Blog @ MoreWhat.com

While Islam being a religion of peace is an idea largely dismissed by most infidels as well as some Muslims and former Muslims the Catholic Church is not immune to such controversy. But it is fair to say these two issues have contrasts as well as similarities.

Terrorism is certainly violence and so is sexual abuse. So-called honor killings and mistreatment of ‘non-believers’ and women in general are violent or can be. You could develop a long list of contradictions in these and other forms of institutional religion. Yes, let’s not forget abortion and those who claim to be religious that support the practice. Indeed, the list can go on.

Could that explain the dwindling membership in the Catholic Church and their recent marketing push to boost their numbers? Odd that they would continue to mishandle the big scandal and at the same time make an emotional appeal for lost sheep to return to the flock.

These concepts may explain in part this blogger’s decision to pursue spiritual matters absent the benefit of group activities (or is it detriment?)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from Sabina Castelfranco

Germany’s top bishop briefed Pope Benedict XVI on the spiraling cases of clerical sex abuse in the pontiff’s native Germany on Friday and said the pope encouraged him to pursue the truth and assist the victims.

The head of Germany’s bishops, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch apologized to victims of child abuse by priests today following a meeting with Pope Benedict at the Vatican. He said the pope encouraged him and the church in Germany to tackle the problem.

Archbishop Zollitsch said the church in his country is taking steps to counsel victims and investigate abuse allegations. He added that the pope was greatly dismayed as he was being briefed on the sex abuse scandal in his native Germany.

At least 170 former students from Catholic schools in Germany have come forward recently with claims of physical and sexual abuse, including claims from an all-boys choir once led by the pope’s brother.

Archbishop Zollitsch apologized to German victims and pledged to cooperate with prosecutors.

Zollitsch says the Church in Germany wants to unveil the truth and wants an honest clearing up of this and he says even if cases are discovered that date back to tens of years ago, the victims have the right to know.

At least 19 of Germany’s 27 dioceses have been affected by the scandal which follows similar cases in Ireland, The Netherlands and Austria. Vatican expert Marco Politi said the recent cases have brought the sexual abuse scandals much closer to the Vatican and to Pope Benedict himself.

“The atmosphere in the Vatican is of great nervousness, anxiety because these last facts, which happened in Germany and in Europe, are devastating,” he said.

The latest sex abuse scandals have also renewed debate on priestly celibacy but Pope Benedict said Friday it is a “holy value”. He told an international theological conference at a Vatican university that celibacy is an expression of the gift of oneself to God and to others.

Only pointing to the bad is as unhelpful as always pointing to the good. Certainly life as well as history is a mixture of both. But the report from Sonja Pace at VOA presented below may not even correctly point to the good when describing Muslim heritage and inventions.

There is evidence to suggest much of what Muslims may claim as their own was provided to them from others and certainly much of it before the beginnings of Islam. For example, Muhammad was born in 570 AD. Algebra likely has roots at least 1000 years earlier in Babylonia. The same culture may be responsible for a number of innovations but the religion known as Islam may have nothing to do with it.

Even in the report below one person interviewed mentions ‘Indian numerals’ which would be more accurate than some other representations. Let’s not try to cover over the terrorism aspect and hate for ‘infidels’ expressed by many Muslims.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

1001 Inventions and Muslim Heritage
Sonja Pace - London

Coffee, computers and piston engines - could we imagine a world without them? These are intricate parts of every day life for most of us and the knowledge that led to them was either invented by or passed down through the ancient Muslim world. That’s the theme of an exhibit in London’s Science Museum and it’s a far cry from the view held by some that the Muslim and Western World represent a “clash of civilizations”.

It has become an intricate part of so many cultures - that cup of coffee - latte, cappuccino, espresso. It’s “Kawha” - where it was first developed as a drink - in the Arabian Peninsula, in today’s Yemen.

Professor Salim al Hassani of the University of Manchester explains the coffee beans were actually brought to Yemen, from Ethiopia. “Well of course, coffee was invented in the very early years of Islam - a guy called Khaled in Ethiopia, a young man looking after his sheep,” he said.

The sheep seemed to like the beans. So the young man took the beans to Yemen - the story goes — and the drink was developed.

And there were many other inventions or innovations passed on by the early Muslim world from the 7th Century onward. “One of them is the invention of the university. This was done in the year 850 by a young lady called Fatima al-Firhi in the city of Fez in Morocco. The first university as we know it in the world, giving degrees and so on,” he said.

