President Obama takes another page from the Ahmadinejad (Columbia U) playbook. For the Iranian it was engage the opponent, your target, your enemy, the infidels. Attempt to persuade them you mean them no harm. For Ahmadinejad it was more a case of the trojan horse. For Obama it is more a case of the appeaser cowering to a sworn enemy of Israel and anyone who defends them. Falls nicely into place with that infidel thing. And just as nicely into Obama’s surrender strategy if you recall the campaign of 2008.
The only thing missing from Obama’s message below is ‘and they all lived happily ever after.’.. And we know the genre of writing from which that fantasy comes. Hope and change will not render it true. This Messiah would need to conjure a miracle or three for that to happen. Pleading shows weakness and no courage of conviction whereas strength through the projection of power and determination based on defending principle does. Count the number of times that appeasing the agenda of rogue nations has been successful in the past.
Russia was not requested to ‘tear down that wall’ during the Cuban missile crisis. Japan wasn’t asked to surrender right after they attacked Pearl Harbor. But President Obama tells the ‘Muslim world’ he intends ‘to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace.’ He tells people with no interest in peace with Israel that he will work on that. Is that what comes from a Harvard education?
In his first interview with an Arab television station, President Barack Obama offered a bold change to America’s relations with the Muslim world.
“My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives,” President Obama told Al Arabiya. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.”
In the interview, conducted in the White House map room, President Obama also expressed his commitment to tackling the Middle East peace process immediately.
“Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we’re not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we’re going to start now,” he said. “It may take a long time to do, but we’re going to do it now.”
The interview is part of the President’s broader outreach to the Muslim world, which includes a promise to make a major address from the capital of a Muslim nation.
Al Arabiya is a 24-hour Arabic-language news channel based out of Dubai.
Obama to Muslims: America Not Enemy
By VOA News
27 January 2009
US President Obama gives exclusive interview to Al-Arabiya TV
U.S. President Barack Obama says he will work to show the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemy.
In his first formal interview - granted to an Arab television network - the American leader said his job is also to show Americans that people in the Muslim world simply want to live their lives and make better lives for their children.
Speaking on Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television, Mr. Obama pointed out that he has lived in Muslim countries and has Muslim family members.
As for Islamist terrorists, he said their ideas are bankrupt. He said nothing they have done has ensured that a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education, or has better health care.
Mr. Obama also repeated his inaugural address pledge to extend a hand to countries such as Iran if they are - as he said - “willing to unclench their fist.”
He said the United States must be willing to engage in diplomacy with Iran and promised to lay out a general framework and approach over the next several months.
Asked about the president’s comments Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it is up to Iran to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community.
As for the current standoff between Israel and Hamas, he said “the moment is ripe” for Israelis and Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace, but he added that all parties in the region must play a role in the process.
Mr. Obama said it is not possible to think of the Middle East without looking at the region as a whole, including Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for he said they are all interrelated.
He also said he plans to follow through on a promise to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital.
Has President Barack Obama provided any clues on how he plans to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? After taking the oath of office as cited below….
…President Barack Obama delivered his inaugural address. As the transcript provides in the second paragraph of his speech President Obama made reference to this. ‘At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.’ There are two troubling items here. Is there a difference between ‘we the people’ and the President of the United States? And ‘true to our founding documents’ could be viewed as a little vague. Since he is now in the highest office in the nation it is difficult to determine if he is drawing a distinction between the two especially now that he is in ‘high office’.
If you object to the preceding paragraph consider the following:
Another statement holds the phrase, ‘we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.’ Says who? Hope is for losers. The minute you start a sentence with ‘I hope’ you end the pursuit of the ends you seek by abandoning self-determination and personal responsibility. You then expect someone or something else to provide the solution on your behalf. Even the lottery has better odds of success. Hope is not the antidote for fear. Fear is a natural response to a threat. Hope is not part of the solution but a surrender to the fear.
‘Unity of purpose over conflict and discord’ is choice rhetoric. It is merely an extension of the hope and fear sentiment designed by the far left to convince the weak to succumb to the nanny state philosophy that government is the answer to all your problems. It is further evidence that an Obama Administration will choose appeasement and surrender over standing up and defending freedom against those who wish our nation harm.
The next two paragraphs on ’setting aside childish things’ and ‘reaffirmation’ is merely a shot at his opposition party as well as the previous administration. It is full of contradictions in how we must change and yet continue as we are. It exposes the desire to change America and redefine that change as something we have lost which is untrue. The only time we risk losing what is and has been America is when we fail to oppose radical notions that would lead to and end of this republic as we know it.
The next contradiction in this speech begins ‘this is the journey we continue today.’ On the one hand President Obama states we are just as good and strong as we always were and on the other hand we must change. Perhaps his call to stop putting off unpleasant decisions refers to his pursuit of socialism. If you disagree with this appraisal please explain how a never ending expansion of government and a continuation of government control of private enterprise is anything other than a move to socialism? The subsequent paragraph largely details Obama’s plan for such policies.
