BENGHAZIGATE UPDATES: Further Nexus To Morsi’s Brotherhood Mafia; Linkage To MALIK OBAMA & Hillary Clinton Up To Her Neck In Blame…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

WHEN the U.N. can no longer mask the obvious it is high time that the rest of the footdraggers follow suit. How so? Well, there are few addresses whereby up is down and evil is good, and the UN qualifies as one main institution. A culprit.

Now, some evidence, once amassed, becomes solid as a rock. So the proofs leading up to Benghazigate’s killers, and who they are tied into, couldn’t be stronger. Along these lines, let us recap what has already been unearthed and build our case up from there. NO sense reinventing the wheel.

Benghazigate’s stonewall, Egypt’s Brotherhood, its fingerprints and the Blind Sheikh too are prima facie elements. As a result, there is a growing case for the POTUS’s impeachment for arming the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda linked offshoots, which surely is more than a qualifier, not to mention a sundry list of other crimes.

Here comes the UN cesspool, unable to turn tail… 

U.N. ID’s Egyptian Terror network in Benghazi Attack – video embedded

by  on October 24, 2013
The United Nations Security Council has named Muhammad Jamal Abdo Al-Kashif and his Jamal Network as being involved in the attacks on U.S. installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12. It further acknowledges Al-Kashif’s connection to Al-Qaeda’s number one, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is reported to have worked with former Egyptian president Mohammed Mursi to establish terrorist camps in the Sinai and along the Egyptian / Libyan border.Al-Kashif: Benghazi suspect in Egyptian jail (shouts while holding photo of bin Laden)Al-Kashif: Benghazi suspect in Egyptian jail (shouts while holding photo of bin Laden)We introduce this U.N. document as EXHIBIT AH of our “Ironclad” Report.Via UN.org (h/t LWJ), here is what is written about Al-Kashif:

Former top military commander of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (QE.A.3.01). Since 2011,established Muhammad Jamal Network (MJN) (QE.M.136.13) and terrorist training camps in Egypt and Libya. Conducted MJN’s terrorist activities with support from Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) (QE.A.129.10). Reported to be involved in the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 Sep. 2012. Headed Nasr City terrorist cell in Egypt in 2012. Linked to Aiman al-Zawahiri (QI.A.6.01) {emphasis ours}

Let’s view this EXHIBT AH, EXHIBT AG, and Addendum N together.

EXHIBT AH: U.N. acknowledges that Al-Kashif, an Egyptian with ties to al-Qaeda’s number one, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was likely involved in the Benghazi attacks.

EXHIBIT AG: U.S. officials, to include the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, acknowledge for the first time that at least two individuals from “Al-Qaeda core” (Al-Zawahiri’s base) were involved in the Benghazi attacks.

Addendum N: Reports of recorded phone conversations between then Egyptian president Mohammed Mursi and Ayman al-Zawahiri to coordinate the release of Jihadi terrorists in order to form terror camps in Sinai and along the Egyptian / Libyan border.

Taken together, these would seem to implicate Mursi even further in the Benghazi attacks.

As the LWJ article points out, while the U.S. State Department recently identified Al-Kashif and his Jamal Network as being terrorist entities, they were not identified as suspects in the Benghazi attacks (EXHIBIT AF) and Al-Kashif was not identified as being part of the Nasr City cell that was broken up in October of 2012.

There are two possible reasons for such omissions being made by State. If al-Zawahiri is the connection between Al-Kashif and Mursi, the U.S. State Department might not want this known. Second, by acknowledging that Al-Kashif was part of the Nasr City cell, State would have to acknowledge Al-Kashif’s subsequent arrest, which would also mean that an Egyptian with ties to Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Muslim Brotherhood who is also a suspect in the Benghazi attacks, is also locked up and no longer on the run.

Calling attention to the fact that Egypt has a Benghazi suspect jailed could increase demands from the American public that the FBI have access to Al-Kashif.

What he might reveal could be beyond explosive.

Now, let’s place more nails, proving Obama Inc’s complicity with Benghazigate and its requisite cover/hush up…but  we need to internalize who the players are and where they ultimately lead – back to Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s (and surrogates) door via Morsi’s Mafia, and the Islamist-in-Chief’s half-brother, Malik Obama!  Still, there is more fuel to add to Obama’s Mid East fires.

Isn’t it time to make this Benghazi Suspect Famous?

Reports of U.S. Intelligence documents being leaked in Egypt show a lead suspect in Benghazi attack met with brother of al-Qaeda leader and was pardoned by then Egyptian president Mohammed Mursi.
Al-Kashif: Time to make this Benghazi suspect famous?Al-Kashif: Time to make this Benghazi suspect famous?Last year, a left-wing group known as Invisible Children – as evidenced by the group’s love forSamantha Power and Cass Sunstein – launched a Kony 2012 campaign that was designed to“make Kony famous” with the help of a viral video. Joseph Kony is an evil warlord who should rightfully be brought to justice but the campaign smacked of political opportunism that included thesale of Kony merchandise with the manufactured assistance of the Hollywood celebrity culture.Even White House press secretary Jay Carney chimed in on the effort.When the elevation of Kony’s public profile is juxtaposed with the absence of such an effort to draw attention to a figure who has been identified by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as a lead suspect in the 2012 Benghazi attack and even by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist, why isn’t there an effort to make Muhammad Jamal Abdo Al-Kashif famous? After all, he is a lead suspect in the Benghazi attack.You know what else? He’s in jail in Egypt and the vast majority of Americans know neither this nor his name.Why?Perhaps a reading of some relatively recent history can help us answer that question.Via Al-Watan News from one year ago (translated):

Intelligence reports warned of Cairo becoming a new focus for al-Qaeda. This was also revealed by the involvement of elements of the organization in the bombing of a building in Nasr City.

The Egyptian newspaper “Sabah” provided important information in the form of clues that led to the physical presence of members of al-Qaeda in Cairo. These members took advantage of the situation that followed the revolution which made it easier for their presence there. This information refers to the existence of links between the formation of the Nasr City cell and the killing of the American ambassador in Benghazi.

Highlights at the front of the scene name jihadist Muhammad Jamal Abdo Al-Kashif, who was released by President Mursi after the revolution, and who is accused by U.S. intelligence reports of training elements that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing the ambassador and three American diplomats. {emphasis ours}

Note: There is a point of confusion we need to underscore here. Al-Kashif was reportedly freed / released from prison in the weeks after the fall of Hosni Mubarak. This would have been prior to Mursi becoming president (this happened on June 24, 2012). We have seen reports that Mursi pardoned Al-Kashif but have been unable to determine if this means Mursi was involved in Al-Kashif’s physical release or pardoned him later.

Al-Watan also reported on Al-Kashif’s meeting wit Mohammed al-Zawahiri, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawwahiri (keep in mind that the cousin of the al-Zawahiri brothers was Mursi’s chief of staff):

Commenting on this information, Dr. Mohammed al-Zawahiri, the brother of Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda leader, denied the presence of cells organized in Egypt, stressing in a statement that al-Qaeda has become just a thought and ended its presence after the killing of Osama bin Laden, and said that “everything on this issue arises just to excite journalists and has no presence on the ground.”

The brother of the al-Qaeda leader revealed that he’d had a meeting with Sheikh Muhammad Jamal Abdo Al-Kashif but only once. Zawahiri said they talked in the affairs of the call (Da’wa) and did not touch the subject of the armed operations. {emphasis ours}

So why doesn’t the Obama administration want to help make Al-Kashif famous like it was willing to do with Kony?

Perhaps it has something to do with why it doesn’t seem interested in making famous the guy responsible for funding and arming Kony; that would be Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan who, like Mursi, represents the Muslim Brotherhood.

Benghazi just keeps getting closer and closer and closer to Mursi.

