Abbas is Barred from Peace Accord – ‘Palestinian’ Law

Editor’s Note – Paging John Kerry, paging Secretary of State John Kerry…there is an urgent call awaiting you. That call is a call to reality!

You sir need to read history, read the laws of all involved, and have a reality check/intervention performed upon for you. Shouldn’t the Secretary of State be briefed on such things, or do they just wish to ignore them because these details do not fit their designs – debasing and diminishing Israel – isn’t it obvious?

By the way John, ‘Palestine’ is a fictitious name and there is no such race, creed, or nationality. (Read more about the history of the so-called name ‘Palestine’ here entitled “Palestine: History of a Name” which is a rebuttal to Reza Aslan’s “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”.)

As we have mentioned many times in recent weeks, John Kerry and Obama are forcing Israel into an untenable position in the so-called “peace negotiations” with the ‘Palestinians’ at a time when there are much more important issues facing the Israelis and our own National Security. Syria, Iran, Southern Sudan, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Benghazi come to mind along with our own crashing domestic state.

Yet, John Kerry and the “Israeli-Haters Club” make this a priority, while ignoring certain facts pertaining to the so-called ‘peace-talks’ that is the latest instance that proves the Einstein definition of insanity!

PHILISTIA IN THE TIME OF JESUS (4 B.C. – 30 A.D.) but there was never a “Nation of Palestine” as Islamists and leftists want us to believe. In reality, Palestine was an ancient name for a vague geographic region of Israel or Terra Sancta ruled either by Jews or Christians. No “Palestinian Arab people” existed until 1920, when the British occupying force carved out a “Palestine.” (Map via the Library of Congress)
PHILISTIA IN THE TIME OF JESUS (4 B.C. – 30 A.D.) but there was never a “Nation of Palestine” as Islamists and leftists want us to believe. In reality, Palestine was an ancient name for a vague geographic region of Israel or Terra Sancta ruled either by Jews or Christians. No “Palestinian Arab people” existed until 1920, when the British occupying force carved out a “Palestine.” (Map via the Library of Congress)

Under Palestinian law, if Abbas signs a peace agreement with Israel he would be subject to the death penalty

By Elder of Zyon

I’ve discussed how central the bogus “right of return” is to Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Arab leadership, and how the West ignores this fact. Mahmoud Abbas and the entire Palestinian Arab leadership (not to mention their friends in the anti-Israel community) have turned this fake “right” into a key component of their demands for any “peace” agreement – and have elevated this demand to damn thousands of Syrians to death.

Palestinian Arabs make no secret that the purpose of this “right” is to destroy the Jewish state demographically, and this is exactly why they refuse to recognize that Israel is in fact the Jewish state. The end game is to create three or four Palestinian states – in Jordan, which is majority Palestinian; in the West Bank, possibly in Gaza and (of course) in Israel.

It turns out that Abbas signed a law in 2008 to enshrine this “right” to destroy Israel in PA law. Not only that, but this law ensures that any agreement that modifies this “right” is null and void, and high treason.

Under PLO law, if Mahmoud Abbas signs a peace treaty with Israel that doesn’t pave the way for the destruction of Israel, he is guilty of high treason and is subject to the death penalty.

Western diplomats who think that there is a possibility of peace with the PLO must read this.

Here is the bulk of the law:

The law of the right of return for Palestinian refugees No. (1) for the year 2008

The right of return for Palestinian refugees to their homes and property and compensation for their suffering is a sacred and inalienable right that cannot compromised or exchanged; it is beyond the scope of jurisprudence or interpretation or referendum.

The right of return is the natural individual and collective civil and political right that moves from parents to children and does not disappear over time, by the signing of any agreement, and it may not be disposed of or waived in any way.

The Zionist occupation bears full responsibility for the political, legal and humanitarian and moral suffering of the Palestinian people and the non-recognition of the right to self-determination. Britain bears historical responsibility for the suffering of the Palestinian people. The international community bears full responsibility to lift and remove the suffering of the Palestinian people.

The Palestinians have the right to sue the Zionist occupation for their suffering caused to the Palestinian people and their demands for compensation for damage to their emotional or material damage.

Resettlement of Palestinian refugees may not be a substitute for the right of return.

Anyone who violates the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of the crime of high treason against him and subject to all criminal and civil penalties prescribed for this crime.

Anything that is contrary to the provisions of this law is canceled, null and void and any legislation or agreement that detracts from the right of return violates the provisions of this law.

Issued on: 01/08/2008 AD
Mahmoud Abbas
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization
President of the Palestinian National Authority

Is that clear enough? Read more here on this law.

Mahmoud Abbas stands in from of a banner  of the "State of Palestine" which has never existed except in the minds of the "Israel-Haters Club."
Mahmoud Abbas stands in from of a banner of the “State of Palestine” which has never existed except in the minds of the “Israel-Haters Club.”

2016, Really? – Book Exposes Hillary's Hit-List

Editor’s Note – We would like to think it is a mystery why so many people, especially the ‘beltway media’ and the left, the ill-informed, believe that Hillary Clinton is a lock for the Democratic Party nominee for the Presidential race in 2016 but we know it’s not. Why? Because they perform in lock-step loyalty to the left…or are they now?

When sites such as the Huffington Post and Politico, both known for years as left leaning outlets, are now exposing Obama and Hillary Clinton, even the most ardent “Kool-Aid Drinkers” have to stop and take notice.

The ability to suspend disbelief, to sacrifice reality, to place critical thinking on the shelf, are the only ways to consider Clinton in any good light. Yes she is the most traveled Secretary of State ever, but that is her only accomplishment; otherwise, she was an abject failure in all aspects of foreign policy and diplomacy.