The paragraph starting with ‘nor is the question before us’ specifically addresses President Obama’s desire to redistribute wealth disguised as an endorsement of free markets. He accepts the fact that free markets work but without government intervention they do not share the wealth equally or for the common good. Yes, go ahead and be successful in free markets but be ready to share all you have with everyone else whether they earn it or not.
Much of the remainder of the speech beyond this point continues to stress Obama’s belief that his ideas are what WAS good about America and uses general rhetorical references to history as his proof that what he believes is what we once were. These parts of the speech reinforce his intention to appease the very people who threaten this nation. They are crafted to send a message that this new leader will bend to the threat. Every time this nation has withdrawn and given confidence to those who believe we are too timid to defend ourselves we have been attacked. A return to such policies will only invite more of the same. For Mr Obama to attempt to convince the public that weak-kneed concessions and appeasement of global threats is the best defense underscores his refusal to understand history or his intent to mislead.
(Full text of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address, as prepared for delivery)
My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Just another example of whining from the Muslim population when another one of their attacks on Israel fails. Is it possible they really expect to eliminate or defeat Israel by lobbing primitive rockets in their country? No. They know the rocket attacks will not cause much more than an annoyance. That is not why they do it. They simply try to see what they can get away with and wait for Israel to lose patients from getting no cooperation in solving the problem. Then once Israel exercises its right to defend itself by defeating those responsible the remainder of the Muslim world whines that Israel is being unfair and mistreating the offenders.
It shows how ridiculous international politics are as this sort of thing has continued for years and the rest of world is content to let it continue. With the number of those involved expressing a desire to eliminate Israel the chance of a peace arrangement has never been realistic. Why other nations including the US even engage in the theatre of appearing to believe it will ever happen is as ridiculous as witnessing just one more violent episode like another old rerun on TV.
What was just expressed is the main reason this blog has only recently published any commentary on the topic. The endless loop that is the history of the Middle East with regard to Israel and its neighbors is so repetitive as to be pathetic nonsense. Those opposed to Israel in the region and elsewhere have no interest in peace. That is why it is time to republish another Muslim cartoon to demonstrate the silly notion of the religion of peace. One annoying display deserves another.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Worldwide Protests Against Gaza Operation
By VOA News 10 January 2009
Tens of thousands of Muslims took to the streets Friday from Amman to Jakarta to protest the Israeli action in Gaza.
An estimated 50,000 people rallied in the Egyptian coastal city of Alexandria after Friday prayers. The demonstrators waved Palestinian flags and shouted slogans against Israel, and in support of Hamas.
In Amman, Jordan, police fired teargas on a crowd of some two-thousand people to prevent them from marching to the Israeli embassy.
In Israel’s occupied West Bank, police in Ramallah and Hebron also used teargas to disperse Palestinian protesters.
Other demonstrations were reported in Turkey, Algeria, Kenya, Indonesia and Malaysia.
Some of the demonstrators expressed anger at Arab leaders for failing to ease the plight of people in Gaza. Egypt has kept its border with Gaza largely closed.
The European Jewish Congress said earlier this week it was planning pro-Israel rallies in London, Rome, Berlin, Vienna, and other locations.
There will be no attempt to influence your opinion on the following. You should be able to draw the proper conclusion on your own.
Obama: Close Gitmo on Day One
San Francisco Chronicle, USA - 18 hours ago
His legal and military advisers need to examine the detainees to decide whether who should stay locked up (such as the professed architect of the Sept. …
Muslims Welcome Obama’s Gitmo Plan
Islam Online, Qatar - 1 hour ago
The US has been holding hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo, opened in early 2002, for years. The outgoing Bush administration had designated them unlawful …
Obama’s right to shut down Gitmo
Detroit Free Press, United States - 22 hours ago
It says Gitmo is a disgrace, an affront to all things American, and intolerable as a part of the US military. That signal has as much import inside this …
Closing Gitmo requires tough judgments on inmates
The Associated Press - Jan 13, 2009
The Bush administration has called the Guantanamo detainees “the worst of the worst.” The Pentagon insists they would attack America or its allies. …
Pentagon: Gitmo detainees returning to battlefield
The Associated Press - Jan 13, 2009
Sixty-one detainees released from the US Navy base prison in Cuba are believed to have rejoined the fight, said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, …
Pentagon: Ex-Gitmo detainees resume terror acts
CNN - 15 hours ago
Since 2007, more than 100 detainees were released, significantly more than in previous years, according to Pentagon officials. According to the statistics, …
Pentagon: 61 Released Gitmo Detainees Returned to Jihad
Jawa Report, TX - 23 hours ago
I don’t mind closing Gitmo. House the SOBs somewhere else. Better yet, hang them for violating the Geneva Conventions. I really don’t care. …
You can hear the protests already. And while it seems the only substantial discomfort to passengers was a major inconvenience, the new catch phrase, Flying While Muslim, may be as flawed as the reason for 9 Muslims being removed from a DC flight to Orlando. That is if this quote from one of those removed is accurate. “My brother and his wife were discussing some aspect of airport security,” said passenger Kashif Irfan. Most reports indicate the conversation was about the safest place to sit. And while a guess might be that those removed were required to pay for a different flight to complete their trip may end up being reimbursed once the smoke clears, if they are not then the discomfort was more than inconvenience. Certainly the protests expected will conclude the travelers were treated unfairly. While there may be an argument to support that notion one can also express the tendency to act on the side of caution since 9/11. Even if the outcome is unfair. So was 9/11.
