. As in the case of war between states, every use of force by insurgents must always be judged twice: once with regard to the justness of the objective, and once with regard to the justness of the means used in pursuit of that objective.
Even if we were to concede to Fatah a just cause, a concession that no reasonable observer could likely countenance, Arafat’s flagrant and indisputable disregard for just means did render his Fatah organization a terrorist group.
The explicit application of codified restrictions of the laws of war to noninternational armed conflicts dates back to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Recalling, however, that more than treaties and conventions comprise the laws of war, it is also clear that the obligations of jus in bello [justice in war] comprise part of “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,” and bind all categories of belligerents. Indeed, the Hague Convention IV of 1907 declares, in broad terms, that in the absence of a precisely published set of guidelines in humanitarian international law concerning “unforeseen cases,” the pre-Convention sources of international law govern all belligerency.
Terrorist crimes, as part of a broader category called crimen contra omnes [crimes against all], mandate universal cooperation in apprehension and punishment. As punishers of “grave breaches” under international law, all states and statelike authorities are expected to search out and prosecute, or extradite, individual perpetrators. Regarding Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), the latter’s obligation under law to extradite terrorists to Israel would have obtained even if
there had been no Oslo Accords. Since 1993, no American or Israeli leader has ever duly noted or commented upon this particularly salient obligation.
From a jurisprudential standpoint, there is no need to probe further the precise language of the Accords. The PA’s multiple violations of extradition expectations under international law existed, and continue to exist, independently of Oslo.
The important though controversial principle of universal jurisdiction is usually founded upon an authoritative presumption of solidarity between all sovereigns in their common fight against international crime. Moreover, the case for universal jurisdiction may be strengthened whenever extradition is difficult or impossible to achieve. It is also built into the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949.
Traditionally, piracy and slave trading were the only offenses warranting
universal jurisdiction. Since World War II, however, states have generally
recognized an expanded definition of universal jurisdiction to include crimes of war; crimes against peace; crimes against humanity; torture; genocide; and crimes
of terrorism. For the most part, this purposeful, although sometimes abused (by anti-Israel elements), jurisdictional expansion has its origins in certain multilateral conventions, in customary international law, and in pertinent judicial decisions.
Terrorism is not the only major crime in which Arafat and many of the subsequently released Palestinian prisoners were actively complicit. Related Nurembergcategory crimes, including crimes of war and crimes against humanity, were also committed by these criminals. It should be noted that units of the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) served enthusiastically with Saddam Hussein’s forces in occupied Kuwait during the First Gulf War, making them, and Yasir Arafat personally (the legal principle of command responsibility is known as respondeat superior [let the master answer], responsible for multiple crimes.
As if these offenses were not enough of an intolerable affront to international law, many of the terrorists who were later released from Israeli jails in presumed furtherance of the Oslo Accords and also the wider “peace process” quickly accepted various high positions in the “security forces” of the Palestinian Authority
or Hamas.
Even if the non-state Palestinian party to the Oslo Accords had not been a
terrorist organization, Israel would still have entered into an agreement of
unequal obligations wherein the PLO would not have been held under law to the same standards of accountability. Various federal court decisions in the US have affirmed that agreements between non-state and state parties impose asymmetrical compliance expectations. In a concurring statement in the case of Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, a 1981 civil suit in US federal courts in which the plaintiffs were Israeli survivors and representatives of persons murdered in a terrorist bus attack
in Israel in 1978, Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards stated, “…I do not believe the law of nations imposes the same responsibility or liability on non-state actors, such as the PLO, as it does on states and persons acting under color of state law.”
The PLO, among many of its sister affiliates and foes, remained a terrorist
organization. Therefore, Israel never had any right to honor the Oslo Agreements’ alleged requirement to release certain convicted members of that criminal group. No government, ever, has any right to lawfully pardon or grant immunity to terrorists with respect to criminally sanctionable violations of international law.
In the US, it is evident from the Constitution that the president’s power to pardon does not encompass violations of international law, and, accordingly, is limited to identifiable “offenses against the United States.”
This critical limitation derives from a broader prohibition, one that binds all states, including Israel, namely, the overriding claims of pertinent peremptory rules stemming from Higher Law, or the Law of Nature. These claims, with core origins in Torah, are listed in Blackstone’s Commentaries, which acknowledges that all law “results from those principles of natural justice, in which all the learned of every
nation agree….”
In its apprehension and incarceration of terrorists, Israel had acted, however unintentionally, not only for itself, but on behalf of the entire community of states. Moreover, because some of the jailed terrorists had committed crimes against other states as well as against Israel, the government in Jerusalem could not pardon these offenses against other sovereigns. The Jewish State possessed no right to grant immunity for terrorist violations of international law.
No matter what might be permissible under its own Basic Law and the Oslo Accords, any freeing of terrorists has always been legally incorrect. By such acts, Israel is manifestly guilty of what is known in law as a “denial of justice.” Arguably, in this connection, all complicit Israeli prime ministers from Rabin to Netanyahu have also committed individually punishable violations of international law.
Israel’s persisting legal obligation to abrogate the Oslo Accords stemmed from certain peremptory expectations of international law. Israel, however, also has substantial rights of abrogation that bind its behavior, apart from any such expectations. These particular rights derive from the basic doctrine of Rebus sic stantibus.
Defined literally as “so long as conditions remain the same,” this doctrine of changed circumstances augmented Israel’s incontestable obligations to cease its compliance with Oslo. This is because Israel’s traditional obligations to the Accords ended promptly when a “fundamental change” occurred in those circumstances that existed at the effective dates of the accords, and whose continuance had formed a tacit condition of the accords’ ongoing validity. This change involved multiple material breaches by the PLO, especially those concerning control of anti-Israel
terrorism, and extradition of terrorists. Almost immediately, Rebus sic stantibus became a material basis for Israeli abrogation, because of the profound change created by the PLO in the very circumstances that had formed the cause, motive, and rationale of Israeli consent.
According to explicit Oslo expectations, Arafat, from the beginning, should have been actively committed to the control of anti-Israel terrorism. Yet, Arafat not only sheltered Arab terrorists; he let them incite, recruit, organize, train, arm, raise funds, and even launch murderous operations from areas that were under his direct control. Naturally, the same is true of his successors, Fatah as well as Hamas.