Then there is Benghazi and her now infamous, screeching response to a House Oversight Committee inquiry where she uttered: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”U.S. Secretary of State Clinton pounds her fists while testifying on the Benghazi attacks during Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in Washington

We also know, like ObamaCare, the truth will eventually emerge, it always does eventually, and now a tell-all book describes her shrillness, her shrewd and cunning nature, and her unscrupulous, diabolical, and deceitful ways, all revealed by her “hit list”.

She hated the late Ted Kennedy, loathed her successor, John Kerry, and then there was Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. In fact McCaskill was afraid for her own well-being due to the threat of the Clinton hit machine!

The excerpt below is long, but that only shows how important this expose is, so please read and share:

Hillary’s Hit List

The Clintons keep a favor file of saints and sinners, according to this excerpt from HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.

By  and AMIE PARNES – Politico Magazine

Inside a cramped third-floor office of Hillary Clinton’s once-bustling presidential campaign headquarters in the Ballston neighborhood of Arlington, Va., Kris Balderston and Adrienne Elrod put the finishing touches on a political hit list. It was late June 2008, and Hillary had dropped her bid for the presidency earlier that month. The war room, where her brain trust had devolved into profanity-laced shouting matches, was empty. The data crunchers were gone. The political director had drifted out. A handful of Hillary’s aides had already hooked up with Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign in Chicago.

Balderston’s salt-and-pepper beard gave him the look of a college English professor who didn’t need to shave for his job. Then in his early fifties, he had been with Bill and Hillary Clinton since their White House days, serving as a deputy assistant to the president and later as Hillary’s legislative director and deputy chief of staff in her New York Senate office. The official government titles obscured Balderston’s true value: He was an elite political operator and one of Hillary’s favorite suppliers of gossip. After more than a dozen years spent working for the Clintons, he knew how to keep score in a political race.

Elrod, a toned 31-year-old blonde with a raspy Ozark drawl, had an even longer history with the Clintons that went back to her childhood in Siloam Springs, a town of 15,000 people in northwestern Arkansas. She had known Bill Clinton since at least the age of five. Her father, John Elrod, a prominent lawyer in Fayetteville, first befriended the future president at Arkansas Boys State, an annual civics camp for high school juniors, when they were teenagers. Like Bill Clinton, Adrienne Elrod had a twinkle in her blue eyes and a broad smile that conveyed warmth instantaneously. She had first found work in the Clinton White House after a 1996 internship there, then became a Democratic Party political operative and later held senior posts on Capitol Hill. She joined the Hillary Clinton for President outfit as a communications aide and then shifted into Balderston’s delegate-courting congressional-relations office in March. Trusted because of her deep ties to the Clinton network, Elrod helped Balderston finalize the list.

For months they had meticulously updated a wall-size dry-erase board with color-coded symbols, letters and arrows to track which lawmakers were leaning toward endorsing Hillary and which were headed in Obama’s direction. For example, the letters “LO” indicated that a lawmaker was “leaning Obama,” while “BD” in blue denoted that he or she was a member of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition on Capitol Hill.

As one of the last orders of business for a losing campaign, they recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress. They carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelines—standard operating procedure for any high-end political organization. But the data went into much more nuanced detail. “We wanted to have a record of who endorsed us and who didn’t,” a member of Hillary’s campaign team said, “and of those who endorsed us, who went the extra mile and who was just kind of there. And of those who didn’t endorse us, those who understandably didn’t endorse us because they are [Congressional Black Caucus] members or Illinois members. And then, of course, those who endorsed him but really should have been with her … that burned her.”

For Hillary, whose loss was of course not the end of her political career, the spreadsheet was a necessity of modern political warfare, an improvement on what old-school politicians called a “favor file.” It meant that when asks rolled in, she and Bill would have at their fingertips all the information needed to make a quick decision—including extenuating, mitigating and amplifying factors—so that friends could be rewarded and enemies punished.

Their spreadsheet formalized the deep knowledge of those involved in building it. Like so many of the Clinton help, Balderston and Elrod were walking favor files. They remembered nearly every bit of assistance the Clintons had given and every slight made against them. Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favors that had been done for them, then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons—as if it all had happened just a few hours before. The data project ensured that the acts of the sinners and saints would never be forgotten.

There was a special circle of Clinton hell reserved for people who had endorsed Obama or stayed on the fence after Bill and Hillary had raised money for them, appointed them to a political post or written a recommendation to ice their kid’s application to an elite school. On one early draft of the hit list, each Democratic member of Congress was assigned a numerical grade from 1 to 7, with the most helpful to Hillary earning 1s and the most treacherous drawing 7s. The set of 7s included Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.).

Yet even a 7 didn’t seem strong enough to quantify the betrayal of some onetime allies.

When the Clintons sat in judgment, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) got the seat closest to the fire. Bill and Hillary had gone all out for her when she ran for Senate in 2006, as had Obama. But McCaskill seemed to forget that favor when NBC’s Tim Russert asked her whether Bill had been a great president, during a Meet the Press debate against then-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) in October 2006. “He’s been a great leader,” McCaskill said of Bill, “but I don’t want my daughter near him.”

McCaskill regretted her remark instantly; the anguish brought her “to the point of epic tears,” according to a friend. She knew the comment had sounded much more deliberate than a forgivable slip of the tongue. So did Hillary, who immediately canceled a planned fundraiser for McCaskill. A few days later, McCaskill called Bill Clinton to offer a tearful apology. Bill He was gracious, which just made McCaskill feel worse. After winning the seat, she was terrified of running into Hillary Clinton in the Capitol. “I really don’t want to be in an elevator alone with her,” McCaskill confided to the friend.