And that’s the theme of this exhibit at the London Science Museum. It’s called 1001 inventions: the Muslim Heritage - a bit like “1001 Arabian Nights” the well known fairy tale.

But, the exhibit here focuses on scientific or technological inventions and advances that changed our world — from some of the earliest universities, to innovations in medicine, hygiene, pumps, and water wheels.

“Forgotten history? Not really. Ask just about anyone on the streets of Cairo or Damascus today and they’ll readily tell you about Islam’s glory days - not just its conquests but its cultural, scientific and technological innovations.”

These advances came at the height of the Islamic empire’s glory when it spread from the Middle East, across North Africa to southern Spain and beyond. “During that time, which is about 1,000 years, there were enormous contributions in science and technology, that came to us from other civilizations over another very important civilization and that is the Muslim civilization,” he said.

Muslims absorbed knowledge - from India, China, the Greeks, the ancient Egyptians - and passed it on, a bit like this replica of the elephant clock designed by the Muslim inventor, mathematician and engineer al Jazari in the early 13th Century.

Anne Marie Brennan teaches forensic biology at London’s South Bank University and is fascinated by these innovations. The clock with its giant Indian elephant and Chinese dragons is her favorite. “The elephant clock is wonderful because it is like a United Nations clock. It has all the elements of different civilizations and I like it as a scientist because it shows that science doesn’t have to be boring and sterile and plain, but it can be decorative and it can also pay homage to the cultures that bring it forward,” she said.

And then there is mathematics and algebra. In general, our numbers are known as Arabic numerals today, but it wasn’t always so. “The numbers that we have today - 1,2,3,4 - they’re called Arabic numerals, but actually the Arabs at the time called them Indian numerals,” he said.

And, the number “0″ for example - “zephir” in Arabic - was used first by early Arab scholars as an integral part of mathematical equations. And that’s part of the all-important formula of zeros and ones that was crucial to the development of computers and other new technology.

And, much like coffee, what would we do today without it?

Watch the video and use these notes to understand the self-interest and folly of the religion of peace.

-There’s a limit
-I cannot do this job
-if you live in the United States you are already an infidel
-it’s not our job to do that
-we are here… because we have better opportunities here….
-….not fair to this community….

This vid and the phrases listed above betray what Muslims claim is unfair and that they pose no threat to others. The tired old excuse of being in the US for ‘opportunities’ is the great liberal myth. To express sentiments designed to exploit the guilt of weak minds residing within their target area Muslims work the ‘po lil ol me’ fallacy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

You could be a little troubled these days with all the talk about politicians and how they respond to matters and issues of the day. President Obama is certainly not immune to analysis or the opinions it generates. Since the mainstream media or those organizations generally considered to be the establishment media rarely open a critical eye toward the President the rest of us must fill the void. After all, the President has pledged his administration would be transparent and accountable. So let’s all help him fulfill that promise.

On the topic of shootings at Fort Hood by Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan the President said the following among other things. “But it is all the more heartbreaking and all the more despicable because of the place where it occurred and the patriots who were its victims.” It should come as no surprise that the community organizer-in-chief is often credited for being a great orator. And he has taken a lot of heat for his habitual use of teleprompters. But make no mistake, little if anything he says in public has escaped the scrutiny of the PR machine and focus groups or the rest in his inner circle. In evidence in the quote above is selecting the word ‘its’ when referring to the ‘victims’ of Hasan. There’s that strategy to appease the terrorists by calling these events ‘man-made’ disasters.

Sorry Mr President but all this is a little troubling. In his weekly Internet and radio address, Mr. Obama says those who responded to the rampage represent the best of America. “We saw soldiers and civilians alike rushing to aid fallen comrades; tearing off bullet-riddled clothes to treat the injured; using blouses as tourniquets; taking down the shooter even as they bore wounds themselves,” he said. Mr President, did you once acknowledge Kimberly Munley by name?

The president, hoping to calm potential ethnic tension, reminds the public about the diversity of those who defend the U.S. “They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers. They are descendants of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America. But what they share is a patriotism like no other,” he said.

