Obama and Hillary are now spending tax payer money on informing the Arab and Muslin Street, America loves and respects them and their religion and we do not condone movie trailers that depict Islam in a negative manner. Our government has no finger prints when it comes to intolerance of other religions.
I have no doubt these ads will penetrate the hardened hearts of those radical Islamists burning flags and pictures of Obama etc.
Once again, what do I now? I never worked on Madison Avenue and thus cannot comprehend the power of advertising even though one of my dear college friends is now Chairman of Omnicom!
Maybe Obama and The State Department can come up with a clever ad using the Aflac Duck!
That would seem appropriate in view of the fact we have a lot of 'quacks' running the store!
During the debate on foreign policy perhaps Romney can pose this as a question.
---
Since everyone is giving Mitt advice I would like to suggest he tape his stump speech dejour and listen to if before he gives it and ask himself if he heard this what impact would it have?
I read and re-read every memo before I e mail them and sometimes I cringe at what I have written, or the way I have framed my thought(s) etc.
I believe there are enough disaffected hope and change devotees stranded on the Obama side of the river willing to come to the Romney side. Romney cannot, however, expect them to ford the stream without a sound reason to do so. He must build a bridge based on articulate and fleshed out convincing reasoning.
This he has not done and thus he is sinking in the polls when he should be soaring based on events that reveal how failed Obama's policies have been both domestic and foreign.
Just a suggestion but what do I know about politics.
We are simply the poor slobs hearing and enduring all the political inanities. (See 1 below.)
---
What can be done about America's culture of dependency? (See 2 below.)
---
Former Chicago black Obamaites express their views on Obama's chances for re-election. "The Think Squad," as they call themselves, believe black voters will not support Obama to the degree they did the first time and will sit home. What has he done for us is their dictating theme.
Hope and change no longer resonates or excites.
They spoke about Obama's mother in law who is giddy over the fact that they are moving to Hawaii where Michele will 'play' out the rest of her life and Obama will go on speaking tours as President of The World.
However, when they expressed themselves about black male sexual proclivities calling those with AIDS 'slims,' they lost me as I sort of rolled my glazed eyes.(See 3 below.)
---
Egypt's Morsi makes his case and turns out to be a several billion dollar lecture.
I am old enough to remember when Castro came to New York and made his case. The Left were mesmerized and fell in love with him. They saw him as a benign populist revolutionary.(See 4 below.)
Clinton interjects? (See 4a below.)
---
John Hagee is a man,whose views and efforts, I respect. I belong to CUFI which is the Christian equivalent of AIPAC and might be even more effective. It certainly has a many fold membership than AIPAC. (See 5 below.)
---
An in your face message! "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCXHPKhRCVg&feature=em-subs_digest-newavtr"
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)How Muslim Extremists Can Learn From Larry Flynt
By Stephen L Carter
So now it’s the French who are frantically closing their embassies, worried about violent mobs enraged after the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published cartoons, some of them pornographic, mocking the Prophet Muhammad.
France’s official response has been more restrained than last week’s raft of apologies from the U.S. government after violence blamed on the incendiary video “Innocence of Muslims” swept across the Middle East, leading to attacks at U.S. diplomatic outposts and the death of four U.S. diplomats. But some commentators argue that if speech makes people angry enough to do terrible things -- like murder -- we should consider ways to restrain it.
In light of this swirling argument, and the swirling violence that influences it, we should take a moment to consider what it is that makes free speech so valuable, and its suppression so dangerous. This is a moment not to yield to demands for censorship, but to defend and even celebrate the freedoms that the makers of the video and the cartoons so grossly abuse.
A useful place to start is Dworkin v. L.F.P. Inc., a nearly forgotten defamation ruling issued by the Supreme Court ofWyoming 20 years ago this week. The case involved a Hustler magazine article attacking anti-pornography crusader Andrea Dworkin. The article called her a number of filthy names, and went on to contend that Dworkin “advocates bestiality, incest and sex with children.” She sued, claiming defamation. She lost.
Outrageous Distortions
The Hustler article may have grossly distorted her ideas, the court wrote, but the First Amendment protects the right even of so scurrilous a magazine to publish so scurrilous an article about so public a figure: “Ludicrous statements are much less insidious and debilitating than falsities that bear the ring of truth. We have little doubt that the outrageous and the outlandish will be recognized for what they are.”
The article was trash. The article was false. The article was inflammatory. Dworkin’s outrage was entirely justified. But the court reached the right result. Dworkin was a public figure, said the court, and therefore even so unsympathetic a defendant as Larry Flynt, Hustler’s publisher, had the right to make absurd assertions about her beliefs, and to engage in hyperbole intended to hold her up to ridicule.