But Hillary, who was just then embarking on her presidential campaign, still wanted something from McCaskill—the Missourian’s endorsement. Women’s groups, including the pro-choice women’s fundraising network EMILY’s List, pressured McCaskill to jump aboard the Clinton bandwagon, and Hillary courted her new colleague personally, setting up a one-on-one lunch in the Senate Dining Room in early 2007. Rather than ask for McCaskill’s support directly, Hillary took a softer approach, seeking common ground on the struggles of campaigning, including the physical toll. “There’s a much more human side to Hillary,” McCaskill thought.

Obama, meanwhile, was pursuing McCaskill, too, in a string of conversations on the Senate floor. Clearly, Hillary thought she had a shot at McCaskill. But for McCaskill, the choice was always whether to endorse Obama or stay on the sidelines. In January 2008 she not only became the first female senator to endorse Obama, but she also made the case to his team that her support would be amplified if Govs. Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano came out for him at roughly the same time. McCaskill offered up a small courtesy, calling Hillary’s personal aide, Huma Abedin, ahead of the endorsement to make sure it didn’t blindside Hillary.

But the trifecta of women leaders giving Obama their public nod was a devastating blow. Hate is too weak a word to describe the feelings that Hillary’s core loyalists still have for McCaskill, who seemed to deliver a fresh endorsement of Obama—and a caustic jab at Hillary—every day during the long primary season.

Many of the other names on the traitor side of the ledger were easy to remember, from Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the civil rights icon whose defection had been so painful that Bill Clinton seemed to be in a state of denial about it. In private conversations, Bill tried to explain away Lewis’s motivations for switching teams mid-campaign, after Obama began ratcheting up pressure on black lawmakers to get on “the right side of history.” Lewis, because of his own place in American history and the unique loyalty test he faced with the first viable black candidate running for president, is a perfect example of why Clinton aides had to keep track of more detailed information than the simple binary of “for” and “against.” Perhaps someday Lewis’s betrayal could be forgiven.

But Kennedy (another 7 on the hit list) was a different story. He had slashed Hillary most cruelly of all, delivering a pivotal endorsement speech for Obama just before the Super Tuesday primaries that cast her as yesterday’s news and Obama as the rightful heir to Camelot. And Kennedy did it in conjunction with a New York Times op-ed by his niece, Caroline Kennedy, that said much the same thing in less thundering tones. Bill Clinton had pleaded with the Massachusetts senator to hold off, but to no avail. Still, Clinton aides exulted in schadenfreude when their enemies faltered. Years later, they would joke among themselves in harsh terms about the fates of folks they felt had betrayed them. “Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,” one said to another. “Ted Kennedy,” the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, “dead.”

For several months, Balderston and Elrod had kept close tabs on an even smaller subset of targeted members of Congress, who were still undecided after Super Tuesday. Because Hillary and her team made such an intense effort to swing these particular lawmakers in the final months of the campaign, they are the first names that spring to mind when Hillary’s aides today talk about who stuck a knife in her back and twisted it. For Balderston, the betrayal of Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) was perhaps the most personal. The two men were social friends in the Del Ray neighborhood of Alexandria, about six miles from campaign headquarters. They were even in the same book club. For months Balderston had casually pressed Moran about his endorsement. Moran played coy. He praised Hillary but came up short of promising an endorsement. Then, in January 2008, Moran left a voice message for Balderston: I’m all in for Hillary, he said.

Naturally, Balderston was excited. The courtship of delegates hadn’t been going well, and adding a new name to Hillary’s column was welcome news. But Balderston’s joy was short-lived. “What the fuck?” he exclaimed a couple of weeks later as he read the news that Moran was set to endorse Obama. He called the congressman. “Do not ever call me again!” Balderston said. He stopped going to the book club. (“It’s an accurate account. But we’re friends again, and I plan on making it up to him in the 2016 campaign since I’ve always been in love with Hillary,” Moran said. “I simply thought that given the opportunity, it was too important that this country elect an inspiring black president.”)Bill Clinton was particularly incensed at Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.). He had campaigned for Capps’s husband, Walter, who had knocked out an incumbent congresswoman in 1996; delivered the eulogy the following year at Walter’s congressional memorial service, calling him “entirely too nice to be in Congress”; and then helped Lois Capps win her husband’s seat in a special election. The Cappses’ daughter, Laura, had even worked in the Clinton White House.

“How could this happen?” Bill asked, after Lois Capps came out for Obama at the end of April.

“Do you know her daughter is married to Bill Burton?” one of Hillary’s aides replied.

Burton was working for Obama as a high-profile campaign spokesman and would go on to join Obama’s White House staff, but this did little to assuage the former president’s frustration. Bill and Hillary were shocked at how many Democrats had abandoned them to hook up with the fresh brand of Barack Obama. The injuries and insults were endless, and each blow hurt more than the last, the cumulative effect of months and months of defections. During the spring and summer, the Clinton campaign had gone days on end without a single endorsement.

It reached the point that Hillary—in a stale, sterile conference room at the Democratic National Committee headquarters—asked uncommitted “superdelegates” to give her their word, privately, that they would back her if it came to a vote at the convention, even if they weren’t willing to take the political risk of coming out for her publicly ahead of time. Unlike the regular delegates who were elected in state party primaries and caucuses, the superdelegates, a group of lawmakers, governors, and other Democratic officials, could support whichever candidate they wanted at the convention. As a last resort, Hillary pleaded with them to simply refrain from adding their names to Obama’s column. Bill would make that pitch, too, in phone calls and when he crossed paths with lawmakers. Please, just don’t endorse Obama, he cajoled.