Just by virtue of the fact the statement above was made in response to the Fort Hood shootings by Hasan demonstrates the flaw in that argument. This one must have gotten by the PR machine or the arrogance of the White House assumed you wouldn’t notice. Hasan wasn’t sharing that patriotism part, Mr President. At least at the end of the item below you refer to Hasan’s actions as a ‘crime’. Pat yourself on the back, Mr President.

My prayers go with those who were killed or injured as well as for their families. A special acknowledgment should be expressed for those who responded to the call that day. Although it has been reported Kimberly Munley does not want to be called a hero her actions were incredibly proficient and courageous. Hope she recovers from her injuries as if they never happened. Same sentiment for the others injured.

Let’s not dishonor those who died with more appeasement, Mr President.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Beltway snipers and the Fort Hood killer: Peas in a jihad-inspired pod (Michelle Malkin) 

Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama is said to be struggling over what to do in Afghanistan. Does the rookie believe ignoring intel, military and state warnings is the answer? What does this say about his campaign rhetoric to get elected and his desire to maintain favor from the far left antiwar liberal standard?

Officials: Obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangers

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, JOHN WALCOTT AND NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al-Qaida, U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy Newspapers.

His worry about public opinion ,aka far left support, and resistance to his own advisors is of such concern the report cited here mentions the problem twice in the first seven paragraphs.

However, the officials said, in their effort to muster domestic support for a more limited counterterrorism strategy that would concentrate on disrupting and dismantling al-Qaida, White House officials are neglecting warnings from their own experts about the dangers of a more modest approach.

Given the antiwar sentiment on the left that both candidate Obama and Clinton pandered to in 2008 their ability to do the right thing and at the same time protect their political futures are at odds with each other. With their own ‘experts’ and others suggesting the simmering conflicts are providing renewed strength for al-Qaeda now is not the time for indecision. Biden’s warning of a test for Obama may be just around the corner contrary to the original forecast.

Instead of national security and defense the liberal new direction is focused on an ill-conceived domestic policy Those issues can and should wait based on the pathetic proposals offered to date. The other matters are of immediate concern and need to be handled effectively. And yes, elections have consequences.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Recently the US Senate has suggested we are vulnerable to a biological terror attack. They have even brought forth measures to counter that threat. The problem is the concern has been around for years. We are fast approaching a decade since the attacks of 9/11. And the US Senate took this long to get around to considering a biological attack? The list of other potential terror threats is quite long. And there is an overriding reason to keep our collective eye on the ball.

More than one source suggests there are no connections between all the terror activities known to date. But some of us believe otherwise.

Of course there are.

Maybe it will prove to be the case that the three suspects at the heart of these interrupted plots - Najibullah Zazi, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi and Michael C. Finton (also known as Talib Islam) - had no connection in a tactical or operational sense.

Still, it is absurd, and extremely dangerous, to insist that they are not connected in at least one way: What apparently animated all three of these suspects (and perhaps a number of others believed to have been involved in the New York plot who are still at large) is the seditious, supremacist theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah.

Shariah requires its adherents to engage in jihad - the struggle to bring about the triumph of Islam worldwide through whatever means are available. Shariah explicitly calls for the use of violent techniques designed to instill terror in those who stand in the way of a global Muslim theocracy.

The simple fact that the terrorists themselves offer evidence of this being the case by their frequent broadcasts or publications of text, video and other material should be adequate confirmation of their intent. Not heeding these warnings as real is done at risk of one’s own peril.

From state sponsors of terror to Iranian and North Korean nukes to the long history of terrorism around the world one would have to have been sleeping for the last twenty years or longer to not recognize it. So all you Rip Van Winkle’s had better catch up. That includes the US Congress and those members of the liberal appeasement crowd now comprising the majority party.

Another question mark in foreign affairs is Saudi Arabia. Even without President Obama bowing to Saudis for all the world to see, the US has maintained a strange relationship with this Arab country for many years. Most would agree it is simply a matter of hedging bets on oil supplies. But even the country noted as the home of 9/11 hijackers and the birthplace of Osama bin Laden is not exempt from terrorist action within Islam.

Deputy Interior Minister Prince Muhammad bin Nayef was receiving visitors at his home in Jeddah late Thursday when the bomber got close and detonated his explosives. The prince had opened his house to visitors as part of observances for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Imagine that. Open the house for visitors during Ramadan and have a terrorist try to kill you. Yes, Ramadan, the Islamic event of fasting and asking forgiveness for one’s sins. Gotta love this religion of peace. So many contradictions, so little time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Exactly the kind of talk that supports the notion Arab countries and Muslims worldwide have an agenda for the destruction of Israel.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is in the United States for talks, says Arab nations would recognize Israel only after a just and comprehensive Mideast peace deal is reached.