Benghazi just keeps getting closer and closer and closer to Mursi.

Barack Obama’s half-brother Malik works for al-Bashir as Executive Secretary of the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO). Making al-Bashir the focus of fame instead of Kony would get too close to Malik Obama.

Making al-Kashif famous would implicate another (former) head of state who represents the Muslim Brotherhood – Mohammed Mursi in Egypt – in the attack in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans. It would also implicate the Obama administration, which supported Mursi’s presidency.

The Al-Watan article from one year ago comports with the recent admission by the U.S. State Department that al-Kashif is a terrorist, as well as with the recent UNSC report that says he was involved in the Benghazi attack.

Why isn’t al-Kashif famous yet?

There are few times whereby a “smoking gun” isn’t even necessary to bring the suspects to heel. This is one of those times. The stepping stones have all been laid out, and again, they land straight back, coming full circle, to the POTUS’s door. They drag in his family and his BFF, Morsi’s Brotherhood Mafia.

YET, let us dare not forget the primary, starring role played by the Islamist-in-Chief’s true significant other, Valerie Jarrett. Nothing passes muster without her approval, so when he goes down, she (and several other surrogates, Hill & Huma are inextricably linked) must land in a cell alongside him. More than a worthy cell mate….besides, there is no statute of limitations on treason. Therefore, the entire crew MUST go down for their crimes against the American people. There is no such thing, in crimes of this nature, as “out of sight, out of mind”.

Israel’s Political Leaders (Via Releasing Terrorists/Murderers & So Much More) Betray Zionist Public: Beholden To The “Gang Of The Rule Of Law”. Professor Paul Eidelberg Elucidates

WITH the ongoing “peace” train chugging apace, much has been written about the seemingly “inexplicable”, counter intuitive behavior of Israel’s leaders, particularly regarding their bowing, scraping and appeasing of foreign players who wish the Jewish homeland ill will. Yes, they do, regardless of their sweet nothings. In fact, what kind of “friends” demand that terrorists/murderers be set free, as a condition for “peace” to spring forth? More to the point, what type of “peace” partners MAKE such demands in the first place? As to Israel’s leaders agreeing to such insanity, well, therein necessitates the commentary. The national tragedy.

Time and again, Israel’s leadership outdo themselves through their mendacious (actionable) behaviorbecoming “legal” outlaws in the process – Nullum Crimen Sine Poena: No Crime Without Punishment. A partial listing of recent terrorists/murderers released by PM Netanyahu cries out for Jewish justice – from Israel’s derelict and craven leadership! So much so, stalwart Zionists can’t help but take them to task and upbraid them publicly. To assert that this is a painstaking, depressing and degrading task, well, is to underestimate the gravity of the situation. The “matzav”.

But before we assess the heart of the matter – to garner a clear understanding of how Israel got from there to here – it is worth reviewing some content for contextual heft. Let us now do so, mainly through Israel’s ship of fools and Confronting Israel’s Precarious Future: An Interview With Dr. Martin Sherman.

Onto the (putrid) meat….

The Reported but Ignored Conspiracy of Israel’s Government:

Ariel Sharon, The Role Model of Benjamin Netanyahu

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Prologue. The time: June 21, 2005. Imagine [then] Prime Minister Ariel Sharon scanning the Jerusalem Post during a trip to Washington. He knows the Post is about the only Israeli newspaper read by American officials. He sees the weekly article penned by the Post’s most respected political analyst, Caroline Glick. Her article is dated June 21, 2005, just a few weeks before Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. The article is entitled:

A coward for a prime minister”

 The longest chapter in Machiavelli’s The Prince is on conspiracy. A profound but unreported conspiracy was perpetrated in Israel ten years ago. Strange as it may seem, details of the conspiracy were publicized by [former] Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin in a wide-ranging interview of Ariel Sharon by journalist Ari Shavit and published in the June 5, 2003 issue of Ha’aretz Magazine.[1] The interview contains unprecedented and startling revelations. Indeed, Mr. Rivlin exposed what may arguably be called a criminal conspiracy of Israel’s entire Political and Judicial Establishment! What is more, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu current endorsement of a Palestinian state is the consummation of this conspiracy!

Part I. Introduction to the Rivlin Revelations

Ari Shavit entitled his June 5, 2003 interview of Speaker Rivlin “Courting Disaster,” à propos of the policy of territorial retreat or “disengagement” adopted by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This policy necessitated a legal or judicial foundation. Abandoning Gaza required the forced expulsion of 8,000 Jews from their homes. Since this involved a basic issue of law, it required the cooperation or collaboration of Israel’s Supreme Court.

Shavit’s interview of Rivlin tells the unvarnished story. Speaker Rivlin not only had much to say about Ariel Sharon’s character, but also about the mentality of Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak. Sharon needed Judge Barak to “legalize” Israel’s Gaza withdrawal, which amounted to a Jewish cleansing policy. Stated more precisely, Sharon needed Judge Barak’s judicial cooperation because the forced expulsion of Jews from their homes in Gaza was clearly a violation of their property rights, indeed, of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom of which Barak was the principal author!

To legalize the expulsion, the Barak Court simply held that Gaza (as well as Judea and Samaria) are “belligerent occupied territory” to which the Basic Law in question does not apply. But what gave the Supreme Court the authority to designate Gaza “belligerent occupied territory” and ignore that Basic Law?  No such judicial power was granted to the Court by any legislation of the Knesset. Chief Justice Barak simply proclaimed the unprecedented dictum that “everything is justiciable,” a dictum that gave the Court virtually unlimited power. This and more is spelled out in the Rivlin interview of June 5, 2003.

Before examining this extraordinary aspect of the Rivlin interview, the fact that political scientists virtually ignored the revolutionary implications of Barak’s dictum suggests they were either suffering from a cerebral vacuity or that most were reluctant to publicly denounce Sharon’s adoption of Labor’s disengagement policy, even though this policy had been opposed by Israel’s highest military and intelligence officials in public testimony before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee!

However, rather than impugn the intelligence and patriotism of the political science fraternity, let us exercise our intellects and perhaps amuse ourselves by exploring the more interesting scenario of a publicized but ignored conspiracy, even though it may be nothing more than a case of political cowardice and stupidity, characteristics often attributed to Israel’s government and its advisors. We don’t want to be confused with conspiracy addicts.

Accordingly, to clear the ground for a serious and scholarly inquiry, I shall cite the most relevant parts of Mr. Rivlin’s June 5, 2003 Ha’aretz interview and let the reader himself answer the accusatory question, “What’s going on here in Israel?” I hasten to add that the Rivlin interview is by no means dated, for Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is following the Sharon-Barak legacy so candidly exposed by the Knesset Speaker.

Part II. The Rivlin Revelations

Of its many fascinating revelations, most significant are those involving the character of Israel’s ruling elites and the authenticity of Israeli democracy.  Only two need concern us:

  • Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was a “closet leftist,” and
  • Chief Justice Aharon Barak’s dictum that “everything is justiciable” was nothing less than a “putsch,” a coup d’état.”[2]

It was precisely the Barak dictum that “everything is justiciable” that allowed the Court to “legalize” the government’s “unilateral disengagement” policy and the consequent expulsion of Jews from Gaza. This dictum, which virtually transformed Israel into a judicial dictatorship, violates the democratic orientation of the prophets of Israel, who were the primary defenders of the rights of the Jewish people vis-à-vis their government.

For the sake of clarity, I will divide Rivlin’s far-ranging interview into sections and inject only a few explanatory remarks.

Ari Shavit’s Interview of Speaker Rivlin

Shavit asks Rivlin: “Is [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon tormented by his personal responsibility for the establishment of the settlements and the need to deal with his mistakes?”

