Obama will make his big speech to the Islamic world from Cairo

by Robert Spencer

Cairo has been chosen as the site of the President's promised major address to the Islamic world. Brace yourself.

Obama to Coptic Christians and Egyptian pro-democracy dissidents: drop dead. "Obama will travel to Egypt to address Muslim world," by Margaret Talev for the McClatchy Newspapers, May 8 (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will go to Egypt on June 4 to deliver a long-planned major speech aimed at Muslims worldwide.

The speech is expected to be delivered in Cairo, historically the Arabic center of intellectual thought in the Muslim world, but a location has not been finalized, according to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Gibbs called Egypt "a country that in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world" and said the speech was not aimed at Muslim leaders so much as the populace. It represents "a continuing effort by this president and this White House to demonstrate how we can work together to ensure the safety and security and the future well-being through hope and opportunity of the children of this country and of the Muslim world," Gibbs said.

The Egyptian government, led by 81-year-old Hosni Mubarak, is widely criticized for its repressive regime and poor human rights record, issues that Obama must finesse in his remarks....

Radical Islam By Any Other Name...

(Compiler's note: I, for one, have mentioned before that political correctness or "PC" will get us killed. It would appear that Mr. Salvato agrees.)

by Frank Salvato

Honesty and transparency in government are rare commodities, especially in the United States. While some information is legitimately kept from the public for reasons of national security, still other information – and quite a lot when the information flow from the Obama Administration is concerned – is either kept from the public or manipulated for the public's consumption, having been so for ideological and/or political purposes. The subject of radical Islam and the terrorism that jihadis use as their chief tactic to bring about political “change” is not immune from these politically and ideologically opportune manipulations. Because of this the majority of the public is illiterate in the seriousness of the global challenge that faces Western Civilization.

Upon ascending to the office of the presidency, Barack Obama assembled a cabinet that understood the value of controlling information. Even during his campaign, his staff guarded information and controlled the message. Politically, it is a winning formula even if it raises many legitimate questions when the candidate is less than forthright about his past, influences, associations, intentions, motives and loyalties. Today, as President Obama exits the “honeymoon period” that every president enjoys, he and his staff are still executing a “control the message campaign,” and doing so with a vicious effectiveness, aided by a complicit mainstream media. But is this serving the best interest of the public? Is this acting in the best interests of the country?

Shortly after Hillary Clinton was named Secretary of State, the Obama Administration issued a declaration that the term “global war on terror,” erroneously coined by the Bush Administration, would cease to be used in an official capacity. In a memo issued to Pentagon staff members by the Office of Management & Budget, the Executive Branch agency that reviews the public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered, it was ordered:

"...this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.'"

The conflict with aggressive and violent radical Islamist ideology (a correct description), was put through the process of information manipulation so as to soften the concept for the public, the electorate, those to whom President Obama promised he would end “the war.”

In his classic – and eerily relevant – book, 1984, George Orwell wrote about the concept of “newspeak” and “doublethink”:

“...Winston thinks again about the idea of ‘doublethink,' or in Oldspeak, ‘reality control.' It means to be able to think two contradictory things at once without being aware of the contradiction. In other words, one is conscious of telling the truth while telling lies, forgetting whatever one needs to forget and then remembering it when needed, only to forget again. Doublethink is essential for political orthodoxy.”

When one listens to the declarations made by fundamentalist Islamist leaders from around the world – and we would have to believe that the Obama Administration is competent enough to understand the value of “listening to our enemies” seeing as they believe there is value in “talking with our enemies” – it becomes clear that the Obama Administration's penchant for word manipulation – or use of “newspeak” and “doublethink” – has spilled over from their goal of achieving political superiority into their Constitutional duty to protect the citizenry.

Sufi Mohammed, the 78-year old leader of the pro-Taliban group behind the now defunct peace agreement between the Pakistani government and the Taliban, declared the democratic system of government “un-Islamic,” saying there was no need for a constitution in Pakistan. “All those who believe in democracy are infidels,” he declared in an interview with a private Pakistani television channel.

Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, said in January of 2009, “Israel is our enemy and the enemy of our nation. It will remain as such even if some make peace with it. The US administration fosters Israel and protects it, so this administration will remain our enemy and the enemy of our nation...”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran has stated repeatedly and emphatically, that he quests for the elimination of the nation of Israel as he pontificates on the evils of the West and the United States:

"Israel must be wiped off the map...The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world...The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land... You [the United States], who have used nuclear weapons against innocent people should be tried as war criminals in courts... "They [the United States] think they are the absolute rulers of the world."