Nothing like putting the cart in front of the horse. Does Mubarak say anything with this other than they want a deal that places Israel in more jeopardy from the foes that surround them? A tiny country, Israel, surrounded by a massive geography populated by Muslims has been a target of these neighbors since 1948 when the current chapter in the saga began.

As early as 2010 or 11 things may change in Egypt removing them from the occasional moderate position they express. That is not how all of this sounds.

The talks in Washington are centered on the Middle East peace process and the Arab world’s relationship with Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, all issues Mr. Mubarak has taken an active interest in.

But underneath lies the question of what comes next for Egypt, or more specifically, who. In power since 1981, Mr. Mubarak has given little indication of what the transition might look like. He has no vice president. He has not said if he will run for re-election in 2011, and many wonder if that would even be advisable, as he would be nearly 90 at the end of that term.

It is an issue that concerns not just Egyptians. Professor Said Sadek is a political scientist at the American University in Cairo, who worries any instability or political vacuum could be exploited by hardline groups and politicians across the region that oppose U.S. influence in the region.

“How do you guarantee the transition of power in Egypt, so that we don’t have an unpredictable situation in Egypt that would get you the Muslim Brotherhood here in alliance with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Beirut and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad in Tehran - voila, the American strategic policy in the area would collapse,” said Sadek.

As with any conflict all sides have made mistakes. But that certainly does not justify calling for the destruction of Israel. While calling for the death of infidels, the destruction of Israel and at the same time claiming they are mistreated, Muslims need a reality check.

Stop the terrorism and calls for more of it and someone might begin to take you seriously. Constant violence, calling for it and promoting it does not suggest a religion of peace.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Read a book. It’s possible this blog has never recommended reading a particular book other than Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. But a recent visit to tsowell.com served up a reminder of a wise choice from many of Thomas Sowell’s suggested reading list. It is not new or the latest bestseller but that is certainly not a reason to discount it. In these times of social and political unrest not to mention terrorism and Jihad the book by Bernard Lewis entitled ‘ What Went Wrong’ is not only relevant but extremely well written and compelling. If you do not care to take this blog’s word for it, being on Sowell’s reading list should suffice.

Like any treatment of the topic discussed by Lewis it is not without its detractors. In the interest of fairness one search engine result that provides the dissenting viewpoint is linked here so you can have one recommendation accompanied by one random review by someone not impressed with the work or the author. It would not be surprising if this dissenting viewpoint is held by someone not fond of criticism toward someone or something they personally value, right or wrong.

A description of the book from Sowell’s site is presented here and hopefully Mr Sowell will not object.

A small book presenting a top scholar’s very readable account of the history that led the Islamic world from its pinnacles of achievement in the past to its present pathology and poisonous and dangerous hatreds.

How about a guess? Terrorists, Jihadis, Muslims and Islam will be offended. The rest of us will not. Give it a read and make up your own mind. Hopefully you have already accepted the earlier recommendation on Levin’s book and read that by now. It would not hurt to follow the link to Sowell’s lists, etc., to find other good reading material.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For the liberals who love to label anyone expressing a strong disfavor toward ‘foreigners’ as xenophobic try on this report. Obviously this blog did not produce this report but of course extends its profound gratitude to Voice of America for presenting it. There are some who believe that Jews and others who support them are overreacting to threats from their Arab ‘neighbors’ who surround them as well as to the actions that go beyond threat level. This should be yet one more wake up call to those same liberals and another example of the mounting evidence demonstrating Muslim hate.

And the current US President is going to cozy up to the world’s Muslims yet again. Do you suppose he will start by bowing this time too? How embarrassing. And it is ironic the POLS mentioned in this story are Democrats, liberals, whatever.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(from left) Reps. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Joe Crowley (D-NY) with poster showing excerpt from Saudi school book

Lawmakers in the U.S. Congress say Saudi Arabia has failed to remove offensive material from textbooks used in the kingdom’s schools, including language promoting hatred of and violence against Jews. Three House Democrats used a news conference coinciding with U.S. President Barack Obama’s stop in Saudi Arabia to draw attention to the problem and urge the president to press Saudi leaders on the issue.