Rivlin: “Whereas in the personal realm Sharon is a very sensitive person whose eyes often grow moist, in the national realm he is entirely without emotions. He has no inhibitions. He is a Mapainik without inhibitions, referring to the Mapai party, the precursor of Labor, which was known for its rampant [left-wing (PE)] pragmatism. When he forms an opinion, nothing will stop him. No sentiment and no human commitment will hold him back.”

“Rivlin himself,” Shavit continues, “is agitated and of two minds about the Sharonist shift. In the room of the Jerusalem hotel in which we meet, his voice cracks and his eyes shine as he talks about the shattered dream of the ‘national camp’ and the loss of the Land of Israel. Even though he understands the logic that is guiding his political patron, Prime Minister [Sharon], he is not willing to accept it. He, Reuven Rivlin, will never lift a finger to hand over the Land of Israel. Even if he remains utterly alone, he will prefer to show allegiance to the lost ideal of Ze’ev Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin and to the integrity of the homeland. It is only after some time … that he begins to speak with the same fervor about the subject we are here to discuss: theconstitutional revolution, Supreme Court President Aharon Barak and the threat posed to democracy precisely by the Israeli establishments. The speaker of the Knesset does not mince his words. He talks bluntly and directly about the things that are disturbing him and making him lose sleep [emphasis added (PE)].”

B. The Relationship between Rivlin and Sharon

Shavit: “Ruby Rivlin, you are very close to Sharon. You hold intimate conversations with him. Where is he taking us?”

Rivlin: “Arik is trying to achieve a solution that will put him into the history books as a person who fomented a historical turning point – like Ben-Gurion in 1947, Begin in 1979 and Yitzhak Rabin in 1993. But Arik also understands in the clearest way possible that he cannot achieve a permanent settlement that will satisfy the Arabs. He understands that no one on the Arab side will agree to forgo the areas that he regards as essential for the defense of the State of Israel.

“I refer mainly to areas in the Jordan Rift Valley and to the strip running from Arad to Jerusalem, in the Dead Sea region. Arik is therefore aiming for a temporary settlement. But the temporary settlement he has in mind is far-reaching. He truly intends the establishment of a Palestinian state with territorial contiguity and a true separation between us and 3.5 million Palestinians.”

Shavit: “Are you saying that the moderate Sharon we have seen … is the real Sharon?”

Rivlin: “Undoubtedly. Whether I like it or not, the moderate Arik is authentic. Look, sometimes he zigzags. Sometimes he says things ambivalently, which can be interpreted either way. But to my chagrin, he has passed the point of no return. I can tell you and your readers with certainty that Arik Sharon is resolute in his position that a settlement has to be reached immediately. When he talks about the end of the occupation and about painful concessions, he is not pulling a fast one and he is not lying – unfortunately.”

Shavit: “When did you grasp that this is it, that he crossed the Rubicon?”

Rivlin: “In October. One night he called me into his office and showed me the road map and asked me for my comments. At that moment I understood that we were approaching the moment of truth. That he’s really going for it.”

Shavit: “So deep down he really has remained a Mapainik?”

Rivlin: “Without a doubt. In the end, Arik believes in security above all and is a salient pragmatist, a disciple of Ben-Gurion….

“Look, Arik Sharon has a doctrine of life that is far more coherent than what journalists give him credit for. It’s true that in the past he moved from one place to another. I myself was critical of him for changing certain positions for political purposes. But people here didn’t understand that from the day he assumed the post of prime minister, his security and political outlook was very crystallized.

“He didn’t know, and he still doesn’t know, how to reach a permanent settlement, but he is determined to recognize a Palestinian state and reach a settlement. Think about the fact that when he says the occupation is hard for the people of Israel he is really saying that the occupation corrupts. That we have the right to the land but that we can’t realize it. In this, he is actually accepting the ideology of the left.”

Shavit: “So the person who heads the Likud today is really a Ben-Gurionist?”

Rivlin: “Arik is definitely a Ben-Gurionist. In our conversations, he laughs and calls me the ideologue, and I laugh and call him [Ben-Gurion’s] disciple. But there’s nothing funny about it. It’s completely true. And for me it’s rough, because since October I have been wracked by an inner conflict between my uncompromising belief that all of Zion is ours, and my close friendship with the prime minister. That’s why, when he offered me a cabinet post in his government, I preferred to become Speaker of the Knesset. I told him openly: Arik, we are now on an irreversible collision course. You are a disciple of Ben-Gurion and I am a disciple of Jabotinsky. You are a pragmatist and I cannot free myself of my belief. I will not convert my religion, I told him. I have no intention of converting.”

C. Historic Earthquake

Shavit: “Let’s get back to him. If he is truly serious, as you describe it, there will be a settlement within half a year to a year. That’s not just talk. There will really be a historic earthquake here.

Rivlin: “For many months I’ve been telling my journalist friends that an earthquake is happening. Arik Sharon is serious about the words he is speaking. And the moment you embark on that road, there is no knowing where it will lead, because once a sacrosanct principle is shattered, anything goes. The process is very powerful.”

Shavit: “Give me a scenario. What’s going to happen?”

Rivlin: “There is one thing on which Arik will make no concessions: terrorism. On this subject Arik has no doubts and everyone can trust him, including Likudniks. If there is terrorism, he will not hand over territory. [More Jews were murdered by Arab terrorists during Sharon’s reign than under that of any other prime minister. (PE)]. But if we actually reach a situation in which a solution is found for terrorism, and there are signs that the Palestinians are trying to meet us halfway, he will establish a Palestinian state in the territories held by the Palestinians with territorial contiguity, which could be very significant from the point of view of the Israeli government’s attitude toward the sacred principle of non-evacuation of settlements.”

Shavit: “Are you saying that Sharon will evacuate settlements already in the stage of the establishment of the temporary Palestinian state?”

Rivlin: “It is definitely possible that an impossible friction between certain settlements and the need for a situation in which the Arabs will not pass through our territory and in which we will not rub shoulders with them – that this will thrust him into a situation in which he will make an Arik-style decision that it’s possible that settlements will have to be evacuated.”

Shavit: “I ask again, Ruby Rivlin: Has Arik Sharon accepted the fact that he will evacuate settlements?”

Rivlin: “What he has accepted is that for us to live within borders that make movement possible for them other than through our territory, it will be necessary to reach a decision to evacuate a number of settlements.”

Shavit: “How many settlements are we talking about?”

Rivlin: “When Arik assumed the office of prime minister, and even earlier, in discussions he held with [former prime minister] Ehud Barak, about 17 settlements [in this category] were identified.”

Shavit: “When Sharon mentions painful concessions, is he referring to these 17 settlements?”

Rivlin: “He sees them above all. Arik has made clear and explained a number of times that their evacuation is necessary in order to stabilize some sort of way in which we will be able to reach some sort of settlement. Today we have cantons. Those cantons will be unified and connected. Connecting the cantons will necessitate this blow to the settlement project. It obliges the evacuation of about 17 settlements.”

Shavit: “Are you telling me that Sharon has reconciled himself to the fact that he will evacuate 17 settlements already at the state of the interim agreement?”

Rivlin: “Yes. When he talks about painful concessions, he is talking about a concrete map that some of the Yesha people [referring to the Yesha council of Jewish settlements in the territories (brackets in original] know about and that he has already talked to them about.”

Shavit: “And does Sharon believe that an evacuation on that scale will bring about calm and conciliation?”

Rivlin: “Sharon thinks that it’s necessary to build some sort of relations of trust. Even though, knowing Sharon as I do, I don’t see him placing any trust in the Arab side” (Italics added PE).

Shavit: Not even in Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas]?

Rivlin: “Not even in Abu Mazen.”

Shavit: “So there is a basic problem in placing trust in the Arabs?”