The ongoing position that these two groups are somehow legally and morally distinguishable from each other remains wrong. This awareness should be understood, especially when the intersecting issues of “Palestine” and Iran could soon confront Israel with a devastating force multiplier.
In retrospect, Israel’s still-unfulfilled obligation to terminate the Oslo Accords also stemmed from a related principle of national self-preservation. Under this peremptory or utterly “sacred” norm, any agreement may be terminated unilaterally following changes in conditions that would make performance of the agreement injurious to fundamental rights, especially the rights of existence and independence known in law as “rights of necessity.” This basic norm was explained
with particular lucidity and erudition by none other than Thomas Jefferson.
In his Opinion on the French Treaties, written on April 28, 1793, Jefferson stated that when performance, in international agreements, “becomes impossible, nonperformance is not immoral. So if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation to others.” Later, in that same document, Jefferson wrote: “The nation itself, bound necessarily to whatever its preservation and safety require, cannot enter into engagements contrary to its indispensable obligations.”
Regarding the Oslo Accords and Israel’s consequent vulnerability to war, Israeli security has become increasingly dependent upon nuclear weapons and strategy.
Faced with a UN-supported and self-declared Palestinian state, the Jewish State would have to decide on precisely how to compensate for its expected diminished strategic depth. While this shrinkage might not necessarily increase Israel’s existential vulnerability to unconventional missile attack, it would increase that state’s susceptibility to attacking ground forces, and even to subsequent enemy occupation.
Any loss of strategic depth would almost certainly be interpreted by enemy states, including “Palestine,” as a significant weakening of Israel’s overall defense posture.
This could then lead to irresistible enemy incentives to strike first.
As Israel’s sacrifice of strategic depth is translated into an independent Palestinian state, the geostrategic victory of the Jihadist/Islamic world would be complemented by something less tangible, but assuredly no less critical—Arab and Iranian perceptions of an ongoing and unstoppable momentum against the Jewish State, a jihad-centered view of military inevitability that would reiterate extant policies of war. Recognizing such perilous perceptions, Israel could be forced to take its bomb out of the “basement,” and/or to accept a greater willingness to launch
preemptive strikes against certain enemy hard targets.
Individual Arab states and/or Iran could respond to any such Israeli decisions in different ways. Made aware of Israel’s policy shifts that would now stem from Israel’s awareness of enemy perceptions spawned by the creation of “Palestine,” these particular enemy states could react in more or less parallel fashion. Here, preparing openly for nuclearization and/or aggression against Israel, these states could express certain far-reaching results of Oslo/Road Map/UN results that are still generally unrecognized. Until the present, these effects had provided Israel, together with other abovementioned rationales, a fully authoritative basis for permissible abrogation.
When, on October 6, 1973, Egyptian and Syrian surprise attacks came close to jeopardizing Israel’s physical survival, it was due to a major intelligence failure. Similarly, on January 18, 1991, when the scream of air-raid sirens could be heard in every corner of Israel, the Iraqi Scuds that slammed through Tel Aviv and Haifa neighborhoods caught the country, in the words of a former Israeli intelligence chief, “with its pants down.” In the latter case, what saved Israel from sustaining genuinely existential losses were Iraq’s notably ineffectual warheads.
The record of intermittent failure of A’man [the IDF Intelligence Branch] is worth noting. Although it is obviously too late to rectify prior mistakes, some important lessons can still be learned. The most important is this: Before one takes comfort from what the “experts” have had to say about “Palestine,” recall that their record has sometimes been flawed.
Currently Israel is confronted by Iranian nuclearization, a developing menace of potentially existential import. Although American and Israeli leaders may maintain that this menace is somehow unrelated to Palestinian statehood, exactly the opposite is true. In all military plans and preparations, the prospect of synergistic interaction between otherwise separate or discrete threats should be taken into account.
In the not-too-distant future, Iran will likely have the capacity to launch nuclear missiles against Israel. While this would not require the strategic advantages of a cooperative “Palestine,” Iran’s actual willingness to launch or to share nuclear weapon assets with Hizbullah could be enlarged by any antecedent Oslo/Road Map/UN dismemberment of Israel, the overall effect of which would be to weaken Israel generally, including perhaps even its basic will to resist.
Preemption, in some form or other (and this includes newly promising and nonexplosive forms of cyber defense or cyber-warfare), may still be essential to Israel’s survival. At the same time, Oslo/Road Map expectations may already have prevented Israel from striking preemptively in a timelier and more militarily assertive fashion. In a Middle East shaped by peace process expectations, such a strike might have appeared as “aggression,” thereby upsetting the delicate
“peacemaking” then allegedly underway. More than likely, the “civilized world,”
even after acknowledging Israel as the only viable democracy in the Middle East, would not have approved of any such Israeli “belligerence.”
What if in June 1981 Menachem Begin had thought in these terms? What if he had chosen to forego the preemption option against Iraq at that time? What sorts of warheads would have then been fitted on Iraqi Scuds ten years later? What sorts of WMD would have confronted America and its allies in Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom?
While Prime Minister Begin’s timely actions at Osiraq (Operation Opera)16 probably did save the country from “another Holocaust” (Begin’s own words after the uniquely successful raid), subsequent prime ministers Barak, Sharon, Olmert, and Netanyahu all refused to act meaningfully against Iran. As for the intermittent “sanctions” imposed by the UN and US, they certainly have not been very effective.
General Yitzhak Rabin, on the eve of the Yom Kippur War, assured his countrymen that the Arabs would not attack. This view, derived from the similarly misconceived assessment of then-minister of defense Moshe Dayan, came to be known in Israel as the mechdal, or the “concept”—the thoroughly mistaken idea that the enemy was not preparing for war. Just twenty-four hours before the attack, the official estimate of A’man on the probability of war, according to former president Chaim Herzog, was “the lowest of the low.”
Today, even after much of the Arab world has experienced far-reaching internal turmoil and political refashioning, Israel faces another possible mechdal—an omission, an instance of nonperformance, an expression of neglect with vastly more catastrophic potential. This time, perhaps, the “concept” could produce a de facto end to the Jewish State, a “solution” that Israel’s enemies would tantalizingly characterize as “final.” At the same time, from a purely strategic or operational standpoint, the prospects for a genuinely successful and lawful preemption against
Iran are now low to non-existent.
Under authoritative international law, Israel was never under any binding
obligation to comply with Oslo, and it is under no current obligations to comply with a still-emergent Road Map. On the contrary, the Jewish State has always been legally obliged to terminate asymmetrical agreements with terrorists.
Should Israel’s current prime minister somehow manage to avoid the creation of “Palestine,” Israel may still have a secure future. But, should a reconciled Fatah– Hamas unity government give way to a genuine Palestinian state, one that would be unambiguously militarized, Israel’s long-term survival could become problematic.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964; three years before there were any “occupied territories.” What, precisely, was the PLO seeking to “liberate?” The answer remains: all of Israel. In this regard, absolutely nothing has changed.