Congress has complained for years about hate-promoting language in textbooks used in Saudi Arabia’s schools, and about books used in other countries in the Arab world, notably Egypt, as well as in schools in the Palestinian territories.

Where Saudi Arabia is concerned, the issue has been raised repeatedly by the U.S State Department in its annual religious freedom report, and by the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

In a news conference, lawmakers said that despite assurances from various Saudi officials over the years that offensive and inaccurate material would be removed from textbooks, it appears little has been done.

Representative Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York, displayed a 10th grade textbook, smuggled out of Saudi Arabia and translated by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Gulf Affairs, and he read one extract. “This is to be taught to children age 15: “The Prophet said, “the hour [of judgment] will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. . . “O Muslim! O Servant of God! There is a Jew Behind Me. Come and kill him.” This is the language that is being taught to students as young as age 15,” he said.

A report prepared by Congressman Weiner’s office, with assistance from the Institute for Gulf Affairs, examined seven textbooks in circulation in Saudi Arabian public schools and used in the 6th through 12th grades in 2008 and 2009.

Among portions translated for the report are those inciting hatred of Jews and Zionism, encouraging jihad against Jews and Christians, endorsing punishment for homosexuality, demeaning women, and affirming the right of parents to force children into marriages against their will.

Representative Shelley Berkeley, a Democrat from Nevada, says Saudi Arabia, which wants to be seen as a leader in the Arab world, must take the lead in eliminating intolerant, hateful material from its textbooks.

“Until they change their textbooks and help educate the younger generation of Saudis that are in their elementary schools and in their secondary schools, and take these hateful teachings out of the textbooks and substitute what we would consider appropriate, tolerant language in teaching for these kids, I am afraid we are just going to see a perpetuation of what we see now, cycle after cycle of hatred and intolerance,” she said.

Congressman Weiner says the Saudi government must decide which side of the debate over tolerance it wants to be on. “Do they want to be on the side where President Obama and the American people are, where we want to reduce the tensions and stop passing hate from generation to generation, or do they want to continue their age-old ways of exporting the worst type of hate, which unfortunately leads to terrorism, misunderstanding and distrust all over the world,” he said.

In its report this past April, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom named Saudi Arabia a Country of Particular Concern, saying promises and Saudi commitments to the U.S., including pledges to reform textbooks, remain unfulfilled.

The report issued by Congressman Weiner’s office quoted a pledge in 2006 by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki Al-Faisal, that the government had removed intolerance from old textbooks, and implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan.

Saying patience in Congress with Saudi Arabia has worn out, Weiner said President Obama has an opportunity to prod Saudi Arabia to take action once and for all on the issue.

The first story is a bit of a surprise. The second, another in a series of stories on Dick Cheney is not. And the third, on Gitmo and the detainees continues. President Obama also suggests ‘loose nuclear materials’ will be secured in four years. Funny how US Presidents always seem to provide time lines that coincide with the election cycle for the term of the office they hold. Doesn’t do much for the public confidence factor. Is Obama’s stance on Gitmo based on a reasonable approach, his own personal opinion or the concern that not closing the facility will break one more campaign promise to his followers?

The bomb plot story has a time line indicating it is a legacy operation from the Bush Administration. You remember him. The President many love to bash yet are willing to forget he kept the US safe since 9/11 along with the man in the second story listed here by the name of Dick Cheney. BTW, another story indicates Cheney’s popularity in the polls has risen since his return to public discourse on the topic of terrorism. And another story suggests ‘the muscle’ for the GOP resides in Cheney, Limbaugh and Gingrich. Another ‘funny’ item in the sense of interesting or unusual is that President Obama mentions in the third story presented here that his number one job is to keep America safe.

A familiar pattern seems to be emerging here. Other reports suggest Obama cannot distance himself from items associated with the previous administration no matter how hard he may try. He has at least altered action of promises made to his legions of followers and been criticized by them for not being to the left enough. His actions would indicate he agrees there is some wisdom in what Bush and Cheney accomplished yet he cannot bring himself to say it. But his actions reflect that at times. And yet the left side of politics continues to bash the past and criticize the present. While the rest of us realize things weren’t so bad during the Bush years. Sure, there were reasons to be concerned. One example would be Bush pushing the shamnesty immigration policy that was soundly defeated by public outrage. The fall from grace on fiscal discipline is another. But the number one job as described by Obama in the third story here was a complete success.