Rivlin: “He has no trust in them (italics PE). Arik doesn’t like them much because he doesn’t believe them. But Arik knows that negotiations are not conducted only with people you believe. Negotiations are conducted in order to solve problems [!?! (PE)]. Look, Arik does not view the Arabs from a position of superiority. He sees the Arabs as people to whom we owe nothing. We owe nothing to anyone who wants to attack and kill us. That side of the issue is of no interest to him. So when he talks about 3.5 million Palestinians, it is not because of their suffering, but because he has reached the conclusion that to go on ruling them is impractical.”

Shavit: “Will he evacuate Netzarim [an isolated settlement in the Gaza Strip]?” (Bracket in original.)

Rivlin: “Arik is ready to pay the price in places where it is necessary to guarantee the Palestinians continuity. There is no such problem at Netzarim. At Netzarim, the problem is that of Netzarim, not of the Palestinians. Therefore he is more accepting of the need to evacuate [settlements] in the Binyamin region than in the Gaza Strip. But the American pressure in the direction of the Gaza District is very heavy” (brackets in original).

Shavit: “And what about the permanent settlement? Will he not forgo the Jordan Rift Valley and the Gaza Strip and the strip between Arad and Jerusalem even as part of a final peace agreement?”

Rivlon: “In my opinion, he will be more adamant on that than on the question of Jerusalem. That is his casus belli. As far as I know Arik, he will not compromise on that issue. To him, these are territories without which it is impossible to defend Israel. But a situation is liable to develop in which the decision about them will not be his to make” (italics PE).

D. New Sounds about Jerusalem

Shavit: “Is it possible that Sharon will also compromise on Jerusalem?”

Rivlin: “I don’t want to believe that. Arik is suffused with a mystical belief about Jerusalem. But when you embark on the road, you will be asked – Will you now ruin everything just because of Jerusalem? I have a musical ear. In one of his recent speeches I heard new sounds about Jerusalem. They worried me.”

Shavit: “So what you fear is that the process will pull him in further than what he himself supposes?”

Rivlin: “When you embark on a trans-Atlantic flight and the pilot informs you that you have crossed the ocean, you can no longer go back to Europe, you have to land in North America. That is Arik’s situation today, without a doubt. Politically, too. He took the risk knowingly and willingly, and he knows he will have no choice but to land on the other side….”

Shavit: “Is it your assessment that the very course Sharon has embarked on will in the end lead to the 1967 borders or something approximating them?”

Rivlin: “That’s more than an apprehension. That’s a clear scenario. Unequivocally (emphasis added (PE). Because once we live in a global village and the American sheriff is the sheriff of the whole world, you can be the world’s greatest ideologue, but you have to take account of the political situation. And from the moment a crack appears in your belief, the crack gets wider and wider. You get into a state of mind that is not amenable to change [emphasis added (PE)].

What Arik is now doing is causing the national movement to largely shed its basic tenets. Even principles that Arik promised me he would uphold just a few months ago have been eroded. We are entering a process here that does not make conditional the end of one stage before the transition to the next stage. We have already recognized the Palestinians’ right to a state and we are talking about the Saudi plan and the right of return. It’s all up for grabs. So it’s clear that even if there are things that Arik really will not forgo, his successor will continue what he began.” …

 [E] Aharon Barak

 Shavit: “Ruby Rivlin, your attack on the Supreme Court was unprecedented. What brought it on? Why do you perceive the court as being so dangerous?”

Rivlin: “In 1992 I was a member of the [Knesset’s] Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, which formulated and passed the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom. So I know what the idea behind that law was. The idea was to consolidate the rights of people insofar as they are people and the rights of the minority insofar as it is a minority. Under no circumstances was the idea to transfer legislative authority from the Knesset to another body. No one even talked about changing the balance of power between the Knesset and the court (emphasis PE).

“So a few months later, when Dan Meridor declared that a constitutional revolution had taken place, I was stunned. Dan Meridor is one of the followers of Justice Barak [Aharon Barak, the president of the Supreme Court]. Follower is a nice word. I don’t want to use a different word, heaven forbid. But unlike him, I thought – like several former Supreme Court presidents – that there had been no constitutional revolution here. No such thing.

Yet as time passed and the court moved ahead with great deliberation and by creeping annexation took over more and more powers, I realized that not only had there been a constitutional revolution, there had been a coup d’état. (emphasis added (PE). [Rivlin continuing:]I do not accept this revolution. In my view, the Knesset never approved it and therefore it is taking place contrary to the democratic spirit and without authorization.”

Shavit: “‘Coup d’état’ is a serious term to use in this context; it means a putsch” (emphasis PE).

Rivlin: “Correct. And that is the term I used at the President’s Residence last month. Supreme Court President Barak was very hurt by the expression, but in my opinion, when a group of people sit in a room and say that from this moment we are the power, that is a putsch. You tell me: Isn’t it a putsch? It’s a putsch. After all, they did not receive authorization from anyone. They did not consult with anyone. They created a situation of going ahead and seizing power.”

Shavit: “Do you see this as the imposition of a particular worldview on the public by means of an improper procedure? Do you see a move to establish a kind of enlightened absolutism?”

Rivlin: “Yes. It’s as clear as day. Aharon Barak says that we have to distinguish between the Knesset as framing and the Knesset as legislating. He says that if you don’t frame a constitution, I will set forth a constitution instead of you. But who gave him the right? Who gave him the right?”

Shavit: “What you are actually saying, then, is that the whole constitutional move that Justice Barak led in the past decade is illegitimate?”

Rivlin: “Of course. On the basis of the false claim of a constitutional revolution, a new reality was created here. A new government was forged that is above everyone: both above the Knesset and above the government and above the law, too. Take note that the court has effectively placed itself above the law….”

F.  Threat to Democracy

Shavit: “Do you really believe that the court is operating contrary to the democratic spirit and contrary to the values of democracy?”

Rivlin: “Without a doubt. The court is disrupting the whole order of government. I will give you an … example. On the issue of the Landau report [a 1987 report about the Shin Bet security service’s interrogation methods, drawn up by a commission headed by Justice Moshe Landau, a former president of the Supreme Court], Aharon Barak comes and says, Look, even if all 120 members of the Knesset tell me that in the case of a human ‘ticking bomb,’ moderate physical pressure can be used [as the Landau Commission recommended in certain interrogations], I will strike it down. In other words, Barak is placing himself above 120 legislators. He says, If I think it’s wrong, I don’t care what the Knesset thinks ….

Shavit: “Still, why now? What decisions by the court made you react so harshly?”

Rivlin: “There was of course the ruling by a Magistrate’s Court that brought the process ad absurdum. When a junior judge allows himself to invalidate a law of the Knesset, you realize that we have reached a state of total madness. But in my opinion what was even more serious was the decision by the High Court of Justice on the question of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem [when armed Palestinians took refuge there during Operation Defensive Shield in May, 2002 (brackets in original).

“The very fact that the court did not kick out the petitioners and agreed to get into a discussion about the conduct of war policy in wartime proved to me that the court is now placing itself above the government, too. Because the moment the court starts weighing the considerations of the government in matters about which only the government can decide and for which it alone bears responsibility, it’s all over. The court has actually turned itself into a meta-government.

“Therefore, I reached the conclusion that someone had to tell His Honor Justice Barak that there is a limit. Someone had to tell him, It’s not your affair. It’s the affair of the government.”

Shavit: “Do you seriously intend to curb the power of the court by means of legislation?”