Unraveling The Video… The So Called ‘Trigger/Fuse’ of Libyan, Egyptian & Islamic Rage Sweeping The Globe…Northeast Intelligence Network…Walid Shoebat Too…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

The LATEST outrages in the Middle East…here they go again…round and round the terror bush – blamed by U.S. officialdom, as well as Muslim Mafia henchmen, on an obscure video – are textbook, classic cases of ‘now you see it…now you don’t’; ‘what we see from here…you don’t see from there’; and ‘magic is…as magic does’. 

Even Houdini wouldn’t have been able to extricate himself from all their twists and turns. Forget about it.

To be sure, the bill of goods sold by U.S. mouthpieces, are as reliable as those being spewed by Islamists all over the globe. Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s regime is in lockstep with Muslim Mafia operatives. They are parroting the same talking points; one in gobblygook English; the other, infused with threats to submit to Islamic dictates – or else.

You get the rhetorical picture…but are not allowed to see an actual one of their ‘prophet’. Not fair. Not nice at all.


What is going on here? Well, wading through the Brotherhood muck requires westerners to pay special heed to Walid Shoebat. Similarly, Northeast Intelligence Network’s Director, Douglas Hagmann, is well positioned to sift through the clues.

Below is a compendium, to date, of their findings. 

‘Body of LIes From Benghazi To Barack’ – Douglas Hagmann

“By now, it is well known that something is very wrong with the official narrative pertaining to the controversial video known to everyone as Innocence of Muslims. The official government script we are asked to believe is that this video supposedly caused the September 11, 2012 attack on the consulate in Libya and ignited the ensuing violence and death across the Muslim world that continues without abatement today. Officially, the video was cited as the primary motive in the murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. There are more than a few problems with this narrative. First, aside from the trailerthe video does not exist anywhere in any public forum. Not now, not ever.

Based on my findings from a lengthy and extensive investigation that is ongoing, the trailer (which will be referenced interchangeably in this report as “the video”) was not a motive, but a means to an end not yet seen. In fact, I believe that the entire story is even deeper and more sinister than that.

Because easily obtainable evidence exists that the video was not the cause of the violence but a made-to-order excuse for it, most investigative journalists representing the right side of the political spectrum have long stopped any meaningful, deeper inquiries, while the left-leaning press doubled down in the face of such evidence. It is obvious that the perpetuation of the longstanding right-left paradigm is still actively serving the larger agenda nicely in providing a suitable smoke screen for the truth. The truth of this matter, however, seems to be located deep within a rabbit hole straight out of Alice in Wonderland, as all is not what it appears.

Investigation leads to disturbing discoveries

During the course of any complex investigation, detectives are always searching for that elusive “ah-ha!” moment, or the point at which a breakthrough of a case is achieved. Often, that moment never arrives, or is considerably less than dramatic when it does. In this case, the truth appeared to be so adeptly hidden and convoluted that it took me a long time before I realized that many of the puzzle pieces were actually in plain view, but they were just not readily identifiable. The reason, I concluded, was that I was looking at this entire situation all wrong. That’s when the “ah-ha” moment turned into an “uh-oh” moment……

I believe that I’ve found evidence that suggests links between this video, or at least the manner in which this video was first created, then changed and finally used, to key people and entities involved with a number of suspicious events over the last decade. It would appear that some of the individuals and entities, including but not limited to high ranking members of both political parties, elected officials, and members of the intelligence community have some level of active or passive involvement in this and various past events of significance, but have adeptly maintained a plausibly deniable role by only slight degrees of separation.

To bring more specificity to the above, it would appear that there is a possible connection between the dissemination of the controversial video with the 2008 passport office break-in scandal that involved improper computer access to the passport records of Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain. The latter is an enigma in its own right, having its own level of complicity and complexity. Additionally, that particular event appears to involve other events at its periphery, including but not limited to the murder of the key witness in that case, Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr.

One thing that appears to exist, if my investigative findings are correct, is that some of the same individuals and entities that were directly and indirectly involved in the passport office break-in, including government and defense contractors, appear to have a role in the video controversy.

This leads to the third and perhaps most disturbingly critical discovery. If my investigative findings are correct, it is my opinion as a professional investigator that the events in Libya, which have now spread across the globe, were a direct result of a covert CIA mission that appears to have been compromised from within our own government. If I am incorrect, however, the alternative is even more unthinkable.

If correct, my investigative trail leads directly to the U.S. Department of State and the CIA with some level of White House involvement, at which point things become even more convoluted. It is here that one might become confused with the aforementioned “good guy versus bad guy” identification process.

Chronology of the video

14 July 2011: A “casting call” was posted to Craig’s List, soliciting actors and actresses to appear in a movie under the working title Desert Warrior. Research published by various websites such as gawker notes that key in the video’s production was 65 year-old Alan Robertsa/k/a Robert Brownell, a film director and editor of films such as Young Lady Chatterly, The Happy Hooker goes to Hollywood, and Karate Cop.

Roberts directing role was the result of a request by Egyptian native Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a/k/a “Sam Bacile,” who was allegedly an informational and possibly operational asset for the U.S. Department of Justice.

According to several cast members who appeared in the video, they were told that they were appearing in a historical drama set in the Middle East and were hoodwinked into a false plot. Some have publicly stated that some of their dialogue was changed to such an extent, that someone actually dubbed over the words they spoke. In other words, the audio was changed. After a careful review of the video trailer, this claim appears to have merit.

The video was scheduled to be shown at the Vine Theater in Los Angeles, California on 30 June, 2012 under a new title, The Innocence of Bn Laden [sic]. Two-(2) screenings were scheduled.Thousands of flyers written in Arabic were created and passed out in advance of that date.

29 June 2012 (Friday): A regular to the Los Angeles City Council meetings, a man identified as John Walsh, Hollywood resident and operator of a local blog site, participated in the general public comments. His appearance begins at the 2:30:15 mark in the archived footage of the Los Angeles meeting at City Hall. Rather cryptically, he simply asks rhetorically whether the “neo-Nazis are coming to Hollywood” and directs the council members to his blog that references the Vince Theater showing.