The best statement of our constitutional rule remains the one announced by the U.S. Supreme Court 40 years ago in Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley: “To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship.” The government, said the court, “has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”
That’s why the American Nazi Party couldn’t be prevented from marching in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977. That’s why the members of Westboro Baptist Church were free to picket the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder in 2006. That’s why protesters have the right to burn the U.S. flag.
None of these actions is admirable. What’s admirable is the broad respect for liberty that protects them.
Of course, there are exceptions. But they don’t apply here. For instance, a remarkable number of commentators, borrowing from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, have compared the “Innocence of Muslims” video to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. Others have drawn analogies to Brandenburg v. Ohio, the 1969 case in which the Supreme Court suggested (“held” would egregiously overstate the case) the possibility that speech directed to inciting and likely to incite “imminent lawless action” might not be protected under the First Amendment.
Dangerous Arguments
These are dangerous arguments. Consider how we would respond if an anti-abortion group were so furious at a pro- choice film that it blew up the theater. I very much doubt that we would be accusing the filmmakers of incitement, even if they knew in advance that the terrorists were lurking.
One might object that there is a difference between insulting an individual and insulting a religion. There is indeed -- and our sympathies should be with the individual. Followers of a religion can turn to their fellow believers for solace. Often, they can turn to a tradition that has survived centuries or millenniums of mockery and abuse. Believers don’t turn from God because God has been mocked; they turn from the mocker.
The individual, by contrast, must bear the insults. The more public the individual is, the greater the abuse that the Constitution allows us to heap on his or her shoulders. The cost of freedom is indeed terrible. But the cost of restrictions on that freedom is more terrible still.
That a video or a cartoon offends many devout Muslims is surely a fact, but it isn’t an argument. I frequently hear the Lord’s name taken in vain. For some of us, the name of God remains sacred, and hearing it profaned is painful. But the First Amendment wisely denies us legal recourse. (That’s why the Obama administration was wrong -- very wrong -- even to ask YouTube, which hosts the video, to “review whether it violates their terms of use.” A chill is a chill.)
In the U.S., we routinely deride religions. We make best- sellers of books launching often-uninformed attacks on the very idea of God, and give rave reviews to a Broadway show making crude mockery of Mormonism. The insensitivity and boorishness of those who enjoy attacking the faith of others does not strip them of their rights of freedom of expression.
Now, one must reasonably ask whether we would be a better country if we were more restrained. The philosopher Michael Sandel in particular has asserted that our freedoms are vindicated in our ability to restrain rather than indulge our urges. This is a fair point, and a correct one. In the manner and multitude of our self-expression, we are growing more childlike, not more mature. That failing, however, lies in our collective character, not in our respect for liberty.
Absolute Defenses
I have said before that I am a near-absolutist on the subject of free speech. I defend the right of imbeciles to express themselves in ways that are offensive and wounding to people who have done nothing to deserve it. Naturally one would prefer to defend free speech in the name of such once-banned classics as “Ulysses” and “1984.” One would prefer to defend a free press that is ferreting out the Pentagon Papers.
Those opportunities rarely arise. If our culture instead produces offensive junk, then that is where the ramparts must be built -- not because offensive junk is a positive good, but because the power to censor is far too dangerous to be placed in the hands of government.
(Some observers have pointed out, correctly, that even if the U.S. government can’t censor the video, Google Inc. (GOOG), owner of YouTube, is a private corporation and can do as it likes. Given Google’s size, and YouTube’s ubiquity, I am wary of endorsing any call for a crackdown.)
When we remember the periods of censorship in our history, we remember them, as we should, with embarrassment. There are censors today -- Dworkin herself, who died in 2005 and wrote such brilliant, cutting prose, was often among them -- and the impulse is always tempting. Words and images do wound. Wounds untended do fester. But aside from simply turning away, the only antidote the Constitution allows is arguing back -- in short, more speech.
In much of the world, governments have taken on the responsibility of protecting their people from unpleasant images. In the U.S., we have gone a different way, choosing a more genuine freedom of speech. But speech is only free if we protect it when we hate it.
(Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg View columnist and a professor of law at Yale University. He is the author of “The Violence of Peace: America’s Wars in the Age of Obama,” and his most recent novel is “The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln.” The opinions expressed are his own.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Why the U.S. has a culture of dependency
Editor's note: Matthew Spalding is vice president of American Studies and director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
(CNN) -- For most of American history, the average farmer, shop owner or entrepreneur could live an entire life without getting anything from the federal government except mail service. But those days have gone the way of the Pony Express.
Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that 49% of the populationlives in a household where at least one person gets some type of government benefit. The Heritage Foundation's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks government spending and creates a weighted score adjusted for inflation of federal programs that contribute to dependency. It reports that in 2010, 67.3 million Americans received either Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,Social Security, support for higher education or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions -- an 8% increase from the year before.
This is a growing and dangerous trend. The United States thrives because of a culture of opportunity that encourages work and disdains relying on handouts. The growth of the welfare state, a confusing alphabet soup of programs that are supposed to help low-income Americans make ends meet and do not include entitlements such as Social Security or Medicare, is turning us into a land where many expect, and see no stigma attached to, drawing regular financial support from the federal government.These people aren't necessarily dependent on government; many could live (even live well) without their Social Security check, Pell grant or crop subsidy. That's not the point. The problem is that Washington is building a culture of dependency, with ever-more people relying on an ever-growing federal government to give them cash or benefits.
Consider means-tested social welfare programs. The federal government operates at least 69 programs that provide assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. The benefits include cash, food, housing, medical care and social services.
Yet when poverty expert Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, examined these anti-poverty programs, he found that only two, the earned income tax credit and the additional child refundable credit, require recipients to actually work for their benefits. It had been three, but earlier this year, the Obama administration effectively set aside the most well-known welfare work requirements, those specifically written into the 1996 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families law. The Department of Health and Human Services announced that states could apply for a waiver of the law's clearly stated work requirements.
Meanwhile, although spending on welfare has been cut in half since it was reformed in 1996, other federal spending on programs, such as food stamps, has soared year after year and decade after decade. Simply put, spending on social welfare programs has exploded.
Under a culture of dependency, poverty becomes a trap, and recipients get stuck. Long-term welfare recipients lose work habits and job skills and miss out on the marketplace contacts that lead to job opportunities. That's a key reason the government should require welfare recipients to work as much as they can. What could be called "workfare" thus tends to increase long-term earnings among potential recipients.
Another problem is that we simply can't afford all this spending.
The national debt is at $16 trillion, more than the entire GDP of the United States last year. High as it is, that debt is about to soar. More than 78 million baby boomers are retiring onto Social Security and Medicare in the next 15 years or so. Under Obamacare, Medicaid is set to explode as well. Within just one generation, total federal spending could reach nearly 36% of GDP, and the Congressional Budget Office says debt held by the public could reach nearly 200% of GDP.
That will crowd out virtually all other government spending, including national defense. Future Congresses could impose deep cuts in social welfare programs across the board or raise massive taxes to support these exploding programs. The results would be chaotic and unpredictable.
It doesn't have to be this way.
We can reduce dependency on government and focus benefits on those who are truly needy. For example, by including work requirements and promoting marriage (being raised in a married family significantly reduces a child's chances of being in poverty), we'll help rekindle the American Dream for everyone.
All poverty programs should be reviewed to make certain they're helping people instead of harming them. Social welfare programs should help people up, not hold them down.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Kevin Dujan
I’m just back from a delightful trip down to a little sandwich shop on the Southside of Chicago where prominent members of the black community enjoy lunch served up with a side of political gossip. I relish the occasions I get invited to these little meetings and never know who’ll be sitting at the table with me but love the jerk chicken combo with extra “bodacious sauce”. In a corner over by a colorful mural celebrating the roaring-twenties and jazz I got an earful about the black community’s feeling about both the Obamas and their abandonment of Chicago for the sunny shores of Oahu in January.
This group of influential black Chicagoans calls themselves, informally, “The Think Squad” and has been a big help with stories and activities in the past. If you consider the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, and other “Justice Brothers” types on one side of the spectrum…the Think Squad is the polar opposite. These are good people who openly talk about how terrible the Democrat community has been for black people for the last four or five decades and how Obama and his acolytes have made a great many things worse for blacks since he took office. The Think Squad is not happy about the amnesty efforts for criminal Hispanics who broke American laws but are now able to push blacks out of work because of Obama’s intention to allow these people to become job-seekers in this dreadful economy. As one person at the table noted by waiving her hand at the scene out the window, “What the Hell has gotten any better since he became President. Where’s all that hope and change? All I see is crime and trash”.
“Listen bud, there’s no second term nothing and they know as much,” a Think Squader told me between bites of his bodacious sandwich. “All this is for show. Axelrod has already moved on but no one knows what to do and they’re kind of just limping around without a plan hoping those Romney people mess up or the media drags them across the finish line. But ain’t nobody in that top tier who thinks he’s going to win. It’s just not happening because they can’t fool people a second time”.