Rivlin: “Definitely. It has to be done. We are talking about a burning problem. We are talking about a situation in which they are already talking about a requiem for the law, about how the judge overcame the law. And we are talking about a situation in which the judicial system is endangering the democratic system in Israel because its people are sure that they are better than others. What’s going on here, after all? Effectively there is no longer any law here because the law changes every minute according to the interpretation of the court based on some sort of meta-norm that has never been defined, so no one knows what it is. The result is a situation in which a very small group of people has arrogated to itself the authority to decide values and rules and even policy for a whole country and for a whole public that never gave them any such authorization.”….

Therefore I tell you that they are a gang …. A gang like any other gang. Except that the name of this gang is the gang of the rule of law” (emphasis PE).

 

[1] For the full text, see IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis Website: www.imra.org.il.

[2] This dictum effectively nullified Israel’s Penal Law governing treason, since it enabled the Court to legalize the yielding of Jewish land contrary to the Penal Law governing treason, which law defines four kinds of acts as treason:

1.  acts which “impair the sovereignty” of  the  State of Israel—section 97(a);

2.  acts which “impair the integrity” of the  State of Israel—section 97(b);

3.  acts under section 99 which give assistance to an “enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;

4.  acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Quest For Global Dominance – An Interview With Adina Kutnicki

My latest interview at Inquisitr…gifted to my readers.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1009405/the-muslim-brotherhoods-quest-for-global-dominance-an-interview-with-adina-kutnicki/

Hill & Her ACTUAL BODIES/SKELETONS: The Pile Up At Her Door, As She Positions For 2016…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Oh dear, doesn’t Hill have any compassion for alternative media, those of us who operate against all odds, as we attempt to beat back against the lying “mainstream” PC media in a concerted uphill climb? Doesn’t appear to be the case. Damn her…so much garbage to reveal…not enough hours in the day.

Starting with six degrees of separation, this site reveals Hill’s penchant for “swinging” both ways, even as the so called purveyors of “truth” finally catch up to speed, asking the “(in)delicate” question, from even as far away as Israel. Hey, welcome aboard. Even so, if not for Hill’s ” special relationship” with a Muslim Brotherhood operative, Huma Abedina dangerous diva in her own right, the above orientation would resonate on a lower pitch, even if disturbing on its face.

YET, aside from her nuzzling with foxy looking, sly acting Huma, there are so many other skeletons, actual bodies to unearth, courtesy of Hill and Bill! Where, oh where, to begin…perhaps, let’s start with Billy boy’s Presidency…and his diddling with an intern, yucky as it is to report on, it really is the least of it. Besides, their libidos constantly lead these two deviants astray, but they hardly skip a beat, even after hubby’s impeachment! Have you ever seen/heard anything like it?

This duo is simply incapable of being chagrined, chastened nor sidelined, and they really are akin to two “Teflon Dons”. Even her stint at State was marred by more than the usual shenanigans, as pedophilia (and other risky, money business) rocked Clinton’s staff at State

Could it get any worse? You bet. As revealed in a previous commentary, the Clinton machine is like a Mafia (no insult meant to the Mob) mop up crew, one which engages in a multiplicity of cover ups – dead bodies included !

47 Bodies Left in the Wake of Hillary Clinton: Part 1

Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton is circling the wagons and salivating over a presidential run in 2016: Hillary accrued power and her life-long dream of being POTUS is nearing.

But not so fast Hillary. Take a look at the bodies mysteriously left in Clinton’s wake!

*************************************

1 – James McDougal

James McDougal

Convicted Whitewater partner of the Clintons who died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.

The Baltimore Sun’s Carl M. Cannon wrote on March 9,1998:

James B. McDougal, a former Clinton business partner who had been cooperating with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr in the Whitewater investigation, died yesterday in a federal prison hospital in Texas. He was 58.

McDougal was serving a 3 1/2 -year sentence after Starr’s office successfully prosecuted him on fraud charges stemming from the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, a McDougal-owned Arkansas thrift that cost taxpayers $60 million when it failed.

His death appears to reduce the legal risks to President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and was a clear setback to Starr and his prosecutors, who huddled in their offices last night after McDougal’s death was announced.

McDougal, who suffered from heart disease and blocked arteries, died of cardiac arrest, the Justice Department said. He had often predicted that his health wouldn’t hold out long enough for him ever to be free again.

At the White House, the president issued a statement referring to the early years of his friendship with McDougal.

“I am saddened to learn about Jim McDougal’s death today,” Clinton said. “I have good memories of the years we worked together in Arkansas, and I extend my condolences to his family.”

The key accusation against Clinton in the Whitewater land deal phase of Starr’s investigation centers on a claim by former municipal judge David Hale, who maintains Clinton urged him in 1986 to seek a fraudulent $300,0000 government-backed loan.

The money was never repaid, and prosecutors alleged that some of it was used to prop up the Whitewater Development Corp., a firm co-owned by McDougal, his then-wife, Susan, and the Clintons.

As noted by Star-Telegram Staff Writer Jack Douglas Jr. and WND:

When Jim McDougal was taken out of solitary, instead of attempting to defibrillate his heart with equipment on hand at the facility, he was driven over to John Peter Smith hospital. Not the closest hospital to the Fort Worth Federal Medical Center, John Peter Smith hospital is a welfare hospital, where (in the words of one local) ,”They let interns practice on deadbeats”.

coroner

PAGE 1 PAGE 2 PAGE 3 PAGE 4 PAGE 5 PAGE 6 PAGE 7 PAGE 8 PAGE 9 PAGE 10continue reading until page 10, but do take a moment to get up, stretch your legs, perhaps find a snack in the cupboard and prepare a cup of coffee/tea. You will need some energy boosts to keep on trucking. Folks, please stay away from inebriating alcoholic spirits, you want all your faculties intact to absorb their criminality. It will be worth your time. Pinkie swears. Even those who think they know, all there is about Hill and Bill, likely don’t.

Alas, we all recognize that a graveyard full of their crimes will neither give this criminal duo pause nor stop their associates from shilling/pandering for them. And if one wants to compare them to another twosome, perhaps Bonnie and Clyde comes to mind, but some may rightfully suggest that this is a huge understatement. After all, Hill and Bill have the power to upend America, if they get another shot at the People’s House!

Do Americans really want to go down that (Clintonite) road again? More specifically, can America afford to?

IRAN HEADS DOWN TO THE TRIP WIRE: Month(s) Away From Bomb-Making Ability. DECISION TIME For PM Netanyahu. Obama Already Made His…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

WHETHER one month or three months away – blips to the countdown – the fact of the matter is that Iran’s genocidal regime is within spitting distance of acquiring the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.The following commentaries lay it on the line: Iran’s triumph is almost assured through assists given by the leader of the free worldas such, the Islamist-in-Chief effectively surrendered the free world through the “disarming” of America and Israel. Thus, he is gifting the mad mullahs control of western civilization. This is NO exaggeration.

As a result, surely spending time jaw-jawing is the LAST tack any leader of the free world would take, especially since Iran’s mullahs have been playing rope-a-dope for decades. And yes, diplomacy, if at all doable, is preferable to war. But wishing doesn’t make it so. It’s “usefulness” has LONG since passed.

MORE on this global shaking event….

Israel issues warning on report on Iran bomb

Oren Dorell, USA TODAY October 25, 2013

A new report that says Iran may need as little as a month to produce enough uranium for a nuclear bomb is further evidence for why Israel will take military action before that happens, an Israeli defense official said Friday.

A new report that says Iran may need as little as a month to produce enough uranium for a nuclear bomb is further evidence for why Israel will take military action before that happens, an Israeli defense official said Friday.

“We have made it crystal clear – in all possible forums, that Israel will not stand by and watch Iran develop weaponry that will put us, the entire Middle East and eventually the world, under an Iranian umbrella of terror,” Danny Danon, Israel’s deputy defense minister told USA TODAY.

Iran is developing and installing new and advanced centrifuges that enable Iran to enrich even low-enriched uranium to weapons grade uranium needed for nuclear weapons within weeks, Danon said.