30 June 2012 (Saturday): Accounts of the scheduled showing differ, but based on information obtained from Steve Klein, the spokesman for the film on a special 90-minute edition of The Hagmann & Hagmann Report on Sunday, September 23, 2012, the showings were cancelled when no one showed up to watch the video. The theater reportedly “closed” the screening without incident. It is relevant to point out that the alleged screening for this video was scheduled during the time when Jews typically observe Shabbat. Therefore, it is unlikely that the screening was scheduled or otherwise arranged by anyone in the Jewish community.

1 July 2012 (Sunday): Interestingly, the title of the video that was published online was changed from The Innocence of Bn Laden to The Innocence of Muslims on a YouTube channel that hosted the trailer. The video was hosted on an account under the name Sam Bacile, who was later actually determined to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

1 July – 11 September 2012: The video lies relatively dormant until it is cited for the violence by U.S. government officials.

The official assertions made by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and Barack Hussein Obama that the controversial video was the proximal cause of the initial spate of violence or protests can be readily dispelled by simply looking at the history of the number of views through September 11, 2012. The video did not gain notoriety until the murderous events had already concluded in Libya.

Internet profile

Having received training and certification in Internet Profiling, I began to look into the Internet activity related to the video right after the murder of Stevens and the violence that was attributed to the video. This investigation was as elusive as it was revealing, as I began to note that links to the video began disappearing after I would visit various sites related to the video or its apparent “host.”

It was on or about 22 September 2012 that during my research, I found a video titled Proof Positive – In My Opinion posted by an individual on the YouTube channel under the user name “Montagraph.” I found that many of his findings mirrored mine (or mine his), although there were a few exceptions. Nonetheless, this Internet video contains links to many interesting screen captures.

The individual in the video Proof Positive – In My Opinion on the YouTube channel Montagraph details some very disturbing possibilities, including the identification of a news and politics website (a series of them, interrelated) known as NewsPoliticsNow and its various name variations, might be linked to Stanley Inc., which is now known as CGI. It is interesting that my investigative results seem to be generally consistent with his findings, and also that there appears to be a link to this company that provides products and services to the U.S. military, the U.S. State Department and DHS.

The Video, Defense Contractors & Obama…..

Interview with Steve Klein, video spokesman

After a 90-minute interview on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report with Steven Klein, the spokesman for the video that can be heard here………


At this point, I have a better grasp of the lies, misinformation and disinformation associated with the video and our government’s exploitation of it than I do solid truths.

This video appeared to come out of nowhere and seems to have been amateurishly produced. It is so poorly done that many are still unable to determine whether it was created as a parody or if it was a serious attempt at some type of documentary. It is interesting to note that among those who claim they don’t know is Mr. Klein, the current spokesman for the video. This is problematic and troublesome to say the least.

If my investigative findings are correct, there appear to be some very disconcerting ties between this video and individuals and entities associated with our own government. The official narrative of everyone from Obama to Rice to Obama presidential campaign advisor Robert Gibbs is that this specific video is to blame for the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in Libya………

Despite the gradual awakening of people to the larger agendas, both agendas seem to be working. My investigation is continuing.” – (VERY important interview re the above…and read the complete report too via Canada Free Press)

Next up…Walid Shoebat –

‘One Anti-Muhammad Film, a Terrorist Financier, and FBI Failures’

by  on SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 in BLOGGENERAL

In a shocking investigative report released today by Walid Shoebat, Research Director of Forum For Middle East Understanding, the real identity of the character and background of the “Innocence of Muslims” producer is exposed…..

Based on an Arabic media interview with Nakoula, the producer freely admitted that he is neither a Christian nor a Jew.

For this incredible expose, please click the link below.”


And here too via Frontpagemagazine – 

‘The Film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ — Made By Terrorists?

Posted by  Bio ↓ on Sep 26th, 2012

“We also ascertained from our contact in the IBC that Eiad was also involved with someone with a last name “Tanas” and Nakoula had used the name “Thomas J. Tanas.”

Both clans “Nakoula” and “Tanas” exist in Eiad’s village in Beit Sahour, Bethlehem. It is still the little town of Bethlehem as it was in biblical times.

Now let’s examine his motives.

I obtained the Sawa radio interview in Arabic of this suppose Nakoula. He was asked, “What is your position on the Jewish and the Christian faiths?” Nakoula responded, “I have no calling for these religions.” He continued to state that he was an author of several anti-Islam books (written in Arabic) refusing to give the titles of his books.

Yet, if court documents give his legal name as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, I found no books under that name. Nothing. And neither was anyone able to produce any.

The media’s narrative has nothing, and this supposed Nakoula was proven a liar a hundred times over.

Yet the media purports that the man is a Christian activist Copt. All this man’s claims were proven lies, except this one is believed?

Even what his friend stated to the court — that Nakoula is “a God-fearing man whose first priority is his family” — contradicts what he said in Arabic; he is not interested in Christianity or Judaism and is possibly a Muslim.

So who funded the film? Nakoula claimed that he produced the film with money ($50,000 to $60,000) that came from his wife’s family in Egypt.

None of this has been proven.

What has been proven is that he embezzled millions with Eiad. The money must have come from these scandalous operations, which our government finally admitted is linked to terrorist activity.

Whoever made this film claimed Jews funded him and that he was a Copt, and obviously intended to do harm to his real enemies—Israel and the Copts.

Both Copts and Israel are Eiad’s ardent enemies.

Now to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the feds were complacent: the Justice Department lawyers and federal agents, despite Nakoula’s two previous offenses, defended Nakoula and gave several excuses to Judge Snyder and pushed for leniency, all because he supposedly promised to help them catch Eiad:

[H]e [Nakoula] has implicated Mr. Salamay [aka Salameh] there is no question that Mr. Salamay at some point is gonna be indicted if he hasn’t already been… we all know what’s gonna happen. Salamay is gonna get arrested some day and based on the debriefing information turned over he is gonna enter a guilty plea, or if he doesn’t, then Mr. Nakoula is going to be called in to testify…” [see sentencing transcript].

If the feds were indeed looking to catch Eiad, he had in fact been doing his shenanigans for three decades, warrants were issued, his location was known and no arrests were ever made, in thirty some years.

The evidence compounds. Eiad was not, however, immune in Canada and was finally caught and locked up there in January 2011. We have emails from the Intelligence Bureau in Canada (IBC) who wrote us. The Canadians wanted to keep Eiad in custody as long as it took to extradite him to the United States, yet the U.S. refused for seven months to take him and preferred to fly him toPalestine.