And no less than Osama bin Laden has declared:

“To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.”

The idea that the Obama Administration played fast-and-loose with manipulating words to affect “change” for political gain is a valid one. The American people are compromised in their ability to employ critical thinking skills where matters of politics and world affairs are concerned. A glad-handing politician armed with hollow promises of “hope” and “change” – and facilitated by an agenda-driven, one-world Progressive-Left mainstream media – easily entranced (or should I say enchanted) a citizenry that hadn't formulated a respect for the seriousness of the threat posed by fundamentalist Islamists.

And while it was easy for Obama to demonize the hard choices and actions taken by President George W. Bush in the conflict with radical Islamist aggression when he was running for office, when all he had to do was take issue with President Bush's approach to the conflict, today the hard choices are his to make.

As we stand at a moment when Iran has most likely acquired nuclear capability, when al Qaeda and the Taliban are waging violent jihad just 60 miles from the capitol of Pakistan – a nuclear nation and as Sharia law is encroaching on people's liberties in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Indonesia and around the world, it is now painfully obvious that we have to formulate a definitive plan for defending not only the United States but Western Civilization itself. To pay this conflict “lip service,” to apply “doublethink” and “newspeak” to this most graven of issues, is to abdicate Constitutional responsibility to defend the American people. It is to place the country and her citizens in grave danger.

Mr. Obama, diminishing the severity of the words used to describe the threat of radical Islam doesn't make those who champion the violent and oppressive ideology any less lethal.

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" – George Orwell, 1984.

Newly Formed Sovereignty Caucus on Capitol Hill Urges Review of Harold Koh’s Nomination for Legal Advisor

The Legal Advisor must protect and defend the rights of American citizens. Is Harold Koh capable of doing this? ....

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'

By Paul Kane

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.

In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations.

"As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman.

Pelosi's statement did not address whether she was informed that other harsh techniques were already in use during the Zubaydah interrogations.

In December 2007 the Washington Post reported that leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees had been briefed in the fall of 2002 about waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and other techniques, and that no congressional leaders protested its use. At the time Pelosi said she was not told that waterboarding was being used, a position she stood by repeatedly last month when the Bush-era Justice Department legal documents justifying the interrogation tactics were released by Attorney General Eric Holder.

The new memo shows that intelligence officials were willing to share the information about waterboarding with only a sharply closed group of people. Three years after the initial Pelosi-Goss briefing, Bush officials still limited interrogation technique briefings to just the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Four in the intelligence world.

In October 2005, CIA officials began briefing other congressional leaders with oversight of the intelligence community, including top appropriators who provided the agency its annual funding. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and an opponent of torture techniques, was also read into the program at that time even though he did not hold a special committee position overseeing the intelligence community.

A bipartisan collection of lawmakers have criticized the practice of limiting information to just the "Gang of Four", who were expressly forbidden from talking about the information from other colleagues, including fellow members of the intelligence committees. Pelosi and others are considering reforms that would assure a more open process for all committee members.

NewsBusted: Gitmo Terror Suspects Get Hotel Rooms

Attorney General Eric Holder says some Gitmo detainees will be released into hotels. Obama's new slogan: "We'll Leave the Light on for Ya, al-Qaida." Click on the title above.


For additional information == President Obama should consider the contents of this video - click here.

Top Intelligence Republican: Obama: 'Ready, Fire, Aim'

(Compiler's note: A must read - see 6 minute video interview. Click on the title above)

Michigan U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra tells Newsmax.TV why Obama's national security policies, including releasing classified CIA information, shutting down Guantanamo Bay and abandoning missile shields are jeopardizing America's national security. ....

‘Empathy’ versus law, Part IV

(Compiler's note: Must read article.)

by Thomas Sowell

While President Barack Obama has, in one sense, tipped his hand by saying that he wants judges with "empathy" for certain groups, he has in a more fundamental sense concealed the real goal -- getting judges who will ratify an ever-expanding scope of the power of the federal government and an ever-declining restraint by the Constitution of the United States.

This is consistent with everything else that Obama has done in office and is consistent with his decades-long track record of alliances with people who reject the fundamentals of American society.