“This speedy enrichment capability will make timely detection and effective response to an Iranian nuclear breakout increasingly difficult,” he said.

“Breakout” refers to the time needed to convert low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade uranium. On Thursday, the Institute for Science and International Security issued a report stating that Iran could reach that breakout in as little as one month based in part on Iran’s own revelations about its nuclear program.

“If they use all their centrifuges … and their stockpiles of low- and medium-enriched uranium, that would take one to 1.6 months,” said David Albright, president of the institute and a former inspector for the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency.

The report comes as the White House is trying to persuade Congress not to go ahead with a bill to stiffen sanctions on Iran to force it to open up its program to inspection. The White House on Thursday invited senate staffers to a meeting on Iran strategy for negotiations that are to resume next month with Iran, it said.

In discussing Iran strategy, President Obama has said Iran is a year or more away from having enough enriched uranium to make a bomb.

Bernadette Meehan, an spokeswoman for the administration’s National Security Council, said the intelligence community maintains “a number of assessments” regarding potential time frames for Iran to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one weapon or a testable nuclear device.

“We continue to closely monitor the Iranian nuclear program and its stockpile of enriched uranium,” Meehan said.

In the report, Albright said negotiations with Iran should focus on lengthening Iran’s breakout time. ISIS’ analysis is based on the latest Iranian and United Nations reports on Iran’s centrifuge equipment for producing nuclear fuel and its nuclear fuel stockpiles.

Iran’s stockpile of medium-enriched uranium has nearly doubled in a year’s time and its number of centrifuges has expanded from 12,000 in 2012 to 19,000 today.

Sen. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican whose Senate Banking Committee is considering legislation to tighten Iran sanctions, said the report shows that Iran is expanding its nuclear capabilities under the cover of negotiations.

“The Senate should move forward immediately with a new round of sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring an undetectable breakout capability,” he said. The House has already passed legislation to toughen sanctions.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has said his country has no interest in nuclear weapons but that producing nuclear fuel is Iran’s right. However, Iran has blocked international inspectors from some suspected nuclear facilities, making it impossible to determine whether it is complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed.

United Nations inspectors say they have found evidence of a weapons program in violation of Iran’s commitment under the treaty. The USA and the U.N. Security Council have implemented economic sanctions on Iran to persuade it abide by its obligation and verify it is not developing a bomb.

Albright says negotiations with Iran should focus on establishing protocols that lengthen the time period that it would take Iran to convert uranium to weapons grade uranium.

“An essential finding is that they are currently too short and shortening further,” stated the report by the Institute for Science and International Security.

While others see the light, some of them lay it on the line, not unlike similar conclusions drawn at this American-Israeli’s site on numerous occasions. Here’s one such stark rendering: 

October 8, 2013—Rouhani Rope-a-Dope and a Trip Down Memory Lane! 

Rouhani Rope-a-Dope and a Trip Down Memory Lane!

By Ambassador Henry F. Cooper

October 8, 2013

Last week, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani pursued a “charm offensive” in New York including in his address to the United Nations General Assembly. Because he previously diverted interests in the West with seemingly cooperative initiatives while Iran continued enriching uranium, we should be skeptical of his promises not to build nuclear weapons and mate them to ballistic missiles that could reach Israel, our European allies and the United States. He wants the West to lift its sanctions on Iran—while we, and Israel, have insisted that Iran must not gain a nuclear weapons capability. Hopefully, U.S. and other Western leaders will not be taken in by Rouhani’s soft rhetoric. Stay tuned.

October 8, 2013 - Addition

Mohamed Ali’s “rope-a-dope” strategy, used to defeat George Foreman for the Heavyweight Title by letting the ropes absorb much of energy from Foreman’s punches while counter-punching only enough to avoid having the referee stop the fight—Foreman tired, made mistakes and gave Ali an opening for a knockout. Seems like a fair metaphor for Iran and Iranian President Rouhani’s likely strategy in dealing with President Obama. As Senator John McCain noted, it worked like a charm for Russia’s President Putin to exploit Obama’s bluster and inept handling of Syria to gain the initiative in the Middle East, so why not for Russia’s other main ally in the Middle East—Iran, and Rouhani in particular?

The rope-a-dope continues for Syria—as much of the media hypes hopeful interactions with Syria’s chemical weapon stores. Seldom mentioned is that it early was noted that Syria provided information on its chemical weapons stores that did not square with U.S. estimates (previously shared as the basis for the new agreement brokered by Russia). Secretary of State John Kerry tries, with notoriety but little success, to add sound verification measures to Russia’s brokered agreement.  While we await all the fine print, we should expect that Secretary Kerry’s “enforceable” verification objective likely is a figment of his imagination.  Any notable improvement will have to be approved by the U.N. Security Council—where Russia and China can use their veto power to block any measure they don’t like—don’t hold your breath waiting for anything of note on that front.

Regarding Iran and its PresidentHassan Rouhani, I could not agree more with Charles Krauthammer’s September 27th Washington Post article that presaged Rouhani’s “moderate” antics demonstrated during his charm offensive in New York City while visiting to address the United Nations General Assembly. I’m pleased that his excellent article notes many of the points of my emails: September 24—“Don’t Believe your Eyes,” June 18—“Hope for the Best and Prepare for the Worst” and August 13—“Definitely a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.” In one of his memorable phrases, Krauthammer wrote, “Such is their contempt for us that they don’t even hide their strategy: Spin the centrifuges while spinning the West.” And he shared a few more pertinent points that should inform those who hope for the best but believe we must prepare for the worst if we are to ever come close to achieving our objectives in the Middle East.

Implications from a Short Trip Down Memory Lane.

I first met Charles Krauthammer at Ambassador Max Kampelman’s home in Georgetown when I was Max’s Deputy and he led the Geneva Nuclear and Space Talks with the former Soviet Union.  He, like Max, was—and may still be as far as I know—a defense minded Democrat after the mold of Washington’s Senator Scoop Jackson. (Actually, Max was Hubert Humphrey’s only staffer when he first came to town as Minnesota’s junior senator.)  I’ve been among Charles’s admirers ever since, even on rare occasions when I have disagreed with him. 

Many of Charles’ views on negotiating with adversaries are ones I shared with Max, my boss; and they helped guide our Geneva talks with the Soviets—which led to the first arms control agreements actually to reduce nuclear arms. We, in turn, were privileged to work for President Ronald Reagan, who also emphasized a few overarching principles—among them, that we should:

  • Understand those with whom we negotiate—especially how they see the world from their point-of-view, and
  • Be prepared to speak the truth to all in polite but unapologetic terms.

Under the first principle, Reagan understood Soviet strategic perspectives about which the preceding administration made hopeful but incorrect assumptions. Consequently, the first thing President Reagan did was to insure that we would negotiate from a position of strength. He rejected previous détente policies that had guided U.S. strategic thinking for years—noting memorably that his objective was that, “We win, they lose.”  The preceding administration had hollowed-out our military while negotiating an unverifiable Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) Treaty that legitimized a massive Soviet build-up of nuclear arms while ours atrophied. (It was never ratified, since Reagan and many others on his team rejected it.) While ignoring much criticism from the liberal elite, Reagan withdrew from negotiations for a year, while initiating a major strategic modernization program, before beginning new Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) aimed at negotiating from a position of strength actually to reduce nuclear arms—not legitimizing a build-up as had been the result of previous mostly unverifiable treaties.

On the second principle, Reagan memorably overruled his diplomats in speaking the truth about and to the Soviets—for example in calling the Soviet Union the “evil empire” . . . which it definitely was . . . and later in Berlin challenging, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” His policies and loyal supporters at home and abroad were most pleased to see the breakup of the Soviet Union, which Russia’s President Vladimir Putin called the “greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century” . . . lest there be any doubt about his objectives today in the Middle East or elsewhere.