On July 15th, 2011, the Canadians wrote me: “He is awaiting deportation to Palestine, unless the US hurry up and indict him…” The feds never responded to the Canadian’s last appeal and within a few days, Eiad was sent to Palestine.

I realize that people might try to shoot holes in what we are saying, yet, the media has very little evidence to prove its narrative, while we present many validated facts.

The results of this entire fiasco will not be the apprehension of terrorists, but the continual chipping away at the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, many Americans still practice self-blame. The film was made in the U.S., a nation that is not used to schemes like Muhammad Al Dura or what was shown in Paliwood.

Welcome to Paliwood II.”

IF it looks/smells like a set up – in order to lead the U.S. government (and others) to implement specific agendas/outcomes from the above players – then it is a setup…all their lies/denials aside!

Pre-Yom Kippur…The Video Hits Keep Coming…The United West Presents – NY State Senator Avella Offended At Muslim Parade In NYC…See Why…Adina Kutnicki

The Islamic foxes in the American hen house…wake up…or they will consume the entire west!

Presented by –

Fellow Patriotic Americans…Pass This Video Clip Forward…This Could Turn (Some of) The Electoral Tide!…Adina Kutnicki

This American-Israeli blogger is working assiduously, to place the Radical/Islamist-in-Chief into the dustbin of history – the most unfortunate period in recent memory!

Thus, ‘mission accomplished’ requires many facets…pass this one all over the web!

The Ties That Bind The Islamist-in-Chief To Sunni Islam: Making Sense Out Of A POTUS Bowing To A Saudi Monarch. Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

The nexus between Black Nationalism and Islam is inexorable. As a matter of record, Barack HUSSEIN Obama was tied to Reverend Wright (until political expediency caused him to throw the uncontrollable/voluble Rev under the bus) for over 20 years, a man who is linked to the Nation of Islam in more ways than one, despite passing himself off as a Christian –

Let’s dispense with the pleasantries – Wright is a Christian like this Israeli blogger is an Islamist. Is the moon made of cream cheese?

And, to further cogitate on the subject, Chris Wilson from offers the following insights: 

‘Are Black Muslims Sunni Or Shiite?’ 

By  | Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008

“Most are Sunnis, if they care to make the distinction. A2007 survey by the Pew Research Center found that among the several million Muslims in America, 20 percent are native-born African-Americans. Among those black Muslims, half identified themselves as Sunni—as Ellison does—and another third said they had no affiliation. There are a handful of predominantly black Shiite mosques in the United States, though they represent a small minority of all black Muslims. Another small percentage belongs to the Nation of Islam, an independent Muslim movement that has had strained relations with the mainstream Islamic community. Estimates of the Nation of Islam’s membership vary from 10,000 to 200,000 with most guesses falling near the low end.”

Indeed, does the above even matter? It matters a whole damn lot, at least if one is attempting to understand a chief construct of the Islamist-in-Chief’s mental grounding (the ‘green’ part, of the red/green alliance). 

More to the point, many are wondering: Why would a POTUS bow to a Saudi Monarch? (…. this is a first by a U.S. leader, notwithstanding Bush’s infamous hand holding with the King…while disquieting, certainly NOT on par with a bow of submission.) Furthermore: Why did he feel so much at home – getting married, and baptizing his children by Wright too – at a faux ‘Christian’ church, which is more in line with Islam than with Christianity? These are not mere speculations, they are factual occurrences.

While many factors are at play, most significant are his childhood groundings in Indonesia and his trip to Kenya, vividly described in ‘Dreams FROM My Father’. They are the core of his moorings; piggybacked by the ‘teachings of his mother’, a life-long communist/red; cemented by the ‘special relationship’ with ‘Frank’ (Frank Davis Marshal –; and reinforced by his grandfather, Stanley Dunham.

The anti-American ties that bind…red and green…diametrically in conflict with red, white and blue.

Therefore, when the following (highly explosive information) was initially released in March 2008 – subsequently covered up by a complaint media – it placed a spotlight on ties which should have brought Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s campaign to a screeching halt. However, (heretofore)  journalistic due diligence/ethics morphed into a perverse code of conduct, demanding of its members another credo: How fast can the media cover ‘The One’s’ tracks, as opposed to letting the truth land where it may? 

Faster than a ‘John’ to his whore. Liars, liars, pants on fire.

In any case, some skeletons are harder to bury than others – and that is a good thing! So, for a little re-rummaging, take a peek at the latest.

‘Saudi Billionaire Did Help Obama Into Harvard’ –

In late March 2008, on a local New York City show called “Inside City Hall,” the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico, Percy Sutton, told host Dominic Carter how he was asked to help smooth Barack Obama’s admission into Harvard Law School 20 years earlier.

The octogenarian Sutton calmly and lucidly explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.” The friend’s name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about 20 years prior.

Sutton described al-Mansour as “the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men.” The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

Given, the game-changing nature of this revelation when it surfaced in late August 2008, the Obama camp and its allies in the media, particularly Politico and Media Matters, shifted into overdrive to kill the story. Through a series of denials, lies and slanders about Sutton’s mental health, they succeeded.

The story, however, has come back to life. The elusive al-Mansour was a guest on the BlogTalkRadio show, “The National and International Roundtable,” Sept. 19, 2012.

In his introduction, the host openly acknowledged that al-Mansour “made news in 2008 when it was revealed that he had been a patron of President Barack Obama and had recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School.”

The host goes on to describe al-Mansour as “co-founder of the International law firm of al-Waleed, al-Talal and al-Mansour and special adviser to Saudi Arabian prince, his royal highness Prince Al Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulazziz.”

This meshed completely with what Sutton had said in 2008. According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to “please write a letter in support of [Obama] … a young man that has applied to Harvard.” Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.

Although Sutton did not specify a date, this would likely have been in 1988 when the 26-year-old Obama was applying to Harvard Law School.

Khalid al-Mansour was a piece of work. Although impressively well connected, the Texan-born attorney and black separatist had not met the paranoid racial fantasy unworthy of his energy.

Several of his speeches can still be seen on YouTube. In one, “A Little on the History of Jews,” he lectures the world’s Jews, “God gave you nothing. The children from Poland and Russia were promised nothing. But they are stealing the land the same as the Christians stole the lands from the Indians in America.”