It has been seven years since the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Flight 93 were attacked. Those who wish to object to the occasional incident typically referred to as flying while Muslim, etc., might consider that under the circumstances little has been done in the Muslim community to convince the non-Muslim world the religion of peace is a religion of peace. If it is not fair to ask this of the Muslim community then is it fair to expect the remainder of the world to take it on ‘faith’ that Islam is largely peaceful given the actions of so-called radicals among them?
To adhere to the spirit of full disclosure readers of this blog should know the author’s racial demographic is white. That alone exposes one to a better than even chance of being viewed as a racist. While the author is way past the college years, it was in that environment the following tidbit was presented. No matter who you are if you believe you are not prejudiced you are deluding yourself. Prior to that the concept of ethnocentrism was presented. Or according to wordnet at Princeton, ‘a belief in the superiority of one’s own ethnic group.’ The point is, if you haven’t already guessed it, we all deal with our own prejudices and those of other people every day. It is not likely something that will be rectified any time soon.
For those who suspect this white author has never experienced prejudice as severe as others the following anecdotes are offered. While traveling alone on a cross-country trip by car I was stopped on an interstate by a member of the state police (state intentionally omitted). As I exited the vehicle on command the officer was resting his arms on his open car door aiming toward me what appeared a cannon in my eyes. You can imagine the fear caused by the very real possibility my life was about to end. Obviously I’m still alive. It seems a fellow officer had been killed during a traffic stop and for some reason this officer thought I did it. The matter was of course cleared up but none too soon.
A similar event but with a fellow traveler found the two of us being stopped, interrogated, searched and otherwise inconvenienced by local authorities in a small rural town. It was excused by them as their own brand of fighting drug trafficking. Again, at some point, we were allowed to continue our travel. Had these two events resulted in worse outcomes it might be viewed as intolerable acts of prejudice or at least injustice perpetrated by law enforcement bending the rules.
There are many more anecdotes that will not be offered as it is hoped the two offered thus far will suffice. Again, there is a point. And some of the anecdotes not offered would feature someone from the white racial demographic being treated wrongly simply based on that fact. And yes, the point is prejudice happens to everyone. That may be the only part of prejudice that is an oxymoron. The question is what do we do about it? And that, beloved readers (wink, wink) is the 64 trillion dollar question. For those of you old enough to remember the significance of the 64,000 dollar question, bailouts and other current economic realities caused the inflationary figure displayed.
Happy New Year, my *&$##^&
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
postscript: Perhaps the flying while Muslim on September 11, 2001 is responsible for the flying while Muslim difficulties since then.
“All this was, and is, disproportionate, indiscriminate mass violence in violation of international law,” Kucinich said in a statement. “Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable.” Again, Dennis, you are not paying attention. Or you are paying attention but only started listening after those supporting the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel began complaining only after Israel’s military response. Israel announced it would no longer allow the attacks to continue. That was after meetings with others in the region and requesting Hamas to stop the attacks. At least one report suggests most of the ‘300′ killed were armed militants, not civilians. But civilians will be exposed to risk when the militants intentionally hide among them displaying their lack of courage and willingness to sacrifice innocent people for their own purposes.
In light of the financial problems faced by the state you represent, Dennis, and your math and foreign affairs handicap, you should limit your politics to the state of Ohio.
The most telling irony this week comes from Arab protesters quick to denounce Israel’s military response to Hamas rocket attacks. Where was this outrage when Hamas began the rocket attacks? The contrived outrage over Israel defending itself from Hamas rocket attacks is the Arab self-exposure of their true feelings. It is quite obvious now as it may have been before that the ‘Arab world’ supports attacking Israel and opposes Israel defending itself. This blog has resisted publishing a statement like this in the past for lack of a well defined example of the Arab position on Israel. Some may reject the idea of their not being one before as easily as others may reject the idea that there is one now. That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The opinion here is that there is no argument remaining that the Arab world means Israel no harm.
The ‘Arab world’ remained quiet about the rocket attacks. Funny how they got all interested in the military response that contrary to their opinion is reasonable. Say nothing about militants attacking Israel but denounce Israel’s right to defend themselves against attack. And who was affected by the Israeli response?