Those who support keeping Gitmo open and handling the detainee question as in the Bush years express the notion that it has worked. Those who oppose it suggest their is something wrong, immoral or impractical about it. Try this parallel. The use of self-defense in protecting one’s life and the lives of others. No reasonable person wishes to kill another. But sometimes it is necessary. Consider you have a weapon in your possession. An armed intruder violates the sanctity of your home and the scenario places you face to face with the threat. As the intruder raises his weapon toward you there are two choices. It might be nice to talk it over and find a mutually agreeable resolution to this conflict. But most reasonable people would understand the intruder already made his decision which leaves you with one choice. It is unfortunate. But not unlike the Gitmo and other terrorism questions choosing the ‘nice’ choice may end your life or the lives of others.

Try stirring that ingredient into your humble pie.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Four men arrested in an alleged plot to blow up a synagogue, a Jewish community center, and U.S. warplanes are expected to appear in federal court Thursday in White Plains, New York.

Federal prosecutors say New York City authorities arrested the men Wednesday, following a year-long undercover operation. In a statement Wednesday, prosecutors say the suspects tried to buy plastic explosives from an undercover FBI informant to use in an attack on a New York synagogue.

They are also accused of trying to obtain surface-to-air missiles to attack military planes at an Air National Guard Base near New York City.

Federal prosecutors say the four men have been charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. They have also been charged with conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles.

Officials say three of the defendants are U.S. citizens and one is of Haitian descent.

Authorities say one suspect, James Cromitie, told an informant that his parents once lived in Afghanistan and that he was angry about the killings of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. military forces.

The other three suspects are David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen.

A local newspaper, the Times Herald-Record, says an area mosque leader has described one of the men, 21-year-old Payen, as a “strange kid” with “a lot of psychological problems.” The newspaper quotes mosque leader Hamin Rashada as saying Payen would occasionally attend services and that his statements on Islam often had to be corrected.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has defended the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation methods, saying they were necessary to get information from terrorists and save American lives.

In a speech Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Cheney said President Barack Obama and other officials have largely “mischaracterized” the previous administration’s approval of such techniques.

He said they were “essential,” “justified,” “successful,” and the “right thing to do” and that they prevented the violent deaths of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of people.

The former vice president, who played a major role in crafting U.S. anti-terrorist policies under George W. Bush, said the methods were always given legal review before approved and that torture was never permitted.

President Obama says the Bush-approved simulated drowning technique known as water-boarding was torture and vows to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Cheney has sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s national security policies, saying he is making the United States more vulnerable to terror attacks.

Former Vice President Cheney has said he has made a request to declassify two CIA memos that he says outlines, in detail, the successes that came from using harsh techniques during interrogation of terror suspects.

Al-Qaida actively planning to attack US

U.S. President Barack Obama says al-Qaida is actively planning to attack the United States again.

In a speech in Washington Thursday, Mr Obama said these are “extraordinary times” for the country, fighting two wars and facing a range of challenges. He said his single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe.

The president said the U.S. must use all its elements of power to defeat the threat posed by al-Qaida terrorists, and he added that steps have already been taken to ensure the country is secure.

Addressing an audience of senior Cabinet officials and members of Congress, Mr. Obama said these steps include providing the necessary resources to fight the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and investing in military and intelligence capabilities. He also said his administration has “re-energized” a global effort to curb proliferation of nuclear weapons - in the president’s words, “to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons.”

Mr. Obama said all “loose” nuclear materials in the world should be secure within four years.

He said the United States is better protecting its borders and increasing its preparedness for any future attacks or natural disasters. The United States is building new partnerships around the world, the president said, “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates.”

Mr. Obama said the United States has renewed American diplomacy, so that the U.S. once again has the “strength and standing to truly lead the world.”

Obama defends decision to close Guantanamo prison

President Obama has defended his decision to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the facility set back the moral authority of the United States.

Although hundreds of people have been detained at Guantanamo during the past seven years, Mr. Obama said, the military commissions set up to try those detainees have handled only three cases.

Continued operation of the prison at Guantanamo has “weakened” U.S. national security, according to Mr. Obama, who announced his intention to transfer some of those held in Cuba to so-called “supermax” prisons - ultra-secure detention facilities - in the United States.