For the record, bin Talal was the very same Saudi who had offered New York $10 million to help the city rebuild after 9/11, but who had his gift refused by Mayor Rudy Guiliani. In September 2001, Giuliani was in no mood to hear even a billionaire blame America for inciting the attacks with its pro-Israel stance, no matter how deep his pockets.

For deeper background into why bin Talal might have been helping Obama, read Frank Miele’s excellent piece in the unlikely Daily Interlake of Kalispell, Mont.

Ben Smith, then of Politico, took the lead in killing the story. Shortly after the story broke, Smith ran the disclaimer that “Barack Obama’s campaign is flatly denying a story told by former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton.”

The Obama camp, in fact, denied that Obama even knew al-Mansour. Smith then talked to al-Mansour. At first, al-Mansour avoided contradicting Sutton’s story out of respect for Sutton, “a dear friend.” When pressed, however, al-Mansour disowned Sutton’s story. “The scenario as it related to me did not happen,” he reportedly told Smith.

A self-appointed “spokesman for Sutton’s family” by the name of Kevin Wardally put the penultimate nails in this story’s coffin with an email to Smith that read in part: “As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”

For Smith, even though Wardally had gotten Sutton’s age wrong by two years, this emailed slander was proof enough that Sutton’s highly specific claim was manufactured. Media Matters, meanwhile, scolded those conservative bloggers that did not accept the various denials at face value.

Independent journalist Ken Timmerman, now running for Congress in Maryland, followed up with Wardally. Unconvincingly, Wardally claimed that a nephew of the elder Sutton had retained his services.

Sutton’s son and daughter, however, told Timmerman that no one in their family even knew who Kevin Wardally was, let alone authorized him to speak on behalf of the family.

When Timmerman contacted al-Mansour, he repeatedly declined to comment on what Sutton had said and, contrary to the line from the Obama camp, claimed to know Obama personally.

With Hillary out of the race, no newsroom in America felt compelled to follow up on Timmerman’s research. At the time this story was gelling, in early September 2008, the media were doing all their digging in Alaskan dumpsters. The 89-year-old Sutton died in December 2009.

The Obama media will try to ignore this new revelation or, if not, kill it. Their best argument now is that al-Mansour was not on the air when his introduction was read. That is true enough.

Yet from the casual tone of the introduction, the listener senses that within black nationalist circles, the story Sutton told is believed to be true. If so, it should absolutely matter that a Saudi billionaire and his black nationalist cohorts have been promoting Obama from the beginning.

Ben Smith is now editor of Buzzfeed. If he ever wants to be taken seriously as a journalist, the onus is on him to follow up. If he wants to throw his peers a bone, he can report that bin Talal owns 7 percent of News Corp., the parent company of Fox News.” (video embedded).

Far be it from this blogger to be mean spirited but come on folks, did anyone think how a pot smoking, less than stellar student at Occidental – a barely middle tier school – managed to get into Columbia? Now, that is worthy of a head scratch! Moreover, who paid his fees?

How stupid do they (his surrogates in the media, as well as his endless band of liars) think we are?


Again, some bones refuse to stay buried!


DEBKAfile Intelligence Reveals A ‘Eureka’ Moment For Jerusalem’s Leaders…Is It Too Little Too Late?…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

While every leader is obligated to act in the best interests of their nation, this otherwise obvious, rational and patriotic conclusion is not always as it appears.

Not by a long shot.

On one side of the equation, there is a preponderance of evidence leading in a definite direction – the Islamist-in-Chief is operating against American interests, both domestically and foreign policy-wise.

This ‘science’ has been settled, despite the braying of his mendacious (and a fraction of clueless ) cheerleaders.

What is less obvious, is precisely how Israel’s leaders – particularly in regard to the Iranian menace, and also in relation to Israel’s war with the PA/Fatah/Hamas junta – have allowed Washington to steer Jerusalem’s ship of state. In no small measure, a deleterious abrogation of duty.

Israel’s Ship Of Fools – – is a decidely appropriate skewering.

Consequently, Israel’s leaders find themselves at the bewitching hour; a time in which half of world Jewry stands imperiled, including yours truly.


Thus, the latest crisis to unfold may be a blessing in disguise, but only if it takes the scales off of the leadership’s eyes!

‘Obama snubs Netanyahu on Iran: My decisions – only what’s right for America’

DEBKAfile Special Report September 24, 2012,

“US President Barack Obama said Sunday night, Sept. 23 on CBS “60 Minutes” that he understands and agrees with Netanyahu’s insistence that Iran not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons as this would threaten both countries, the world in general and kick off an arms race. But he then added: “When it comes to our national security decisions – any pressure that I feel is simply to do what’s right for the American people. And I am going to block out – any noise that’s out there.”

Obama went on to say: “Now I feel an obligation – not pressure but obligation – to make sure that we’re in close consultation with the Israelis on these issues because it affects them deeply.”

So, consultation? yes; cooperation? forget it. His comments removed the last hopes Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have entertained of cooperation with the US for curtailing Iran’s nuclear designs by military force.

The US president was crystal clear: By saying he will be ruled solely by American security interests, he showed them that they too were being left to be guided by Israel’s security interests. So forget about red lines for America, he was telling Netanyahu.
His blunt verging-on-contemptuous dismissal of Israel’s concerns as “noise out there” was not much different from the way Iran’s leaders referred to the Jewish state.
Their threats against Israel have different dimensions: On the one hand, they say that if Israel is even thinking of attacking Iran, it will be destroyed in a preemptive attack. On the other, Israel has neither the military capability nor the courage to strike Iran.
Asked on CNN Sunday whether he feared a war with Israel was imminent, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: “The Zionists are very much, very adventuresome… They seek to fabricate new opportunities for themselves and their adventurous behaviors.”
Obama’ “noises” are Ahmadinejad’s “fabrications.”

The Iranian president had no need to explain how Iran would react, because the answer was broadcast ahead of his arrival in New York to address the UN General Assembly Thursday, by Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Revolutionary Guards missile section.

The general said Sunday:  Should Israel and Iran engage militarily, “nothing is predictable… and it will turn into World War III” Addressing Iran’s Arab-language network, he said, “In circumstances in which they (the Israelis) have prepared everything for an attack, it is possible that we will make a pre-emptive attack. Any Israeli strike would be presumed to be authorized by the US. Therefore, “we will definitely attackUS bases in Bahrain, Qatar and Afghanistan.”