‘Used by Islamic militant group Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies’ is the key portion in this report that falls on deaf Arab ears. Other reports indicate Arabs, Muslims, whatever, criticize Arab governments for their wimpy denouncement of Israel. So what’s new? Ignore any attack on Israel but make a great deal of noise when Israel responds to attacks. It is time the ‘religion of peace’ and its followers end the double standard toward Israel. If you want the insanity to stop you must not enable it by your action or inaction. If you want peace stop blaming everyone else for the problem and accept your own responsibility for finding peace.
While Queen Elizabeth II continued a British tradition that goes back to 1957 and exercised one of her rare occasions to freely express her own views, a 16 year old tradition was continued at the national TV outlet Channel Four presenting ‘an Alternative Christmas Message featuring someone who is not the most popular man on campus.
As the report below indicates, ‘giving the platform’ to the Iranian President for an alternative Christmas Message has ‘generated controversy in some quarters’ in Britain. Ahmadinejad has openly called for the elimination of Israel. Iran is currently involved in a political conflict with many nations on their pursuit of nuclear options that may include weapons. There is much about this scenario which now gives more credence to the notion there are many parallels and similarities to Ahmadinejad and Hitler. This latest event in Britain is reminiscent of similar circumstances in British history. There are a number of events over the past few years that are reminders of British reaction to world events in the last 100 years. Should we be concerned?
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
By Tom Rivers London 25 December 2008
In her traditional Christmas message to the country, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II focused on the concerns many are feeling this year about the deepening economic downturn. Meanwhile, Britain’s Channel 4 Television has broadcast what it calls an alternative Christmas address, delivered by the President of Iran.
Mindful of the prolonged recession many in Britain are predicting, Queen Elizabeth II noted that these are nervous times for many. Unemployment is rising steadily, a number of major retail outlets have already gone out of business and some big banks are only operating now with the help of government assistance.
“Christmas is a time for celebration but this year, it is a more somber occasion for many. Some of those things which could once have been taken for granted suddenly seem less certain and naturally give rise to feelings of insecurity,” she said. “People are touched by events which have their roots far across the world, whether it is the global economy or violence in a distant land, the effects can be keenly felt at home.”
The Queen’s Christmas speech represents one of the rare occasions in the year when she can freely express her own views.
Her annual TV broadcast goes back to 1957.
Meanwhile in a tradition stretching back over the past 16 years, a so-called Alternative Christmas Message was broadcast on British national TV outlet, Channel Four.
This year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given the platform.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad rhetorically asks what Jesus Christ would make of the current world. The Iranian leader concludes he would hoist the banner of justice and oppose what he called warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies around the world.
The message has generated controversy in some quarters here. Britain’s Foreign Office predicts it may cause offense amongst what it calls friendly nations abroad.
The head of Channel Four News says it is enormously important to hear the views of the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East.
An AP report suggests Barack Obama will try to improve America’s image as viewed by other nations. The report also blames America’s image problem entirely on the war on terror. Could it be many nations are not happy with the US for refusing to do nothing about 9/11? Could it be those nations had hoped that after the attack on the World Trade Center America would simply withdraw from the international stage or offer surrender or appeasement to the terrorists and their state sponsors?
Rather than suggest America has an image problem it may be reasonable to suggest there are plenty of countries in the world that need to address their own ‘image’ problems. According to the USA Today on Feb 6, 2002 15 of the 19 hijackers from the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis disputed this information and at one point suggested it was Israeli-inspired. Well no one is disputing Osama bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia and had his citizenship withdrawn in 1994.
What about those of power and influence in Saudi Arabia? The royal family in all its luxury and fundamentalist views has been accused of many things with regard to the way ordinary citizens are treated in their country. How much different is that to the way others are treated in countries like Iran, Syria, or even Iraq? In general, how are Muslims doing on matters of human rights, treatment of women, tolerance of other religions and violence or oppression of individuals in their midst who may not share their views? But America has an image problem. How ironic.
Yet President-elect Barack Hussein Obama (the full name as he intends to use at inauguration) intends to make his case to the Muslim world in an effort to improve America’s image as viewed by Islamic nations. Obama promised during his campaign that one of his top priorities would be to work to repair America’s reputation worldwide, and that one element of that effort would be a speech delivered in a Muslim capital. It is reported as customary for American presidents to be inaugurated using their full name. It is also reasonable to believe that Barack Obama’s parents are responsible for selecting his full name. But every choice made by Barack Obama as an adult is a responsibility he must shoulder. Does his intention to essentially ‘apologize’ to the Muslim world add support to the notion that liberals favor surrender and appeasement to those who favor our destruction as well as anyone else viewed as infidels. Which by the way sometimes includes members of their own religion.