President Obama should note these principles—so far given short shrift by him and his negotiators. I want to mention just a few specifics.

With respect to our dealings with Russia, the Obama administration has regressed to a world in some ways like the one President Reagan inherited, with a so-called New START treaty that cut our strategic arms while legitimizing still increasing Russian nuclear arms, a modernization program reminiscent of the 1970s Soviet arms control world that Reagan inherited. In reality, it is a New SALT treaty, not a New START treaty—Reagan and his negotiators would not have produced such an unbalanced treaty. And President Obama’s promise, last Fall, of “flexibility” on missile defenses after being re-elected  does not bode well for U.S. interests in current and future talks with Russia that could link U.S. concessions with things we want from Russia—e.g., including in the Middle East where our handling of Syria has left Putin in charge.

A complication in our dealings with Russia is that we should be confronting another “evil empire,” to use Reagan’s description of the Soviet Union as the then preeminent Communist power seeking world domination. We could and should use that same term to describe Islamic true believers who think that under sharia law which American Islamists see as preeminent even over the U.S. Constitution, that their mission is to reign supreme over all others in a global Caliphate—to impose their beliefs on all others by force if needed, potentially to kill them if they refuse to submit.  In particular, this is the context for Iran’s mullahs calling Israel the “Little Satan” and America the “Great Satan,” and threatening to destroy both.

Oblivious to an Existential Threat?

The Obama administration seems to ignore these realities—to put it kindly. For example, the Director of National Intelligence absurdly testified that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a “largely secular organization, which has eschewed violence.” Try telling that to the Egyptians who threw out elected President Mohamed Morsi because he gave preeminence to the Brotherhood. Or consider the Brotherhood’s motto: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.”

The administration also has limited the flow of information about this Islamist threat to the front lines of those confronting it—whether on the battlefield, in diplomatic actions, or even within Washington’s halls of government. And many senators and representatives have ridiculed efforts of their colleagues to smoke out this poison within our ranks. For a comprehensive and referenced discussion of this threat, see the recent Gatestone Institute article by Claire Lopez, formerly a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, the conclusion of which is quoted below.

October 8, 2013 I

Bottom Lines for Iran.

We need to understand threats confronting us and speak the truth to power about them—especially as they mature and grow. While we still retain global power, not effectively countering “rope-a-dope” strategies being employed against us is a danger, especially re. Iran—we are not dealing effectively with its existential threat to all we hold dear.

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out his related concerns in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly—and, I am sure, in private to President Obama.  They are entirely consistent with Charles Krauthammer’s—and mine. He made clear that Israel will do all in its power to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons—and urged that the international community—particularly the United States—should not be taken in by Iranian deceptions intended to persuade the West to reduce it sanctions on trade with Iran while continuing to reduce the time for an Iranian breakout capability to producing nuclear weapons—already within a period of months.

As Netanyahu noted, Iran has intercontinental range ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that can reach the United States—therefore, we should be as concerned as Israel about Iran getting nuclear weapons that could be mated to such missiles to attack us as well as Israel. As we have noted previously, Iran (and also North Korea) has also launched satellites capable of carrying nuclear weapons to attack any place on Earth—they head south, and on their initial passage over the United States could detonate a nuclear weapon and expose the entire continental U.S. to an EMP. Today, we are undefended against this threat.

In short, we should do what we can not to fall prey to Rouhani and other rope-a-dope maneuvers—not to mention those of Iran’s real leader—Rouhani’s boss, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Following Rouhani’s return from New York last week, Khamenei let everyone know on a state TV broadcast that “We support the government’s diplomatic moves including the New York trip because we have faith in them [Rouhani et al].  But some of what happened in New York was not appropriate” . . . presumably a reference to his 15 minute telephone call from President Obama in which Rouhani may have stepped over some line of concern.  And Khamenei made clear that he did not trust Americans—that feeling is, or should be, mutual.  Perhaps there’s a little “good cop, bad cop” going on here?

October 8, 2013 III

—————————————————————————————————–

Continue reading the whole analysis atop the linked article!

Understood within the above prism, cogently laid out by High Frontier, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (besides, how many of us are endowed with such brain power…not too many) to figure out the calculus: Iran is Allah-bent on gaining the bomb – at ALL costs, even if their citizens have to starve in the process – and the Islamist-in-Chief is similarly inclined to gift it to them. No sense in pussyfooting otherwise.

One either tends towards reality-based thinking, or not. But when one lives in close proximity to hell fire, continuing to believe in fantastical conclusions is a non-starter. Not sure about others, but would rather be prepared – as best as possible – for eventual chaos, rather than blindsided.

For many unfathomable reasons, PM Netanyahu allowed half of world Jewry to be boxed in, all the way down to the bewitching hour. While his concentration should not be distracted by this and that (well deserved) smack – during this MOST perilous juncture in Israel’s history, as Jerusalem prepares to act at this twilight hour – surely his decision to hitch Israel’s fate in line with Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s “promises” will be revealed as an out-sized national/global disaster that should never have occurred!

Rest assured, history will vilify both leaders. One sought to bring the west to its knees, whereas the other’s spinelessness led Israel (half of world Jewry, mere decades after the Holocaust) right down to the “trip wire” 

 

AMERICA’S ACADEMIC CESSPOOL: Constitutional Adherents Dare Not Speak…”Queers”, Other Grievance-Mongering Groups, Hoist Your Banners! Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Only in today’s America, a nation predicated/birthed on freedom and liberty, is it acceptable to dictate what is “tolerable/acceptable” and what is not. Mind you, the issue is not whether or not one is free to violate civilized societal norms, but whether one can even advocate on behalf of America’s fundamental foundations. Its moorings. Oh dear…how far the national discourse has sunk – straight into the cesspool.

Whereas leftist imbued academia offers “safe” places/zones to advocate on behalf of every “ism” acceptable in their radical milieu, America’s founding documents are verboten. Internalize what this really entails: students who wish to OPENLY exhibit their sexual confusion are free to do so. Okey dokey. In fact, monies are thrown their way to “explore” this or that, and the freakier the sideshow the better. How’s that for (parental) bang for your (educational) buck? Personally, having spent several hundred thousand dollars to educate 2 sons (at MIT & Caltech…schools where there is little time to sleep, let alone agitate over this or that) , there is a sensitivity/understanding of the exorbitant costs paid for a private university education. As such, this issue does not quality as a minor annoyance. A blip on the radar. It’s an investment of huge proportions. 

NOT only that, if a student voices an iota of criticism in the direction of the faculty or the administration all hell breaks loose. One is relegated to campus purgatory, if one dares/deigns to voice any dissent to their PC mandates. Talk about (mental) boot camp. In effect, freedoms for thee (radicals), but not for conservative students on America’s non-free campuses. And little offends them more than those who espouse any allegiance to Constitutional ethos. The nerve of these soon to be grown up “bitter clingers”! What are they thinking, bringing Constitutional fealty onto America’s campuses? Have they fallen on their heads?

The question becomes: why the preference for one subset and the prejudice against the other, if in fact academia is supposed to be a place where a free exchange of ideas is the “common core” denominator?

Simply put, the most non-free places in America (and elsewhere, particularly in Israel) is within the confines of the college campuses. Seriously. Consider the damage accrued: if not for leftist academia, the havoc wrought by (im)moral relativism would be negligible. Coupled with an open season on Jewish students who dare to support Israel, or speak up against blatant antisemitic diatribes from their profs, well, what else is needed to prove the above outrageous facsimile of higher education? 