Tehran was therefore pulling against Obama by tying American and Israeli security interests into an inextricable bundle.

DEBKAfile’s Jerusalem sources report that Netanyahu is now seriously considering calling off his trip to New York for a speech to the UN General Assembly scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 27. He realizes that by challenging US policy from the UN platform, he would lay himself open to criticism for gratuitous provocation of the president and interference in America’s election campaign weeks before a presidential election.

Obama’s Republican challenger Mitt Romney, in a separate CBS interview, attacked Obama’s reference to Israel’s legitimate concerns about a nuclear Iran as “noise out there,” calling it “just the latest evidence of his chronic disregard for the security of our closest ally in the Middle East.”

Earlier, Romney termed the president’s decision not to meet Netanyahu as sending a message throughout the Middle East “that we distance ourselves from our friends.”
As DEBKAfile reported after that Obama snub, the wrangling with Washington has reduced Netanyahu’s options to start standing alone and making his own decisions.
Obama’s latest words underline this. The prime minister can no longer avoid his most fateful decision and one that is critical to Israel’s survival: to attack Iran and disrupt its nuclear program or live with an anti-Semitic nuclear Iran dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state and a threat to world stability.

For two weeks, the Israeli prime minister has dodged and ducked around the White House message. Instead, he has kept on bombarding Washington with high-powered messengers. They all came back with the same tidings: the US President is not only fed up with Israeli pressure but more determined than evade any military engagement with Iran.—only-what%E2%80%99s-right-for-AmericaShored up here –

Sach ha’kol, at the end of it all, the Islamist-in-Chief has not only abandoned Israel  ( America’s so called ‘best friend’, but mainly due to its similar outlook, among a region full of barbarians ), but the U.S. too.

The results will become glaringly obvious in the none too distant future. And, Barack HUSSEIN Obama will go down in historical infamy, not unlike Neville Chamberlin- or worse! (

History repeats.

What Constitutes “Mysterious” Deaths Under The Obama Regime…Whether Sexually Related Or Otherwise?…Addendum To: Mysterious Deaths Never Far Behind From Barack HUSSEIN Obama…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Unfettered illegal immigration is a centerpiece of the Radical-in-Chief’s plans to “transform” America. Few are aware of his detailed countermeasures, positioned against those working tirelessly to secure the borders. His underlings fight law enforcement’s efforts, but mostly  under the radar. However, some have come to the forefront.

After all, what better way to ensure a permanent voting base, but from a segment of the electorate who view entitlements – from cradle to the grave – as their right, and are lawbreakers from the get go?

Matches made in illegal hell – the Thug-in-Chief koshering illegals into “legals”. In this regard, many are familiar with the political tussles between Sheriff Arpaio and the Federal government, and the Radical-in-Chief’s thwarting of law enforcement’s sworn duties, to detain/arrest illegal immigrants. In fact, the Feds are behaving as advocates for lawbreakers, instead of protectors of law and order –

Imagine that….banana republic-style Federales.

Furthermore, Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer has been waging a public battle with Barack HUSSEIN Obama, to ensure that illegal immigration is treated as the crime that it is. But no matter…the Thug-in-Chief leads in the polar opposite direction, amply evidenced below –

‘Gov. Jan Brewer Battles Obama’s DREAM Directive in Arizona’

by Aug 17, 2012

“The GOP governor tries to thwart Obama’s decision allowing some undocumented kids to apply for work permits by issuing her own directive denying them drivers’ licenses. Critics call her order mean-spirited and ill-advised political posturing….”
Without a doubt, aiding illegal immigration is one of the Thief-in-Chief’s top priorities, and herein lies the fruits of his labors – 

So, what does the above have to do with the commentary headline – ‘What Constitutes Mysterious Deaths Under The Reign Of Obama…’? The news below fits right in….

‘Arizona Sheriff Who Exposed Obama Administration On Border Arrests Is Dead’ –

“On Tuesday, night, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever was killed in a single vehicle crash while on his way to join his sons on a family hunting trip near White Horses Lake, according to the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO).

The Tucson Sentinel reports that an unidentified driver was actually following Sheriff Dever on the lonely Forest Service road, but lost sight of his 2008 Chevrolet pickup for a brief period.

Then, the driver “saw what appeared to be a cloud of dust, and as he came closer he learned that the vehicle had rolled over and was resting on its wheels.”

The witness told 911 operators: “he did not detect any signs of life from the single occupant of the vehicle,” according to a CCSO press release.

Sheriff Dever leaves behind a wife, six children and 11 grandchildren.

He will be remembered as a man who spoke truth to power and was not afraid to point out the lies coming out of Washington concerning the dangers faced by Americans living along the Mexican border.

In March 2011, Dever told Fox News that for two years, U.S. Border Patrol officials had been telling him they were ordered on multiple occasions to reduce and even stop apprehending illegal aliens crossing the U.S./Mexican border.

Sheriff Dever said that a Border Patrol supervisor informed him that the agency was ordered to keep the number of arrests down during specific reporting periods.

“The senior supervisor agent is telling me about how their mission is now to scare people back. He said, ‘I had to go back to my guys and tell them not to catch anybody, that their job is to chase people away. … They were not to catch anyone, arrest anyone. Their job was to set up posture, to intimidate people, to get them to go back,'” Dever said.

The following month, Dever told the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security that the Border Patrol’s new policy of giving a warning to illegal crossers rather than taking them into custody, known as “Turn Back South” was not only being practiced near the border, but far north of it as well.

Dever reported: “It appears, according to numerous reports from current and former border agents, that this practice has gravitated many miles north of the border. That means that, regardless of proximity to the border, people who are detected but not caught are considered to be ‘Turned Back South.'”

The testimony was in direct conflict with the Obama administration’s public assertions on border security.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has been continuously telling us that the number of illegal aliens entering this country from Mexico has dropped substantially since Obama has became president, based on declining border apprehensions.

In February 2011, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced that during 2010, illegal alien apprehensions fell by 36 percent from the previous year…Dever’s revelation may explain why.”

Now, tar and feather this blogger a suspicious sort , having penned ‘ Mysterious Deaths Never Far From Barack HUSSEIN Obama…Bad Luck Or Something More? You Decide’ back in mid July –
But when those who have the “goods” on the POTUS’s personal proclivities; or are instrumental in spotlighting illegal measures mandated under his Presidential purview, start dropping like flies ( in this latest incident, run off the road ! ); what else should a rational blogger – or citizens in general – conclude?
Again, you decide.