‘In the Muslim world in particular’ is a troubling statement. The President-elect seems to be focusing on an agenda item discussed by many during the 2008 campaign in which bloggers in particular were criticized for suggesting. That Barack Obama may demonstrate his affinity with the Muslim world through policy and initiatives while in the White House. Another major concern by those opposed to his election deals with his connection to corrupt Chicago politics all the way up to the Illinois governor who was arrested on corruption charges this week. How about the following excerpt in light of that and concerns with his associations with the likes of Tony Rezko and William Ayers, etc.
Most Americans probably knew very little about Islam and Muslims and anything related other than it was one religion among many. That all changed after 9/11. Most Americans being reasonable people even after the attack on the World Trade Center and the evidence linking Muslim terrorists to the event probably concluded it was just coincidence that terrorists originally from places not entirely friendly with the US and described as Muslim had perpetrated the attack.
There is one school of thought that distinguishes Muslim terrorists from Muslims in general and another that does not. Initially after months of silence some Muslims denounced terrorism while politically correct individuals made the distinction between the Muslim faith and terrorism as radical Islam. A recent piece featured on an internet news site as well as on blogs suggests such distinctions are ignoring the truth. That Muslims are intent on destroying all infidels or anyone who does not believe as they do and to keep those who are not viewed as righteous Muslims to some subclass subject to the tyranny of others.
So the article below might get one’s attention, especially the title. Note that the idea of Muslims asking forgiveness only appears in the title and no more mention of it is made in the remainder of the piece. There are other troubling features in this article but they will not be suggested in this post. It is up to you to determine if any of this is troubling.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Millions of Muslims Ask Forgiveness on Sacred Mount at Hajj Climax
By Edward Yeranian Cairo, Egypt 07 December 2008
Vast swells of pilgrims congregated on Mount Arafat in one of the major focal points of the annual Hajj to Mecca. Saudi authorities say this year’s Hajj has been without incident, unlike many previous years, as Edward Yeranian reports from Cairo. Pilgrims listened with rapt attention to the sermon from Namera Mosque on Mount Arafat, on the second day of the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. The ascent of Mount Arafat began early, and by sunrise hundreds of thousands of white cloaked pilgrims had converged on the site where Mohammed was reputed to have delivered his last sermon, about 14 centuries ago. Puffs of smoke rose into the air, and swirled around, driven by a light breeze, as the vast swell of pilgrims stood on the mountain and prayed in the sun on a warm December day. Sheikh Abdallah Musfar says the climb of Mount Arafat is the best and most memorable day of the Hajj, and explains its significance. He says that on this day, every second and every minute is devoted to God. Arafat, he insists, is the best day of all, because God came and appeared in the sky to the Muslim faithful, to deliver a message, and then re-appeared every night, in all his glory to both the angels in the sky and to man on earth. Saudi government TV reports that up to three million pilgrims are present in Mecca for this year’s Hajj, and that no serious incidents have been reported. Saudi Security forces, along with civil defense workers, and boy scouts have been deployed to keep order and to assist pilgrims with food, water, directions and first aid, when necessary. Saudi National Guard Health Affairs Director Dr. Abdallah ben Abd al Aziz Rabeia explains how his men are helping pilgrims on their journey. He says the National Guard participates in the Hajj in many ways, including with troops stationed in Mina, in addition to specialized clinics for the sick. He adds that the National Guard has 10 brigades of rapid intervention forces that are armed, just in case. Rescue vehicles, equipped with beds, medications and mobile clinics are also on call. Even boy scouts, like 16 year-old Abdallah Qadmy are participating in this year’s Hajj, putting in eight-hour days of welcoming pilgrims, giving directions and providing water to the thirsty. He says that he came to Mecca from his home town with a sincere desire to help pilgrims. He says it is a joy to do this work and that one is rewarded by the sense of having done his duty. At sunset, pilgrims descend Mount Arafat towards the Valley of Muzdalifa, where they will remain for the night, before returning, Monday, to Mina, where they will sacrifice a lamb to commemorate their pilgrimage.
Can you stand the drama? As John McCain and Sarah Palin make Barack Obama’s cloudy past, and perhaps his present, center stage in the campaign the media rushes to his support like drama queens. ‘McCain and Palin are playing with fire‘ reads one headline while two others indicate McCain has to calm the crowds and warn of possible violence over the campaign topic turning to Obama’s history and choice of associates.
If discussing Obama and friends like William Ayers is causing this much reaction from the Illinois Senator, his campaign and his media it just may be the proof these things need to be discussed. Khaled Hosseini writes in WaPo that he and others are offended at the way Barack Obama’s middle name is being used. He has a lament that we have somehow returned to another time and place by pointing out Obama’s middle name. Hosseini needs to get over himself and abandon the far left’s tired old ploy of acting offended even if he is offended. Could he also be offended that Barack Obama downplays his connection to a domestic terrorist named William Ayers who scoffs at the country in which he lives and shamelessly admitted his guilt and the fact that he was never prosecuted for his crimes? Probably not.