The president’s plan to close Guantanamo by January of next year has attracted widespread criticism in the United States from those who oppose the transfer of dangerous suspects to U.S. states.

Mr. Obama pledged that his administration will not release anyone who would endanger U.S. national security or the American people.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s policies on Guantanamo and other issues, also is speaking out on national-security issues Thursday.

Mr. Obama says the Guantanamo detention camp has been an obstacle to getting allies to cooperate with the United States in fighting worldwide extremism.

He described the prison as a “mess” and said it was a “misguided experiment” begun by the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama said all pending cases at Guantanamo will be reviewed.

US Must Not Abandon Principles

President Obama has said that after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States entered a new era, in which enemies did not abide by any laws of war and presented new challenges to the application of U.S. law.

Mr. Obama said the government needs new tools to protect the American people, prevent terrorist attacks and prosecute those who carry them out.

He said that faced with an uncertain threat to the United States after the September 11 attacks, the government made a series of hasty decisions in an effort to protect Americans, and did so based on fear rather than foresight.

He said the U.S. cannot afford to set aside its principles, something he accused both Democrats and Republicans of doing.

President Obama called on both parties to take a new approach, rejecting torture and recognizing the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

The president said the United States needs to update its institutions to deal with the threat of extremism, but must do so within the the rule of law and with due process, checks and balances and accountability.

President Obama said the legal approach for fighting terrorism over the last eight years was neither effective nor sustainable, and failed to adhere to America’s values.

Mr. Obama said that is why he chose to ban so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, such as water-boarding. He said he rejects the assertion that such methods are the most effective means of interrogation.

He said they undermine the law, alienate the U.S. internationally, and increase the enemies’ will to fight.

Some detainees to be tried in US federal courts

President Obama says whenever feasible, detainees at Guantanamo who have violated American criminal laws will be tried in American federal courts.

Mr. Obama noted that terrorists including Zaccarias Moussaoui, identified as the 20th hijacker in the September 11 attacks, was convicted in a U.S. court and is serving a life prison sentence.

He said detainees who violate the laws of war will be tried through military commissions, saying such panels have a history in the United States dating back to the first U.S. president and the Revolutionary War.

The president said his administration is bring the commissions in line with the rule of law, instead of using what he called the same “flawed” commissions of the last seven years.

Many challenges remain before closure of prison

President Obama says there are detainees at Guantanamo who in effect “remain at war” with the United States.

He acknowledged challenges in closing the facility, and said his goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees.

He said the toughest decision on the closure is what to do with detainees who cannot be prosecuted but yet pose what he called a “clear danger” to the American people.

The president said if the U.S. determines it must hold someone indefinitely to prevent a terror attack, then it must be done with a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.

Review of state secret doctrine nears completion

President Obama says his administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of the state secret doctrine.

Mr. Obama noted the doctrine has been used for many decades by presidents to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. He said the practice is “absolutely necessary” to protect national security, but he is concerned that it has been overused.

He said governments must not protect information merely because it reveals violations of the law or embarrasses the government.

Although the report below is brief the less than subtle omission by one of Ahmadinejad’s challengers to reject the holocaust denial renders him just another thug cut from the same cloth. How difficult is it to draw the conclusion that this is simply more Iranian dinner theatre attempting to portray their country as something other than what it is. Just one more haven for the ‘religion of peace’ focused on Middle East power, nuclear extortion or worse as well as the destruction of Israel and infidels in general.

At the rate Iran delays the inevitable intervention to eliminate their pursuit and use of nuclear weapons the prospect that they will succeed or that Israel will be the one to stop them increases. And somehow through all of this President Obama gives the impression he thinks he has the answer where none has been found to date. It is time the rest of the world reduces the Iranian threat to a minor historical footnote unless we would all rather face the limited options once Iran has a few nukes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One of two reformist candidates in Iran’s upcoming election is lashing out at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his denial of the Holocaust.

Former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karroubi says Mr. Ahmadinejad’s claim that the Holocaust never happened, only serves to antagonize the West. He also says such comments help the rest of the world to stand by Israel.

This is not the first time Mr. Karroubi has criticized the Iranian president for his stance on the Holocaust, during which six million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis.

In April, he called Mr. Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust “harmful” to Iran’s interests.

Mr. Karroubi and fellow reformist presidential candidate, former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi have also accused President Ahmadinejad of mismanaging the country’s oil resources.

