May 17, 2009
 

Custom Search

 

Obama tells

banks and corporation

how it's gonna be.

 


 
 

help fight the media
 

 

 

 

event

description
Obama Lends Validity To Extremist Islam David Frum believes Barack Obama made an unwise commitment during his campaign.  Actually he made quite a number of them, but this column will have to settle for dealing with just one:  Candidate Obama promised to deliver a major speech to the Muslim world from a Muslim capital.  On June 4, Obama will make good on that promise in Cairo.

What could go wrong with this heartwarming outreach?  Begin with this question:  Does Obama regard Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as belonging to the Muslim world, yes or no?

If yes -- if "the Muslim world" includes everyone who happens to be born to a family of Muslim origin regardless of their personal belief, and if it includes liberals of Muslim origin, secularists of Muslim origin, atheists of Muslim origin -- then it seems almost pointless to speak to them all as a distinctive group.

The more likely answer however is no.  Almost inevitably, Obama’s speech will address the most anti-Western, the most militant, the most radical Muslims.  The decision to speak "to" the Muslim world is a decision to speak "to" these rejectionists.

Look at the choice of venue.  Obama could have spoken from Indonesia or Bangladesh -- each of them home to more Muslims than live in the Arab Middle East.  In Indonesia and Bangladesh, the prevailing forms of Islam are moderate and tolerant.  Each of these countries is working to build a more democratic society, more connected to the global economy.

Instead Obama chose Egypt.  Egypt is the intellectual center of the most radical forms of Islam.  The Muslim Brotherhood originated in Egypt, as did Sayyid Qutb, the ideologist of modern jihad.  This is the country of Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Ayman Zawahiri.  It would be extremely odd to speak from Egypt and not take such men and their ideas into account.

But to do so has an ironic side effect:  The very fact that an American leader talks about these extremist Muslims -- and tries to talk through them to reach their sympathizers -- validates them as the most important and significant of Muslim individuals.  It risks conceding that these men are somehow the most "authentic" of Muslims, and that their anger and alienation somehow matters more than the desire of other Muslims to live in a more secular society or to participate more fully in the global economy.

Radical Muslims have constructed a narrative in which Islam is oppressed and colonized by the West, Muslims have real and reasonable grievances against the West and any acrimony between Muslims and the West is due to the actions of the West.

Perhaps Obama will dispute this narrative.  But can he really go to Cairo and dismiss the narrative altogether?

Can he say that the problems of Muslim majority countries have nothing to do with the West -- that if they are victimized it is by their own leaders, if they are backward it is due to their own rejection of modern ways of life?

The very act of speaking to individuals of Muslim origin as Muslims concedes a point that an American leader should be wary of conceding.  No leader would ever give a speech to "the Christian world."  He’d take for granted that Christian identity is personal and private, not collective and public.  He’d remember that Christian-majority countries contain non-Christian minorities, entitled to equal respect.  He’d understand that many in the Christian majority define their identity in terms other than religion; and that the freedom to choose how to define oneself is one of the fundamental principles of a free society. 
Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood insist that Islam is inescapably public and political.  But why would an American leader agree?  Yet if he speaks to "the Muslim world" how can he avoid agreeing?

The Pakistani scholar who wants to be free to study the origins of the Koran without fear of violence if he reaches an unorthodox conclusion -- isn’t he part of the Muslim world too?  The Saudi woman who would like to wear jeans in public?  The Iranian youth who would like to convert to the Bahai faith?  The Syrian merchant who thinks mosque is a waste of time?  The French student who celebrates Ramadan with his parents and Christmas with his girlfriend?  Or his boyfriend?

Will Obama talk to them?  If not -- it would be better to stay home.
© David Frum -- dfrum@aei.org -- National Post
But Not With My Wife I was told today that 0bama has not traveled with his wife to any Muslim country, and that no official Muslim leader ever travels with his wife.

Interesting.  I didn't notice it at the time, but indeed, you are correct:  Mrs. Obama did skip Turkey last month when the Obamas were on their European tour.

The headlines cried, "Disappointment," as Michelle Obama skips trip to Turkey:

Suna Erdem, writing from Istanbul, reported that Michelle Obama may have been the star of the US President’s European show, but Turks were deprived of the chance to see her when she chose to return to her children instead of accompanying her husband to Ankara and Istanbul.

The US president began his visit yesterday by laying a wreath at the tomb of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkish state, before travelling to the presidential palace for talks with President Abdullah Gul.

Michelle Obama, however, returned to the US on Sunday.

Don't know if this is a fact.  It will be interesting to see if Michelle accompanies Obama to Egypt for his big speech to the Muslim world.
Obama's Billions For Jihad Obama’s 2009 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Pandemic Flu was revised and "passed by the full committee."  Not sure what the next step is, but based on the summary, it gives billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to countries and entities that support Sharia law and/or harbor, hide and support those who want to destroy the U.S. and our allies.