When Is It “Honorable” To Lie….And Under Whose Cultural System?…Further Exposing The ‘Clash of Civilizations’…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

NO effort has been spared…many tears shed too…trying to inform others about the “reasoning” behind the barbaric behavior of countless adherents to Allah, as they rampage from one swathe of the globe to another.

As a matter of fact, many well meaning people scratch their heads in bewilderment, and with their mouths agape, ponder: how is it possible that devotees of the misnamed “religion of peace” (in such large numbers) can behave like animals, going for each other’s throats, as they lunge for infidels too?

Mind you, many of the questioners are otherwise intelligent people. Heck, some even have advanced degrees, and from the (once hallowed) Ivies no less!

Be that as it may, the above is an URGENT question which demands an immediate answer. Faster…faster…

With this in mind, it matters not a whit if yours truly appears to be repeating herself…commentary after commentary…as long as the message is finally received. After all, who has time for ego-driven massaging in such perilous times? Not this blogger…a patriotic American and a Zionist too…an explosive combination…a bull’s eye on ones back.

Therefore, it behooves linking back to the following, thus illuminating exactly why the so called “moderate” believers in Islam are not exactly what they seem. Far from it.

The tippy top of the Islamic spear requires a basic, yet no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners understanding of Islamic “infiltration and penetration” – The amount is breathtaking in scope. Readers, take the time to learn its lessons well. Consider it to be no less important than learning life-saving CPR, but in the intellectual/practical realm.

Lesson Number One – renders an overview, explaining how westerners are duped into coma-like dreams…all the while Shariah adherents plan their “stealth jihad”… way down to the most minutia of details…they are a patient people…a people of the desert…with little else, but time on their hands –,

Onto….Lesson Number Two – demonstrates what happens when Lesson Number One is not internalized…not a pretty picture –,

Further exposing the results of the above complacency, Lesson Number Three – illustrates the submissive conduct of the Pentagon, effectively operating as the arm of the Brotherhood, powerless to stop their march too –,

Not to be missed is Lesson Number Four – whereby the west’s notion of democracy is used as a sword of Damocles over its head…effectively wielded by radical leftists…in the service of their Islamic (‘marriage of convenience’) counterparts…the morphing of the “red/green alliance” –,

Lesson Number Five is really a doozy…as parents learn the ultimate, most costly lesson…as they finally internalize why some of their kiddies are behaving like Obamabots…and the part played by malignant, western academics …a wet noodle like few others –

So, as the Muslim Mafia’s front man struts his stuff – particularly as the Islamist-in-Chief jumps to his tune – wonder no longer how it happened…Lesson Number Six extrapolates herein –,

Not that this is the final lesson, far from it, but Lesson Number Seven pierces the veil of secrecy…exposing how close the Brotherhood Mafia is to achieving their goals…courtesy of western enablers…and a ( mostly ) sleeping/complacent/compliant citizenry –

Which brings us all to the latest revelation, but hardly an unexpected one. That is, if one has learned their lessons well!

‘Mohamed ElBaradei’s Party Demands Sharia In Egypt’

by  on SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 in GENERAL

By Theodore Shoebat

“Mohamed ElBaradei has been seen as the face of the Egyptian revolution, and also as a major moderate voice. He is even a Nobel Peace Prize winner. During the revolution he had given us words which could only appease modern ears,such as this:

The priority for me is to — is to shift Egypt into a democracy, is to catch up with the 21st century, to get Egypt to be a modern and moderate society and respecting human rights, respecting the basic freedoms of the people.

But such statements are only used to tickle Western ears. ElBaradei’s group, the Dostur Party, had shown its colors today. Dr Mohamed Yousry Salameh, the Executive Member of the party said that the Dostur Party needs to call on Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood to begin an implementation of Sharia in Egypt.

On his Facebook he says:

So who is now stopping us from enforcing Sharia, including all its edicts as you all want? Answer: its the president, and his party [the Muslim Brotherhood]. It is he, after all who is in power… so what do they have to stop this [Sharia]? Answer: nothing. …They are some who say that the society is not ready for this [Sharia], but this is a statement if I said it, or so and so said it, they will peel his skin alive, while if others [the Muslim Brotherhood] say it is alright.

He is clearly implying that everybody in Egypt wants Sharia, and there is nothing in the country stopping it from being passed, except for the president and his party.”

And, for further elucidation  see this too, shoring up the “clash between civilizations”, regardless of those who seek to wish it away –, and this blatant THREAT by Morsi too –

In plain English, the so called “moderate” El Baradei  ( recall, he was touted as the best hope, by western poohbahs, for Egypt’s burgeoning ‘democracy’ movement-aka ‘Arab Spring’) is feeling confident enough to bare his Islamic fangs under Salameh, his front man.

The point being, Morsi….El Baradei…this Islamist, or that one, is hardly the issue. The issue is which trigger point will allow Morsi to declare, before the western world, what his/the Brotherhood’s real plans/goals are. 

Many westerners fail to intuit a basic Islamic dichotomy, and rarely question: how can Islamists act pragmatically in many respects, when many of their counterparts are incapable of quelling their Allah-fueled jihad? A mostly overlooked premise, and one which has deadly consequences for western civilization; inadvertently helped along by those too lazy to investigate ‘this or that’.

Simply put, Islamic culture views life/death through a polar opposite prism ( they revel/worship death, oozing an insatiable blood lust…westerners love life ), causing it to be a major fault-line between the two civilizations –

Moreover, it is through another main cultural difference that they are able to impose themselves upon western civilization…they aren’t as unsophisticated as they appear. In reality, they can run circles around many western pundits.

It is through learning the “art” of  practical, incremental, patient, stealth jihad they are able to accomplish their main goal – the submission of the west. My G-d, Islam literally means “to submit”! Most pointedly, Islamic/Arab culture values patience as a virtue, even if it takes decades or centuries to accomplish their goals. 

Moving right along to a current thought experiment – if the world’s largest Arab nation is on the verge of starvation, wouldn’t it be more prudent to take baby steps towards Shariah, thus ensuring that the money flow – really a jizya tax – is paid? 

Therefore, while the foot soldiers of Allah rampage pillar to post, their western counterparts – who are suited in western garb – bleed  U.S. ( the west ) coffers dry, all the while western citizens are conditioned to submit too.

Who said being an Islamist doesn’t pay?

Does, “having your cake and eating it too” take on a more nuanced meaning?