Balderston and Elrod recorded them all, good and bad, one by one, for history—and for Doug Band, Bill Clinton’s tall, balding, post-presidency aide de camp. A former University of Florida frat boy, Band had a fierce loyalty to the former president, along with a knack for accumulating wealth and status. Most important for politicians, donors and journalists alike, he became the gatekeeper to Bill Clinton until leaving in 2013 to focus full-time on the firm he had created in 2007. Few question Band’s strategic vision in setting up Bill’s post-presidency philanthropic empire, and he counts Huma Abedin, Hillary’s top personal aide, among his close friends. But some in Hillaryland took a dim view of Band’s influence on the former president. He could be so abrasive that Maggie Williams, Hillary’s former White House chief of staff and the person closest to her over the course of her Washington career, told friends at one point that she quit working at the Clinton Foundation in 2004 in large part because of Band. Band was in charge of the Clinton database, however, a role that made him the arbiter of when other politicians received help from the Clintons and when they didn’t.

“It wasn’t so much punishing as rewarding, and I really think that’s an important point,” said one source familiar with Bill’s thinking. “It wasn’t so much, ‘We’re going to get you.’ It was, ‘We’re going to help our friends.’ I honestly think that’s an important subtlety in Bill Clinton, in his head. She’s not as calculated, but he is.”

It would be political malpractice for the Clintons not to keep track of their friends and enemies. Politicians do that everywhere. The difference is the Clintons, because of their popularity and the positions they’ve held, retain more power to reward and punish than anyone else in modern politics. And while their aides have long and detailed memories, the sheer volume of the political figures they interact with makes a cheat sheet indispensable. “I wouldn’t, of course, call it an enemies list,” said one Clintonworld source when asked about the spreadsheet put together by Balderston and Elrod. “I don’t want to make her sound like Nixon in a pantsuit.”

Another one of Hillary’s longtime advisers sought to diminish the long-term relevance of the naughty-and-nice records kept by Band. “I’m sure Doug does have some sort of fucking memo on his Blackberry like the rest of us,” the adviser said. “But the notion that it is updated, circulated, disseminated and relied upon is absurd.”

In the summer of 2008, Hillary couldn’t have known whether or when she would run for president again. But she knew who was on her side and, name for name, who wasn’t.

Jonathan Allen is Politico’s White House bureau chief.Amie Parnes is the Hill’s White House correspondent. They are authors of the forthcoming HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton (Crown Publishing, Feb. 11), from which this excerpt is adapted.

LTG McInerney on MB Influence in DC – Policies Set By Politics

Editor’s Note – As the former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates’ book ‘Duty’ reveals to us, as well as the leaders of all other nations, the Obama administration’s policies are driven purely by politics. It is now obvious, and despite their excuses and rationalizations, it is indeed true that politics trumps policy in the Obama White House, often to the detriment of our troops and our world reputation.

So too can it then be said that their policy towards Islam is politically entrenched and that certain groups within Islam carry great influence in our leadership’s policy decisions regarding Islam and terrorism. In the article posted below regarding what Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney talked about in a recent interview conducted by WMAL in Washington, D.C., Bob Unruh of WND talks of the assertion the General makes about the Islamic infiltration of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood and how it has helped mold their political stance regarding Islam and terrorism in a most demonstrable manner.

Lt. General Thomas McInerney
Lt. General Thomas McInerney

Early in the first term of the Obama administration, it became apparent to those of us who follow things Islam and terrorism closely, that Obama made a decision regarding his policy stance on Islam by changing the very definition of the “War On Terror” calling it an “Overseas Contingency Operation” and expunging all reference and training materials of anything that shed a negative light on Islam in any manner. Why?, we asked. Was it his Islamic upbringing? Was it his financial ties and support to and by many Muslims? Or was it ineptitude, naivete, and ignorance?

When the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth cannot, or will not define the threat and will not define the enemies, or even name our enemies, how are we as a nation ever to succeed against terrorists and other enemies? Barry Rubin wrote an article this week entitled ‘You still don’t understand Islamism, do you you?‘ where he shows in stark clarity that a political decision was made and policy would follow it regarding terrorism and Islam.

In that article, Rubin shows the depth to which they have confused the subject so much that many supposed ‘experts’ and ‘mavens’ in the media consistently get things wrong. The mere fact that a known loyalist and trainee of Osama bin Laden, Sufyan Bin Qumu, was the leader of Ansar al Sharia, the terrorist group who perpetrated the attack in Benghazi, but that it was not an al Qaeda group is mere semantics and is ludicrous.

In fact, early on, Cheryl Mills in the State Department reported internally that it was an al Qaeda group called Ansar al Sharia, then later it was changed to a movie trailer that ignited the attack and not al Qaeda. Then the NY Times tried to make that point in its now infamous report on Benghazi and was roundly criticized as fluff and greatly refuted by testimony and the facts.

Rubin expounds further:

There was a secret debate happening in the Defense Department and the CIA in which some people thought that all Muslims were a problem, some believed that only al-Qa’ida was a problem, and still others thought the Muslim Brotherhood was a problem.

The main problem, however, was that all Islamism was a political threat, but it was the second position that eventually won over the Obama administration. Take note of this, since 2009, if you wanted to build your career and win policy debates, only al-Qa’ida was a problem. The Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat; after all, it did not participate in September 11. This view was well known in policy circles, but it was easy to mistake this growing hegemony as temporary. (Read the rest here, it is a must read.)