The Obama camp never felt badly about the complaint that John McCain invokes his military background too much or their ad ridiculing him as out of touch for not using the computer or email even though it is his injuries from being a POW for over five years that prevent him from doing so. Khaled Hosseini, where is your ‘dismay’ about that?
Accusing McCain and Palin of not having ‘the moral courage’ to ‘denounce the use of Obama’s middle name’ by Khaled Hosseini is really a request to not bring up issues if they may have a negative effect on the campaign of Barack Obama. Few on the left seem to have a problem with freedom of expression if it involves burning the American flag. But when the issues related to Obama’s history and friends are raised in a campaign freedom of expression requires strict limitations. No one is yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre here. That the discussion provokes anger in some may have more to do with the poor judgment by a Democratic party nominee for president and people’s outrage that these matters have been ignored by the left and their media. Or more correctly, they haven’t ignored it they simply dismiss or discount it as no big deal.
The fact that Barack Obama spent part of his youth living in Indonesia and having both a father and a mentor who are Muslim plus other foreign born friends who are Muslim together with the fact that there are many Muslims who are terrorists and have stated their interest in destroying the US and other infidels plays no role in Hosseini urging the use of Obama’s middle name as off limits. Ya, right. It is not the fault of McCain or Palin or anyone else in the presidential campaign that Obama’s history and guarding of his past includes references to the Muslim faith and related items. It is just the luck of the draw so deal with it. That is all anyone has been asking Obama to do. Deal with it. People want answers and avoiding the questions will not solve anything. Questions of judgment in a presidential election are important.
And if Hosseini wants to ask if ‘inaction is tantamount to consent’ then Obama must bear the same burden. Is refusing to answer questions about Ayers tantamount to consent for terrorist actions. Obama denouncing Ayers’ terrorist past was no stronger than McCain’s request for people to keep the discussion respectful. But asking people to behave in a public discussion is not the same thing as being connected to a terrorist.
And for the last word here on Khalad Hosseini, thanks for the shameless plug for your book sales that do nothing to convince a reader of the piece that you are sincere or at least diminishes the impression of an honest opinion born of genuine concern. It’s just politics from a liberal agenda.
As for ’seething anger of the crowds’ in a report from the LA Times and Obama’s response for the push to know more about his history and choices by saying ‘it’s easy to rile up a crowd’ it is better to elicit public emotion and attract the necessary attention to issues that matter rather than accept the apathetic indifference thus far from Obama supporters and the media. Ignoring questions about Obama’s history does not render the allegations false. To be fair, raising the issue and receiving no answers does not make the allegations true. That is the whole point behind having a discussion on a candidate’s troubling history and personal alliances.
Even some Republicans are falling for the liberal bait in describing the McCain campaign’s recent push to know more about Obama and people like William Ayers. The left is content to dismiss the whole story or define it as a smear or character assassination. In the LA Times piece a former MI governor, William Milliken calls it a ‘personal attack.’ That is an over the top description of holding a candidate accountable for his actions or inaction as the case may be. Questioning a candidate’s judgment and reason for personal decisions and choices is not a personal attack.
For the LA Times to suggest using Barack Obama’s middle name to link the candidate with the Muslim faith on one hand but have others say the name should not be used at all yet claim there is nothing significant about Obama’s middle name or his associations is wanting to have your cake and eat it too. As if to say there is nothing wrong with the Muslim faith or having attributes that lend themselves to the distinction of appearing Muslim yet no one should utter any words that notice these relationships. Are the media and other Obama supporters suggesting a list of what people can say in an election campaign? That would make for a rather complicated mess that would distract from the issues. But maybe that is what they want. You think? Since the economic or financial troubles favor Obama when facing a Republican candidate during a Republican administration would it be fair to call his use of those issues a smear or personal attack or character assassination? He tries to link McCain to Bush every chance he gets and the entire left including the media go out of their way to chant the change mantra and warn voters that McCain will be four more years of Bush. But that is not a smear or personal attack, etc. C’mon people, this is politics. The discussion is whatever the discussion is. And the way candidate’s respond likely shapes voter’s opinions.
Mr Obama, you could have avoided all this if you would have simply answered the questions when first asked. But no, you chose to say that Ayers was ‘just a guy from the neighborhood.’ And your supporters echoing that Ayers is a non-issue did not make it so. If people are getting angry over this issue that should convince you of its importance and relevance in this election campaign and stop trying to define it as a smear. You may notice this post does not make use of your middle name which should be ’sneaky.’
And as a final note, there is a story out there explaining that both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama appear to have a fondness for the life and works of Saul Alinsky who is often referred to as a Marxist or some equally descriptive label. Funny we don’t hear Hillary complaining about a connection to Saul Alinsky but the same probably cannot be said about Barack. Mr Obama, your philosophy, choices and history have much to do with how people will view your potential as a president. Stop complaining that they want more information. You cannot deny a link between you and William Ayers. So again, deal with it.