Judicial expansion of federal power is not really new, even if the audacity with which that goal is being pursued may be unique. For more than a century, believers in bigger government have also been believers in having judges "interpret" the restraints of the Constitution out of existence.

They called this "a living Constitution." But it has in fact been a dying Constitution, as its restraining provisions have been interpreted to mean less and less, so that the federal government can do more and more.

For example, the Constitution allows private property to be taken for "public use"-- perhaps building a reservoir or a highway -- if "just compensation" was paid. But that power was expanded by the Supreme Court in 2005 when it "interpreted" this to mean that private property could be taken for a "public purpose," which could include almost anything for which politicians could come up with the right rhetoric.

As for "just compensation," that is often about as just as "separate but equal" was equal. As for "empathy" for the less fortunate, it is precisely lower income and minority neighborhoods that are disproportionately bulldozed to make way for upscale shopping and entertainment centers that will bring in more taxes for politicians to spend to get themselves re-elected.

This process of "interpreting" the Constitution (or legislation) to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean, no matter how plainly the words say something else, has been called judicial activism. But, as a result of widespread objections to this, that problem has been solved by redefining "judicial activism" to mean something different.

By the new definition, a judge who declares legislation that exceeds the authority of the legislature unconstitutional is called a "judicial activist."

The verbal virtuosity is breathtaking. With just a new meaning to an old phrase, reality is turned upside down. Those who oppose letting government actions exceed the bounds of the Constitution-- justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas-- are now called "judicial activists." It is a verbal coup.

Not only politicians like Senator Patrick Leahy, but also law professors like Cass Sunstein and many in the media, measure how much of a judicial activist a judge is by how many laws that judge has declared unconstitutional. Professor Sunstein, incidentally, is among those being mentioned as a possible nominee for a post on the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court in 1995 declared that carrying a gun near a school was not "interstate commerce," there was consternation and outrage in the liberal press because previous decisions of the Supreme Court in years past had allowed Congress to legislate on virtually anything it wanted to by saying that it was exercising its authority to regulate interstate commerce.

When the Supreme Court decided by a narrow 5 to 4 vote that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce, it was saying something that most people would consider too obvious for words. But it was considered outrageous that the Supreme Court recognized the obvious and refused to rubberstamp the sophistry that allowed Congress to pass laws dealing with things that the Constitution never authorized it to deal with.

Incidentally, carrying a gun near a school was something that states had the authority to deal with, and the great majority of states had already banned it.

What is at stake in Supreme Court nominations is the power of the federal government. "Empathy" is just camouflage, a soothing word for those who do not look beyond nice-sounding rhetoric.

Saudi Arabia may take Gitmo inmates

Saudi Arabia is considering a US proposal to accept the transfer of almost 100 Yemeni inmates from the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

An arrangement to put prisoners through a Saudi Arabian rehabilitation programme for Islamic radicals would overcome the main obstacle to President Barack Obama’s drive to shut Guantanamo’s prisoner camps by next January. ....

White House moves on contractor workforce cuts

White House officials today proposed cutting the number of contract workers at the Defense Department and collecting delinquent taxes from federal contractors more quickly as part of a plan to save $17 billion next year. ....

DHS asks for nearly $1 billion to protect critical networks, systems

The Homeland Security Department requested about a 15 percent increase in funding for fiscal 2010 to defend the nation's critical infrastructure such as the electrical grid and financial sector, and for cybersecurity to protect government systems, according to the administration's budget released on Thursday. ....

Click here for additional information.

The Statistical Analysis of Islamic Doctrines

(Compiler's note: Long, but still a must read article. Just click on the title above.)

The most unique aspect of Islamic doctrine is dualism. The Koran, Sira (Mohammed's biography) and Hadith (his traditions) hold contradictory positions on many points of doctrine that confuse kafirs. Much ink is wasted on questioning which side of the contradiction is right and which is wrong. However, Islamic dualism allows both sides of a contradiction to be true at the same time. The only way to determine truth in any multi-state system is to use statistics. Here in a Frontpage Magazine interview with Moorthy Muthuswamy, who shows how simple statistical reasoning allows us to see the total truth of Islam. ...

Records suggest Pelosi, others were told of harsh interrogations

Information released by the White House describes dozens of briefings for congressional leaders on CIA methods, including waterboarding and the planned destruction of interrogation videotapes. ....