Now this confusion, rooted in the political underpinnings of the Obama Administration’s “policies set by politics” standards that most in the West are confused about who is who in Syria. Is Obama backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, or is it al Qaeda, or is it the so-called “moderates,” or is it the secular nationalistic FSA? We know it is not that last group.

In another recent article, Hannah Allam writes for the McCLatchy Washington Bureau that there is “No winner for the West in Syria” because its a “good” al Qaeda versus a “bad” al Qaeda condition from which we must chose. It is hard to identify the players without a scorecard thanks to all the confusion of cultures and influences, along with external policies set by politics. Politics emanating from the USA, Russia, Iran, France, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and beyond.

However she leaves out a lot of historical facts along with the understanding of why the Syrian civilian population changes loyalties almost daily due to the humanitarian crises. She also leaves out the western influences prior to the dictatorial and tyrannical regime where Jews and Christians made up a large portion of the historical context. Also missing is any reference to the largest number among the rebels, those who are secular and nationalist, the many who wish to join the West rather than any Islamist state.

Also recently, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said this of the politics and semantics:

“Whether it was al Qaeda or a subsidiary or a holding company or a limited partnership, to quote Hillary Clinton, ‘What difference does it make?’ Who cares whether it was al Qaeda proper or a subsidiary? Four Americans are dead, and it wasn’t a spontaneous reaction to a video. It was planned,” Gowdy said.

Now we have to ask, what is the message to those who defend us in uniform? What are foreign leaders and our allies supposed to think? The strategy is clouded in uncertainty and is rudderless. Please read the following article by Bob Unruh on Lt. Gen. McInerney’s interview:

GENERAL: Muslim Brotherhood Inside Obama Administration

‘There are a whole host of people in this government’

By Bob Unruh – WND

Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney, who served as both assistant vice chief of staff and commander in chief of U.S. Air Forces Europe, has surprised interviewers on a radio program by confirming the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the U.S. government.

The Islamic supremacist movement’s influence on Washington was reported in “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office” by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

%CODE%

The book documents that Obama aided the rise to power of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East as members served on important national security advisory boards.

The book confirms the Obama administration may have exposed national security information through Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, who has deep personal and family associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another key figure with Muslim Brotherhood ties is Mohamed Elibiary, a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council.

McInerney was being interviewed Thursday by WMAL in Washington about a tell-all book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that strongly criticizes President Obama and Vice President Biden for making politically motivated decisions regarding national security.

McInerney said Gates was doing the nation a service by exposing decision-making in the Oval Office but said he should have done it sooner. He also noted that the Muslim Brotherhood influences have been causing major problems throughout the Middle East.

MB in white-house-staff

Then he added, “We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government today.”

Asked by the talk-show hosts for their names, he said, “I haven’t got their names exactly but there’s a list of them, at least 10 or 15 of them in the U.S. government.”

He cited the organization’s influence in Homeland Security and the secretary of state’s office under Clinton, where Abedin has worked.

“Her parents are Muslim Brotherhood. And her intuitions are in that direction,” he said.

“There are a whole host of people in this government.”

He said Islam experts Frank Gaffney or Claire Lopez would have the details.

Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, has created a publication called “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration,” which addresses the issue that was brought to the attention of Congress in July 2012 by Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney and Lynn Westmoreland.

The lawmakers asked the inspector generals at the departments of Homeland Security, Justice and State to investigate, prompting Democrats and Republicans to rush to Abedin’s defense.

However, as WND reported, Abedin worked for an organization founded by her family that is effectively at the forefront of a grand Saudi plan to mobilize U.S. Muslim minorities to transform America into a strict Wahhabi-style Islamic state, according to an Arabic-language manifesto issued by the Saudi monarchy. Abedin also was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Student Association, which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in a 1991 document introduced into evidence during the terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation trial.

The internal memo said Muslim Brotherhood members “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Lopez, a CSP senior fellow, wrote at The Gatestone Institute: “The careful insinuation of Muslim Brothers into positions from which they can exercise influence on U.S. policy began long before the attacks of 9/11, although their success has accelerated dramatically under the administration of President Barack Obama.”

She said the “massive Muslim Brotherhood organization network in the U.S., so patiently built up over the decades since that first Oval Office meeting in 1953 [with President Dwight D. Eisenhower], eventually gave it a prominence and (false) reputation of credibility that was unmatched by any other Islamic groups, moderate or otherwise.”

She said the Brotherhood achieved “information dominance” during the George W. Bush administration that only intensified in the following years.

“Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policy making, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin’s) were actively excluded,” she said.

That information dominance has contributed to startling consequences, most evident in the U.S. policy toward the al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated revolutions that many call the ‘Arab Spring,’ but which in fact are more accurately termed an ‘Islamic Awakening,’” she said.

Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements – from al-Qaida militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American anymore.”

See Gaffney discussing the issue with Glenn Beck:

%CODE2%

In the WMAL interview, McInerney said Gates’ book should alert Americans about what should be done to protect national security.

“The Middle East is coming apart with this administration’s policies. Look at Libya. We should never have gone into Libya. … We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government.”

WND columnist Diana West wrote it likely wasn’t by chance that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “reading from prepared notes, absurdly described the Muslim Brotherhood to the House Intelligence Committee last year as a ‘largely secular’ organization.”

“Is it an accident that in June the State Department issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin of Egypt to meet with senior White House officials? Eldin is a member of Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organization once led by Omar Abdel Rahman, ‘the blind sheikh’ convicted of the first attack on the World Trade Center. In the person of Rahman’s successor, Refai Ahmed Taha, the group is one of the five signatories of Osama bin Laden’s February 1998 ‘World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.’ Isn’t it imperative to review the policy mechanism that permitted a member of bin Laden’s jihad front into the White House?”