The upside of the three references highlighted in this post is that the third one from the SJ Mercury News at least offers some parallels between the tactics used by the left during the 1980 presidential campaign and the reverse this time around. While hoping the election does not favor the one being questioned this time, it is a fair point which is rare these days. But then, you can read it yourself by following the link.
Is this where it really begins? Is this the first mistake to be in an upcoming string of Obama errors that will undo his pursuit of power in America? Or is it making too much of his reference to his Muslim faith that must be noticed by the interviewer who prompts a change of phrase from Obama?
If you view the video carefully the sense is not that Obama produced a gaffe as much as He let down his guard and had an honesty moment. Usuall when you observe people making a mistake in the media they stumble a bit and immediately rephrase the response. In this case it took prompting for Obama to change the statement.
A classic case of all parties involved pitching their version of the story. Out of all this what seems accurate or believable? The woman arrested is from Pakistan. She was educated at MIT and Brandeis as a neuroscientist and has a son. She and her son are accused of plotting a terrorist attack. She and/or her son possessed enough evidence on them to convince a US Court to go ahead with the case.
After disappearing the woman surfaced in Pakistan and was arrested. While being held in Pakistan one person arriving at her location left an M14 ‘on the floor’ and she retrieved the weapon and from behind curtains opened fire. She missed but a soldier returned fire hitting her in the abdomen. After surgery, etc., she was brought to the US, is in jail and refusing to appear in Court. Her defense team claims it is because of physical and mental difficulties.
The two odd things noticed while reviewing this story were an apparent typo in a WaPo account that described the soldier’s weapon as an M-4 assumed to be an M-14. To Siddiqui’s attorney: how believable was it that a soldier left a weapon on the floor and that a mere 90 pound woman could pick it up? The sole commentary from this blog on the story reads like this, ‘Hey defense attorney lady, any chance you had to convince me of your client’s innocence disappeared with your ridiculous comments in the press just paraphrased here’.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Below, Al Jazeera chimes in with this video……..
and here is a report on the story from Voice of America
Mystery Shrouds Case of Pakistani Scientist Linked to Terrorists
A Pakistani woman who is charged with trying to murder U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan refused to appear for her arraignment in New York City Thursday. Defense lawyers say Aafia Siddiqui is unable or unwilling to submit to a required strip-search due to wounds she suffered when she was arrested nearly two months ago and that she urgently needs medical and psychological care. VOA’s Walter Wisniewski has more.
Aafia Siddiqui
Aafia Siddiqui was absent when prosecutors and defense attorneys gathered in federal court on Thursday. The defense team says the 36-year-old, U.S.-educated scientist is in extremely poor mental and physical health. The lawyers want the court to transfer her from a federal detention center to a hospital, to determine whether she is able to stand trial.
“I believe that she has severe emotional, psychological and medical issues, [and] that human rights require that she be taken out of the Bureau of Prisons and transferred to Bellevue [Hospital], so that she can be evaluated,” said Elizabeth Fink, Siddiqui’s lead defense attorney.
Siddiqui came to the United States as a teenager. She trained as a neuroscientist at two prestigious American universities, married and had three children, then returned to Pakistan in 2002. A year later, she dropped out of sight and was not heard from again until her arrest in mid-July in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province.
The police who arrested Siddiqui called in U.S. soldiers and FBI agents to interrogate the woman the following day. They say their prisoner somehow took a rifle from one of the Americans and opened fire. She missed, but one of the soldiers shot Siddiqui in the abdomen.
After emergency surgery, she was held in Afghanistan for several weeks, then returned to the U.S. and charged with attempted murder and other offenses. Her indictment, which was unsealed earlier this week, links her to unspecified terrorist groups and that, through handwritten notes and computer files, she discussed the feasibility of attacks on U.S. targets — including New York’s landmark Empire State Building.
No one will speak on the record, but the implication is that Siddiqui was a suicide-bomber-in-training, and that she was under the control of terrorists during the nearly five years in which she dropped out of sight.
Defense attorney Elizabeth Fink
Siddiqui’s lawyers tell a markedly different story. They suggest that Siddiqui originally was detained by what attorney Elizabeth Fink calls “the American dark side”. The defense lawyer scoffs at the indictment’s citation of the suspicious documents, and notes that no charges of terrorist activity have been brought against her client. “She’s not being charged with possessing any of those documents. Why was that put there? It was put there so that everybody can think that she’s ‘al-Qaida mom.’”
Although Fink and her colleagues have not seen Siddiqui since August 11, they say she has been left “incredibly damaged” by the events of the past two months. They are seeking psychological tests to determine whether Siddiqui is competent to stand trial. They say the strip-search required at the detention center where Siddiqui is being held is excruciatingly painful because of the severity of her wounds.