And even in Israel, the nation where supporting its raison d’etre should be a given, students are vilified (by their profs and their leftist back benchers…from inside and outside the country) for supporting the nation’s moorings. Post-Zionist academics further Israel’s delegitimization and this is a (tragic) fact.

Back to America’s academic cesspool…

The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, but don’t try to pass out copies of it at Modesto Junior College in California.

A student at the school who tried to pass out pocket-size pamphlets of the very document that memorializes our rights got shut down on Sept. 17 – a date also known as Constitution Day.

Campus authorities told 25-year-old Robert Van Tuinen, who caught the whole thing on videotape, he could only pass out the free documents at a tiny designated spot on campus, and only then if he scheduled it several days in advance.

“Watching the video is a combination of depressing and nauseating, to see what rigamarole students have to go through just to express themselves on campus,” said Robert Shibley, senior vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which has taken on campus speech codes around the nation.

Van Tuinen, who said he’d read up on the school’s regulations and expected to get chased away from outside the student center, went to FIRE with the video. The foundation penned an email letter to the school’s administration on Van Tuinen’s behalf early Thursday, but Shibley said there had been no response later in the day.

A spokeswoman for the college tells FoxNews.com that students and the general public are permitted to pass out materials in areas on campus that are generally available to the public, as long as they do not disrupt the orderly operations of the college.

“In the case of the YouTube video, it does not appear that the student was disrupting the orderly operations of the college and therefore we are looking into the incident,” Modesto Junior College Marketing and Public Relations officer Linda Hoile said.

In the video, Van Tuinen is confronted by an unidentified campus police officer within minutes of passing out the pamphlets. When he protests, he is told “there are rules.”

“But do you know what this is?” he asks. “What are the rules? Why are the rules tied to my free speech?”

Van Tuinen explains that he wants to start an organization called Young Americans for Liberty.

“That’s fine, but if you’re going to start an organization like that you have to go through the rigamarole,” the police officer tells him.

“It was a tense situation,” Van Tuinen, who is from Modesto, told FoxNews.com. “To be told I can’t do something as basic as handing out the Constitution was frustrating.”

Eventually, the police officer escorts Van Tuinen into an administrative office, where an unidentified woman shows him a binder with rules she says govern free speech on campus. She explains that there is a designated place “in front of the student center, in that little cement area,” where free expression is allowed, but then notes that two people are already using it.

“You’d have to wait,” she says. “You could go on (Sept.) 20th, the 27th or you can go into October.”

Eventually he is advised to make an appointment with Brenda Thames, vice president of student services, who can explain the policy.

Shibley said he was angered by the video, but not surprised.

“One of the revealing things about this particular case is what students have to go through just to express themselves on campus,” Shibley said.

He said the very idea of speech codes on campus ought to be troubling to Americans.

“They are imposed in an attempt to sanitize the public space of anything that might offend somebody,” he said. “The fact is, no school specifically needs a speech code. They have the ability keep order on campus . Of people are too loud, harassing people, or blocking traffic they have the means to address that.”

NONE of the above is happenstance, nor simply a question of mean spirited nitpicking by profs and their (open and hidden) supporters. Not at all. Their Omerta – on anything outside the realm of radical causes/politics – is purposefully designed to destroy America and to bring it to its knees. What better way to do so, than to deconstruct future generations and their “normative” behaviorThe queerer the better.

Alas, budding Conservatives are treated worse than persona non-grata. Like the devil incarnate.

The Leader Of The Free World Aims For America’s And Israel’s Jugular – Their “Disarming”: The Benefits Accrued To Iran

As has been charged at this site ad nauseum, the leader of the free world is both anti-American and pro Islamist. As a result, Barack HUSSEIN Obama works to weaken America and to decapitate Israel. Concomitantly, he strengthens Islamic regimes. NO doubt about it. For the record, the plans Obama Inc. has in place won’t be thwarted through partisan bickering. In fact, said squabblings lends the POTUS free cover to pursue his nation- stabbing. Besides, the Islamist-in-Chief’s deadly end point transcends – at least it should – petty politics.

That being said, this site warned against the Islamist-in-Chief’s reelection, to the point of sounding like a broken record. In the main, his efforts to bring down America are well known, and its results are playing out before American’s (and others) horrified eyes. 

Specifically, the Radical-in-Chief’s animus towards freedom is on full display through his dictatorial actions, in relation to his own citizens, as well as his treacherous dealings in the Mid East and beyond. Said dealings expose, yet again, his fealty to Islamic regimes. The deadlier the better. And, back in 2009, when Obama Inc. enjoyed a prime geo-political opening to push the mullahs back, he did no such thing. Most revealingly, Obama acted as a shield for Iran’s Islamic regime, instead of assisting its dying freedom fightersSimply put, Barack HUSSEIN Obama revealed his hand. He had no time, nor inclination, to give them anything but the finger. Absolutely.

Even more so, what else can one conclude from Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s cheerleading for the Muslim Brotherhood, both in the Mid East and Washington? Hardly freedom fighters – Obama or his Brothers!

Which leads us straight back to Iran…and the POTUS’s assists towards the Iranian bomb, as their triumph will be directly accrued to his “helping hands”.

As such, what does a POTUS do to simultaneously aid his Islamic Brothers (even though of the Shiite persuasion), at the same time that he weakens America? He disarms one, but not the other!

SENATOR: OBAMA OPENED U.S. TO IRAN MISSILE DANGER

Charges president’s move meant to ‘disarm America’

In an attempt to “disarm America,” President Obama has canceled a defense system, placing the U.S. home front in danger of a missile attack, including one that could be launched from Iran, charged the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In a radio interview today, Sen. James Inhofe R-Okla., warned that Iran is using Western talks to stall the international community while it assembles a nuclear weapon and delivery system.

“Way back in 2007, our unclassified intelligence said Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon and a delivery system by 2015. That was way back in 2007. That’s a year and a half from now and they are right on the road to making that a reality,” Inhofe said.

The senator, recovering at home from quadruple bypass heart surgery, was speaking on Aaron Klein’s WABC radio show.

“I don’t trust the verification is in place, and they haven’t even said that they are going to slow down on their production right now,” Inhofe said of the talks between Iran and six world powers in Geneva earlier this month.

Inhofe told Klein that Obama’s cancellation of the U.S. missile-defense complex in Poland places America in grave danger.

“This president, President Obama, way back in his first budget four and a half years ago, one of the things he did in his effort to disarm America, was to do away with the ground-based interceptors that we were building in Poland.”

The senator asked Klein: “Now why were we building that in Poland? … We were doing it because we have 33 ground-based interceptors all on the West Coast of the United States.”

Inhofe said it “wasn’t until about 10 years ago that we realized how close Iran was.”

“And there shouldn’t be any doubt in anyone’s mind that if they had the weapon and the delivery system they would use it,” he said. “And where would that go? It would come from the east.”

However, Inhofe charged, cancellation of the U.S. interceptor site in Poland has resulted in the inability to effectively shoot down missiles coming from the east.

“Now we could be lucky if we had one shot to get it from the ground-based interceptor on the West Coast,” he said. “But we all know the security of that system is to be able to shoot, look and shoot. Now we can do that for something coming from the west. We can’t do it for something coming from the east.”

The disarming of America is both internal and external. At the same time that Barack HUSSEIN Obama eviscerates actual missile shields, he is busy gutting the Second Amendment. Thereby, he is effectively working towards disarming Americans! 

YET, on the other hand, Iran’s Hitlerite regime is given cover by the leader of the free world, to race towards the ultimate weapons of mass destruction. Now, if THAT doesn’t indict the POTUS, thus, demonstrating what his plans are and where his proclivities lie, then nothing else will suffice. 

Sach ha’kol, at the end of it all, either he will be removed or the free world will fall. Many millions of lives hang in the balance.