“Impeachable Offenses” also reported that then-CIA director John Brennan announced the Obama administration was calibrating policies in the fight against terrorism to ensure Americans are never “profiled.”

His speech was arranged by a Muslim Brotherhood-tied group that has deep relations not only with other Brotherhood fronts but to the White House and national security agencies.

Brennan’s NYU session was organized by the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA. ISNA, whose members asked Brennan scores of questions during the event, stated the meeting was intended to initiate a “dialogue between government officials and Muslim American leaders to explore issues of national security.”

ISNA was founded in 1981 by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students Association, which itself was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. The two groups are still partners.

ISNA is known for its promotion of strict Saudi-style Islam in mosques throughout the U.S.

Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describes ISNA as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States.”

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation.”

SecDef Gates' Book – 'Duty' Insights Expose Obama, Hillary

Editor’s Note – In a stunning release of insight, Robert Gates has set Washington, D.C. on fire. His outpouring of inside information into President Obama and Hillary Clinton, among others may set the 2016 election climate on its ear. It could also show some crucial aspects of Obama’s own statements versus his actual management style on many issues.

Obama is seen in a light closely controlled by his handlers, yet, revelations from Gates show him to be a much different person in reality. Obama and team may have much to explain that they explained away already, but not accurately.

Our questions begin with: what did Obama really know and do, and when did he know and do it? Gates seems to have opened the flood gates.

Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’

By  – Washington Post

In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.

Obama, after months of contentious discussion with Gates and other top advisers, deployed 30,000 more troops in a final push to stabilize Afghanistan before a phased withdrawal beginning in mid-2011. “I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission,” Gates writes.Duty.Gates

As a candidate, Obama had made plain his opposition to the 2003 Iraq invasion while embracing the Afghanistan war as a necessary response to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, requiring even more military resources to succeed. In Gates’s highly emotional account, Obama remains uncomfortable with the inherited wars and distrustful of the military that is providing him options. Their different worldviews produced a rift that, at least for Gates, became personally wounding and impossible to repair.

It is rare for a former Cabinet member, let alone a defense secretary occupying a central position in the chain of command, to publish such an antagonistic portrait of a sitting president.

Gates’s severe criticism is even more surprising — some might say contradictory — because toward the end of “Duty,” he says of Obama’s chief Afghanistan policies, “I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions.” That particular view is not a universal one; like much of the debate about the best path to take in Afghanistan, there is disagreement on how well the surge strategy worked, including among military officials.

The sometimes bitter tone in Gates’s 594-page account contrasts sharply with the even-tempered image that he cultivated during his many years of government service, including stints at the CIA and National Security Council. That image endured through his nearly five years in the Pentagon’s top job, beginning in President George W. Bush’s second term and continuing after Obama asked him to remain in the post. In “Duty,” Gates describes his outwardly calm demeanor as a facade. Underneath, he writes, he was frequently “seething” and “running out of patience on multiple fronts.”

The book, published by Knopf, is scheduled for release Jan. 14.

Gates writes about Obama with an ambivalence that he does not resolve, praising him as “a man of personal integrity” even as he faults his leadership. Though the book simmers with disappointment in Obama, it reflects outright contempt for Vice President Biden and many of Obama’s top aides.

Biden is accused of “poisoning the well” against the military leadership. Thomas Donilon, initially Obama’s deputy national security adviser, and then-Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the White House coordinator for the wars, are described as regularly engaged in “aggressive, suspicious, and sometimes condescending and insulting questioning of our military leaders.”

Gates is 70, nearly 20 years older than Obama. He has worked for every president going back to Richard Nixon, with the exception of Bill Clinton. Throughout his government career, he was known for his bipartisan detachment, the consummate team player. “Duty” is likely to provide ammunition for those who believe it is risky for a president to fill such a key Cabinet post with a holdover from the opposition party.

He writes, “I have tried to be fair in describing actions and motivations of others.” He seems well aware that Obama and his aides will not see it that way.

While serving as defense secretary, Gates gave Obama high marks, saying privately in the summer of 2010 that the president is “very thoughtful and analytical, but he is also quite decisive.” He added, “I think we have a similar approach to dealing with national security issues.”

Obama echoed Gates’s comments in a July 10, 2010, interview for my book “Obama’s Wars.” The president said: “Bob Gates has, I think, served me extraordinarily well. And part of the reason is, you know, I’m not sure if he considers this an insult or a compliment, but he and I actually think a lot alike, in broad terms.”

During that interview, Obama said he believed he “had garnered confidence and trust in Gates.” In “Duty,” Gates complains repeatedly that confidence and trust were what he felt was lacking in his dealings with Obama and his team. “Why did I feel I was constantly at war with everybody, as I have detailed in these pages?” he writes. “Why was I so often angry? Why did I so dislike being back in government and in Washington?”

His answer is that “the broad dysfunction in Washington wore me down, especially as I tried to maintain a public posture of nonpartisan calm, reason and conciliation.”

His lament about Washington was not the only factor contributing to his unhappiness. Gates also writes of the toll taken by the difficulty of overseeing wars against terrorism and insurgencies in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Such wars do not end with a clear surrender; Gates acknowledges having ambiguous feelings about both conflicts. For example, he writes that he does not know what he would have recommended if he had been asked his opinion on Bush’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq.

Three years later, Bush recruited Gates — who had served his father for 15 months as CIA director in the early 1990s — to take on the defense job. The first half of “Duty” covers those final two years in the Bush administration. Gates reveals some disagreements from that period, but none as fundamental or as personal as those he describes with Obama and his aides in the book’s second half.

“All too early in the [Obama] administration,” he writes, “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president — became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military leaders.”