U.S. District Judge Richard Berman ordered prosecutors and defense lawyers to try to agree on arrangements for Siddiqui to appear in court in Manhattan, possibly by a videolink from her cell in Brooklyn. Both sides are due to appear in court again on September 22.
The secretary general of the Arab League says he is heading for Beirut this week for talks on a new plan to end the Lebanese political crisis. VOA Middle East Correspondent Challiss McDonough has more from Cairo.
Arab League foreign ministers have approved a new proposal to end the political stalemate that has left Lebanon without a president for more than six weeks.
At a special session in Cairo, they endorsed the choice of army chief General Michel Suleiman as Lebanese president, and called for his immediate election.
The two feuding political factions in Lebanon have agreed that Michel should be the next president, but the parliamentary vote to elect him has been repeatedly delayed as factions continue fighting over other political issues, including the shape of the next government.
Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said the league’s proposal to end the standoff is based on three points.
He said it calls for election of a president, agreement on a national unity government, and other measures including a new electoral law to be passed after the government is formed.
The plan says the national unity government should be structured so that no one faction can impose or block a decision. It also strengthens the powers of the president, giving him the role of settling contested cabinet decisions.
Secretary General Moussa said he would be going to Beirut in the next few days for talks on the proposal.
He said the Arab League will move seriously, and will not allow the matter to drag on from week to week, from delay to delay, or from tension to tension.
The plan has wide support among Arab states and was welcomed by a number of key factions in Lebanon.
Moussa said it is supported by Syria, which is a main backer of the Lebanese opposition.
In Beirut, the ruling March 14 coalition’s leader, Saad Hariri, said it gives Lebanon a new chance to elect a consensus president.
Lebanese media quoted the parliamentary speaker and key opposition figure Nabih Berri as also approving of the plan. But reports said the opposition group Hezbollah was responding more cautiously, and asking for clarification on some points.
By Challiss McDonough
Cairo, Egypt
06 January 2008
A group of leading Muslim scholars has sent holiday greetings to Christians worldwide.
In wishing a joyful and peaceful Christmas, the group also gave thanks for what it calls the “beautiful and gracious” response to its call for more openness between the faiths.
The group said it hopes the coming year will be one of forgiveness and where the dignity of human life is upheld.
Pope Benedict last month accepted an invitation by the 138 Muslim scholars to meet and talk about more cooperation between Muslims and Christians.
It has been seven years since the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Flight 93 were attacked. Those who wish to object to the occasional incident typically referred to as flying while Muslim, etc., might consider that under the circumstances little has been done in the Muslim community to convince the non-Muslim world the religion of peace is a religion of peace. If it is not fair to ask this of the Muslim community then is it fair to expect the remainder of the world to take it on ‘faith’ that Islam is largely peaceful given the actions of so-called radicals among them?
For those who feel inspired to criticize Israel for military action against rocket attack from Hamas the following excerpt and link is provided as the first in the chronology presented in this post. 
In her traditional Christmas message to the country, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II focused on the concerns many are feeling this year about the deepening economic downturn. Meanwhile, Britain’s Channel 4 Television has broadcast what it calls an alternative Christmas address, delivered by the President of Iran.
The ascent of Mount Arafat began early, and by sunrise hundreds of thousands of white cloaked pilgrims had converged on the site where Mohammed was reputed to have delivered his last sermon, about 14 centuries ago.
If discussing Obama and friends like William Ayers is causing this much reaction from the Illinois Senator, his campaign and his media it just may be the proof these things need to be discussed. Khaled Hosseini writes in WaPo that he and others are offended at the way Barack Obama’s middle name is being used. He has a lament that we have somehow returned to another time and place by pointing out Obama’s middle name. Hosseini needs to get over himself and abandon the far left’s tired old ploy of acting offended even if he is offended. Could he also be offended that Barack Obama downplays his connection to a domestic terrorist named William Ayers who scoffs at the country in which he lives and shamelessly admitted his guilt and the fact that he was never prosecuted for his crimes? Probably not.
issues if they may have a negative effect on the campaign of Barack Obama. Few on the left seem to have a problem with freedom of expression if it involves burning the American flag. But when the issues related to Obama’s history and friends are raised in a campaign freedom of expression requires strict limitations. No one is yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre here. That the discussion provokes anger in some may have more to do with the poor judgment by a Democratic party nominee for president and people’s outrage that these matters have been ignored by the left and their media. Or more correctly, they haven’t ignored it they simply dismiss or discount it as no big deal.
Even some Republicans are falling for the liberal bait in describing the McCain campaign’s recent push to know more about Obama and people like William Ayers. The left is content to dismiss the whole story or define it as a smear or character assassination. In the LA Times piece a former MI governor, William Milliken calls it a ‘personal attack.’ That is an over the top description of holding a candidate accountable for his actions or inaction as the case may be. Questioning a candidate’s judgment and reason for personal decisions and choices is not a personal attack.