Iranians go to the polls June 12.

Mr. Mousavi was prime minister in the 1980s during Iran’s war with Iraq and is seen as the main challenger to President Ahmadinejad.

Although Iran’s nuclear program and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s negative comments about Israel have generated attention abroad, analysts predict the worsening Iranian economy and high inflation will dominate the campaign.

Why do many MSM reports about an upcoming speech to be given by President Obama in Egypt focus on the expressed opinion of a group called the Muslim Brotherhood? By all accounts the group has been around for a very long time and could be characterized as favoring a militant strategy or adopting what is typically called radical Islam as opposed to the religion of peace notion expressed by other Muslims.

While Egypt has banned the group officially some reports indicate independents in the Egyptian parliament account for 88 of the 454 seats. Those independents are described as members of the brotherhood. It is also reported that this brotherhood operates hospitals and schools within the country. What may have originally been a serious attempt to eliminate the group may have changed to a hollow gesture as a public relations strategy. Ties to Hamas and the fact that many organizations which funnel money to terrorist groups operate enterprises to hide their activities casts suspicion on the motives of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its ‘colorful’ history is not without examples of terrorist connections.

What is one to make of the Muslim Brotherhood’s latest contention that President Obama’s upcoming speech to the Arab world is a ploy to push a pro-Israeli agenda? The critics of Obama in the US have lined up to denounce his submissive advances to Arab leaders in recent months. The more extreme views of his critics suggest his Muslim background will influence his agenda in a manner unfavorable to Israel as demonstrated by his call for a two-state solution. The deputy leader of this Islamic brotherhood has referred to Obama’s speech as a ruse. Maybe the ruse is in the brotherhood’s calculated public statements and is being used to hide the fact the American President is no friend to Israel.

An interesting note in a WaPo piece on this topic suggests Muslims do not trust the US due to American support for Arab leaders who have not been elected. In Eqypt, Mubarak does not tolerate political opposition and is said to be preparing for his son to take the helm in the future. The push for democracy in the Middle East by the US is seen as hypocritical by Muslims who oppose leaders like Mubarak.

The piece includes statements that three items are key to anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. The war in Iraq, Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib are listed as the main grievances. It is worthwhile to note that it is likely none of these three items would have occurred had the US not been attacked by terrorists on 9/11. It also fails to note the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers. Not to mention that most Arab countries celebrated the attack while at the same time releasing statements of condolence as official government actions or remaining silent about the incident.

There is no indication the current American President will be as strong an ally to Israel as past presidents. There is ample reason to be concerned his two-state solution favors those intent on destroying Israel. Which in turn raises concern that many of the new President’s agenda items put the nation he took an oath to protect at greater risk. But there has already been opposition to some of the President’s actions from his own party. Could it be that is a sign his dangerous plans will fail before any serious damage is done? Or are we headed for the iceberg in the Titanic?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sometimes it is good to delay publishing one’s opinion on a topic even when the facts are right there in front of you and your frustration level could use the release of expressing the obvious about someone who has been entrusted with leading your nation, that you love and is entirely wrong. It is only good when someone with a great deal more credibility does it for you. And that expression includes the credibility of many more who feel the same way. The excerpt below explains it.

The Interrogation Memorandums
By Gary Berntsen
April 22, 2009

President Obama’s release of these memos took place despite substantial protest. The four most recent CIA Directors-John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden-all recommended against the release of these memorandums. President Obama’s own newly appointed Director of CIA, Leon Panetta, also recommended against releasing the documents. Yet President Obama, in a seemingly relentless effort to discredit his predecessor, George W. Bush, made the memorandum available to the public anyway.

As with other references presented on this blog it adds to the growing criticism of a new President and dispels much of the inflamed rhetoric employed by the far left strictly for political purposes. While some on the left may express genuine concern and honest, although misinformed, opinions on critical issues or even which issues are critical the dominant theme especially with regard to national security dooms us to repeat history if we follow suggestions to ignore it.

Which brings us back to the beginning. President Obama like many others in the past expressed an interest in being surrounded by smart people who disagree with him to give him advice. Based on his recent choice for CIA chief who advised him not to disclose the memos it is obvious again Mr Obama had no intention of listening to those who present arguments contrary to his own. Just like calling the GOP the party of ‘no’ and doing your best to shut them out since you have a political majority in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com