Read the summary from David Obey’s office that was quietly released last week with nary a word from any media.

•  $3.6 billion, matching the request, to expand and improve capabilities of the Afghan security forces

•  $400 million, as requested, to build the counterinsurgency capabilities of the Pakistani security forces

•  Afghanistan: $1.52 billion, $86 million above the request

•  West Bank and Gaza: $665 million in bilateral economic, humanitarian, and security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza

•  Jordan: $250 million, $250 million above the request, including $100 million for economic and $150 million for security assistance

•  Egypt: $360 million, $310 million above the request, including $50 million for economic assistance, $50 million for border security, and $260 million for security assistance

•  Pakistan: $1.9 billion, $591 million above the request

•  Iraq: $968 million, $336 million above the request

•  Oversight: $20 million, $13 million above the request, to expand oversight capacity of the State Department, USAID, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan to review programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq

•  Lebanon: $74 million

•  International Food Assistance: $500 million, $200 million above the request, for PL 480 international food assistance to alleviate suffering during the global economic crisis

•  Refugee Assistance: $343 million, $50 million above the request, …including humanitarian assistance for Gaza. Funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency programs in the West Bank and Gaza is limited to $119 million (Note: Gaza = Hamas)

•  Disaster Assistance: $200 million to avert famines and provide life-saving assistance during natural disasters and for internally displaced people around the world, including Somalia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, the Middle East and South Asia

•  Peacekeeping: $837 million for United Nations peacekeeping operations, including an expanded mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a new mission in Chad and the Central African Republic

•  Department of Justice: $17 million, matching the request, for counter-terrorism activities and to provide training and assistance for the Iraqi criminal justice system

The mainstream media remains silent on this but the International News has now picked up the story -- and then there is Obama’s $108 billion IMF bailout scheme in addition to the Supplemental.
Obama's New And Improved Commissions Powerline blog's Scott reminds us that during the campaign Barack Obama made hay of the Bush administration's wanton abuse of the rights of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo.  Speaking at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania in June, Obama addressed the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision granting Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their confinement through habeas corpus proceedings in federal court.  Obama asserted that the "principle of habeas corpus, that a state can't just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process -- that's the essence of who we are." He explained:

"I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday."

The Nuremberg trial, however, was conducted before a military commission composed of representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union.  The most prominent surviving Nazi leaders were brought for trial before the Nuremberg tribunal in late 1945.  Winston Churchill had proposed, not unreasonably, that they be summarily shot.  The victorious allies nevertheless subsequently agreed that they would be brought before a military commission to be convened pursuant to the London Agreement of August 8, 1945.

In Boumediene, the Supreme Court disapproved of the system of military commissions Congress had adopted at the Supreme Court's urging.  Obama to the contrary notwithstanding, the Nuremberg defendants' "day in court" occurred before the kind of tribunal the Supreme Court found constitutionally inadequate in Boumediene.

Yesterday Barack Obama announced the return of military commissions to deal with some of the Guantanamo detainees.  But they won't be like the retrograde military commissions of the Bush administration.  They're new and improved, of course.  What next, a kinder, gentler waterboarding?  Andrew McCarthy is not amused by Obama's continuing denigration of the Bush administration while resorting to Bush administration policies.
Obama As Bush

"I’m laughing at Obama, but I’m also thanking him for doing the right thing and reasonably tolerant of the way he’s tried to save face by pretending he’s not doing exactly the same thing Bush did."

 

Plus, "I underestimated his willingness to lie."  Always a mistake!

 

And this:  "Meanwhile, what does it say that the Administration has resurrected or maintained the core elements of so many Bush Administration national security policies while Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen sits in limbo?  And would the Administration’s policies be any different were she already confirmed?" 

 

That’s already been explained . . .
Obama's Information Overload One of the things that one increasingly hears around and about among the millions of Americans who are clearly disturbed by the direction in which Obama is taking the country is that so much information is thrown at us that it's difficult to keep up.

Once the opposition studies a proposal or a statement of policy and formulates a thoughtful response, Obama and company has moved on -- way beyond -- with a string of further proposals and policy statements.

And this is precisely a major part of the Obama playbook.  I call it "Operation Information Overload."

The gist of the plan is to bombard the public with so much information concerning changes and policy initiatives that it becomes impossible for the human brain to process it.  The rapid-fire dissemination of information on what Obama plans to do is faster than the pace at which the brain is able to adequately assimilate it.  The result is that most people give up, and the media lets things that should be investigated slide so that they can deal with the latest string of information the Obama team shoots at them.

No doubt this is by design.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Shoes

You gotta see this -- click the image
 

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2009
All right reserved