Gates offers a catalogue of various meetings, based in part on notes that he and his aides made at the time, including an exchange between Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he calls “remarkable.”

He writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

Earlier in the book, he describes Hillary Clinton in the sort of glowing terms that might be used in a political endorsement. “I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world,” he wrote.

March 3, 2011

“Duty” reflects the memoir genre, declaring that this is how the writer saw it, warts and all, including his own. That focus tends to give short shrift to the fuller, established record. For example, in recounting the difficult discussions that led to the Afghan surge strategy in 2009, Gates makes no reference to the six-page “terms sheet” that Obama drafted at the end, laying out the rationale for the surge and withdrawal timetable. Obama asked everyone involved to sign on, signaling agreement.

According to the meeting notes of another participant, Gates is quoted as telling Obama, “You sound the bugle . . . Mr. President, and Mike [Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and I will be the first to charge the hill.”

Gates does not include such a moment in “Duty.” He picks up the story a bit later, after Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the central commander in charge of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, made remarks to the press suggesting he was not comfortable with setting a fixed date to start withdrawal.

At a March 3, 2011, National Security Council meeting, Gates writes, the president opened with a “blast.” Obama criticized the military for “popping off in the press” and said he would push back hard against any delay in beginning the withdrawal.

According to Gates, Obama concluded, “ ‘If I believe I am being gamed . . .’ and left the sentence hanging there with the clear implication the consequences would be dire.”

Gates continues: “I was pretty upset myself. I thought implicitly accusing” Petraeus, and perhaps Mullen and Gates himself, “of gaming him in front of thirty people in the Situation Room was inappropriate, not to mention highly disrespectful of Petraeus. As I sat there, I thought: the president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [Afghanistan President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”

‘Breaches of faith’

Lack of trust is a major thread in Gates’s account, along with his unsparing criticism of Obama’s aides. At times, the two threads intertwine. For example, after the devastating 2010 Haitian earthquake that had left tens of thousands dead, Gates met with Obama and Donilon, the deputy national security adviser, about disaster relief.

Donilon was “complaining about how long we were taking,” Gates writes. “Then he went too far, questioning in front of the president and a roomful of people whether General [Douglas] Fraser [head of the U.S. Southern Command] was competent to lead this effort. I’ve rarely been angrier in the Oval Office than I was at that moment. . . . My initial instinct was to storm out, telling the president on the way that he didn’t need two secretaries of defense. It took every bit of my self-discipline to stay seated on the sofa.”

Gates confirms a previously reported statement in which he told Obama’s first national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, that he thought Donilon would be a “disaster” if he succeeded Jones (as Donilon did in late 2010). Gates writes that Obama quizzed him about this characterization; a one-on-one meeting with Donilon followed, and that “cleared the air,” according to Gates.

His second year with Obama proved as tough as the first. “For me, 2010 was a year of continued conflict and a couple of important White House breaches of faith,” he writes.

The first, he says, was Obama’s decision to seek the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gays serving in the military. Though Gates says he supported the decision, there had been months and months of debate, with details still to work out. On one day’s notice, Obama informed Gates and Mullen that he would announce his request for a repeal of the law. Obama had “blindsided Admiral Mullen and me,” Gates writes.

Similarly, in a battle over defense spending, “I was extremely angry with President Obama,” Gates writes. “I felt he had breached faith with me . . . on the budget numbers.” As with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” “I felt that agreements with the Obama White House were good for only as long as they were politically convenient.”

Gates acknowledges forthrightly in “Duty” that he did not reveal his dismay. “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as [Hillary] Clinton, [then-CIA Director Leon] Panetta, and others) saw as the president’s determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations. His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost.”

It got so bad during internal debates over whether to intervene in Libya in 2011 that Gates says he felt compelled to deliver a “rant” because the White House staff was “talking about military options with the president without Defense being involved.”

Gates says his instructions to the Pentagon were: “Don’t give the White House staff and [national security staff] too much information on the military options. They don’t understand it, and ‘experts’ like Samantha Power will decide when we should move militarily.” Power, then on the national security staff and now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has been a strong advocate for humanitarian intervention.

Another time, after Donilon and Biden tried to pass orders to Gates, he told the two, “The last time I checked, neither of you are in the chain of command,” and said he expected to get orders directly from Obama.

Life at the top was no picnic, Gates writes. He did little or no socializing. “Every evening I could not wait to get home, get my office homework out of the way, write condolence letters to the families of the fallen, pour a stiff drink, wolf down a frozen dinner or carry out,” since his wife, Becky, often remained at their home in Washington state.

“I got up at five every morning to run two miles around the Mall in Washington, past the World War II, Korean, and Vietnam memorials, and in front of the Lincoln Memorial. And every morning before dawn, I would ritually look up at that stunning white statue of Lincoln, say good morning, and sadly ask him, How did you do it?”

The memoir’s title comes from a quote, “God help me to do my duty,” that Gates says he kept on his desk. The quote has been attributed to Abraham Lincoln’s war secretary, Edwin Stanton.

At his confirmation hearings to be Bush’s defense secretary in late 2006, Gates told the senators that he had not “come back to Washington to be a bump on a log and not say exactly what I think, and to speak candidly and, frankly, boldly to people at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue about what I believe and what I think needs to be done.”

But Gates says he did not speak his mind when the committee chairman listed the problems he would face as secretary. “I remember sitting at the witness table listening to this litany of woe and thinking, “What the hell am I doing here? I have walked right into the middle of a category-five shitstorm. It was the first of many, many times I would sit at the witness table thinking something very different from what I was saying.”

“Duty” offers the familiar criticism of Congress and its culture, describing it as “truly ugly.” Gates’s cold feelings toward the legislative branch stand in stark contrast to his warmth for the military. He repeatedly describes his affection for the troops, especially those in combat.

Gates wanted to quit at the end of 2010 but agreed to stay at Obama’s urging, finally leaving in mid-2011. He later joined a consulting firm with two of Bush’s closest foreign policy advisers — former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser during Bush’s second term. The firm is called RiceHadleyGates. In October, he became president-elect of the Boy Scouts of America.

Gates writes, “I did not enjoy being secretary of defense,” or as he e-mailed one friend while still serving, “People have no idea how much I detest this job.”

_________________

Evelyn Duffy also contributed to this report.

More on the Gate’s Book impact:

MG Vallely – 2014 SUA Fund Drive Campaign Letter

Dear Stand Up America US Supporters,

A

s you are likely aware, America is no longer what she once was. She is in steep decline and last year alone may go down in history as the worst in 100 years – yes, all the way

MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)
MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)

back to 1913, the previous worst year for America. That year was the point at which the Progressive movement began to tear the Constitution and our founding principles into shreds and over the past five years they have turned their act into an art form of deceit, lies, and chicanery at breathtaking speed.

We must make 2014 the point at which we recover our republic. I am asking you personally to help me in this effort. Please consider joining us and making a donation today.

Stand Up America US (SUA) was founded in 2005 as a 501(c)4 because we were witnessing the decline of America; the dismantling of our Constitution, and the destruction of the very fabric of our society not knowing how much worse it was to get.

Our mission has been to educate and inform the public, to uncover and expose wrong doing, to be stewards of fact and reason, and to help right our ship of state based upon constitutional conservatism. But we are being out-gunned, out-spent, out-organized, and over-run.

Since 2009, the Obama Administration has drained our diplomatic and military influence, and our power, reputation, and morale are in steep decline. Therefore we have launched the “National Call to Action Project” and our “Americans Project,” but we need your help NOW.

Obama’s false promises, budget busting, blame-game partisanship, and his contempt of the Congress, the Constitution and his solemn Oath of Office – as well as the long list of scandals and subsequent cover-ups and out-and-out lies –are enough to endanger the very survival of the American economy and even the Republic itself.

Even now, there is hardly any confidence and trust remaining for the Obama Administration among the American people, and America’s “standing” abroad is at an all-time low – all of which undermines our system to the core and should perhaps be officially condemned by the Congress via the “House Resolution of No Confidence” referred to at the end of this appeal.

PayPalFreeZone
Please click here for a secure method to donate today!

We can no longer trust anything we are told by Washington, and our allies see it clearly and are speaking out as well. I can confirm this from my recent visits overseas in 2013, with one taking us deep into Syria from Turkey. We also completed our first two trips to Egypt to meet with the highest levels of that new government with our partners at the Westminster Institute. More trips are planned for 2014.

Overseas it was the Syria “Red Line” and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood debacles. Then there is the high seas intimidation by China, and the specter of North Korean nukes. While all this bodes ill, John Kerry sets a different priority, he and Obama are making foolish and naïve attempts at peace between Israel and the ‘Palestinians’, right after the secret negotiations and then the appeasing deal with Iran. Again, all behind our allies’ backs as they now apply new pressure on Israel while giving money to the ‘Palestinians.’

Here at home agencies of government are being used in hit operations on its citizenry through the IRS, EPA, BATFE, OSHA, and others, even the media is frightened. With the NSA collection of data on ALL Americans, we no longer have any reason to believe in privacy. With the continuing cover-up of the Benghazi attack, and the ever unresolved Fast & Furious scandal we can no longer expect accountability. Then there is the ObamaCare fraud and lies, with government bailouts looming for insurance providers. Piled on top of that there is the sluggish economy and a ‘jobless recovery,’ all while the Stock Market breaks records; just incredible. Nothing is resolved, and no one is held accountable, and then there is the debt, the debt, and the debt…

No wonder he was chosen for uttering the “Lie of the Year!” It should be the lie of the decade as it began so long ago to induce America into his fraudulent designs. His pen has been his other weapon of mass destruction.

Finally, in the Congress, there are efforts under way to either impeach the President or to charge him in the Courts with several violations of the law and of the Constitution – all of which we support in principle but all of which are very “long shots” at a time when the Senate remains in lockstep control by the Democrats. 2014 is the year we must unseat Harry Reid as the Majority Leader and take the Senate back.

It is for these reasons that Stand Up America US is seriously considering a major initiative in the form of a highly detailed “House Resolution of No Confidence” — as described in major articles I wrote (here), by former senior Senate staffer Jim Guirard (here), and by World Net Daily columnists Bob Unruh (here) and Drew Zahn (Here).

SUA, with its supporters across this great Nation, are not giving up. We continue to Stand Up with you to ensure the Republic survives. Please join or renew with us now and tell your friends.

Come and see us at www.standupamericaus.org for updates, other original and exclusive articles, alerts, and postings we think you may want or need to read and digest.

We are thankful for the support we have received from so many generous sources over the years, both in funding and volunteerism, but sadly, our job is far from over and we have much more to do – particularly with respect to the “Resolution of No Confidence” initiative described in the articles linked above.

“If you like your President, Senators, and Representatives…you can keep them,” or… well, you know what to do. One thing is clear – the Senate is first on the list in 2014!

Enough is Enough!

PLEASE HELP Stand Up America US expose and stop these insidious deeds and stem our decline.
Thank you again for your support – please make a donation today:

Thanking you in advance,

Major General Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.); Chairman

thank-you-letter-for-donation