I know there are many of you who — for whatever reason — still sit in front of your televisions with your eyes pried wide open taking in all the lies the corrupt media tells you. Why you do this is beyond me. I also don’t understand why you still pay for newspaper subscriptions or think that the polls Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow recite to you are in any way accurate. I can find no gentle way to say this but if you believe what the tee-vee tells you, then you’re foolish. After four long years of watching the corrupt media relentlessly lie to drag Obama over the finish line if you have not picked up on the fact that everyone on television is working hard under the Democrats’ banner then there is truly something wrong with you. You are a lost cause.
You need to get out into your community and get the scoop from real people on the ground.
You need to see what’s going on with your OWN EYES and listen with your OWN EARS to get the stories the media won’t ever tell you.
You need to talk to a “Think Squad” of your own wherever you can find one.
The Think Squad confirmed what I’ve been hearing through friends whose families know Marion Robinson, the current “First Grandmother” and Michelle’s mother: the Obamas and those close to them are preparing to decamp to Honolulu, Hawaii and live out his post-presidency in the post suburb of Kailua. This is Hawaii’s Beverly Hills. The Think Squad had a great time mocking the hula and pretending to sip mai-tais and pina-coladas as they regaled me with all the things Marion’s been “bragging-on” about the house she expects to live in come January when the Obamas depart the White House and Marion comes with them. They’ll still have servants, Secret Service guards, a chef, and almost all of the amenities they enjoy now. But it will be a permanent vacation mode instead of the short bursts of paradise these people experienced on their many jaunts to Hawaii over the last four years before their usual return to Washington. But now, they won’t ever have to go back to DC and Marion is especially gleeful that they won’t be coming back to Chicago ever, either.
“She hates the cold and is glad to never have to come back here,” another person at the table told me while munching on some sweet potato chips at lunch. I dipped some in hot sauce like she did and discovered a new favorite snack as she told me how she, too, would love to abandon Chicago winters forever and never have to come back here.
The general consensus is that black people will keep voting Democrat in droves because that’s “just what we do” but that there is nowhere near the excitement levels of 2008. ”People will not be lining up to do nothing for him in November ’cause he didn’t do nothing for us for four years”, any angry Think Squader told me from the other end of the table. The mood indicated that black turnout would not be anywhere in the realm of 2008 and would instead sink down to more normal participation rates — which jives with everything you should be noticing in terms of enthusiasm for Obama across the board. People are over Obama, like he’s a rapper who has not had a big hit in a while or a singer whose last few albums have bombed. You still see people peddling the Obama tee shirts on the south side, “but you ain’t see nobody BUYING them, do you?”. I was told to look closely at those shirts and see for myself that many of them were left over from years ago. Nobody’s bothered to make up new designs for 2012 here on the Southside and the raggedy shirts for sale on the street corners are still sporting HOPE and CHANGE logos alongside the usual portraits of Obama’s disembodied head floating in glory with those of Dr. King, Malcolm X, and even, randomly, Tupak Shakur at times.
The table burst out into loud laughter when I asked if anyone believed there was even a remote chance that the Obama Presidential Library and Museum could be coming to Chicago and every last member of the Think Squad said “that thing’s going on the beach somewhere in Hawaii where it belongs”. There is no delusion that Chicago would get any sort of perk or pay-back for sending the Obamas to Washington. ”What do they care about Chicago for when they got everything they needed out of this place and there’s nothing more they need?”. The consensus was that Obama has a long established pattern of taking what he needs, then moving on to someplace new to acquire new resources there, and then moving on to whatever he thinks can help him advance again.
Hawaii is the next roosting place for the Obamas because his post-presidency will be all about becoming “The President of the World” since he can’t get any higher in this country than the plateau he’s already reached.
He’ll travel abroad, give big speeches, and spend the rest of his life touring Asian and Middle Eastern countries talking about how much the West misunderstands Islam and how much America has to apologize for. A good number of the Think Squaders don’t see too long of a post-presidency for Obama. Some think he’s sick (with Parkinson’s, as we’ve talked about on this site for years) and others think he might even have HIV (due to his inexplicable weight loss). ”He’s got the Slims and it shows”, somebody at the table said, drawing an awkward silence as a waitress walked around picking up trash while trying not to seem like she was listening to the boisterous group in the corner. ”The Slims” is slang in Chicago’s black community for HIV/AIDS. One in five black men in Chicago have HIV who engage in any sort of homosexual activity; this includes guys who are married and still fool around with men but don’t consider themselves bisexuals or “punks”, which is black slang for a gay man of color.
There was no doubt at the table that Barack Obama is gay and has been part of the “down low club” that’s incredibly common in big cities like Chicago where gay black men desperately seek to avoid being labeled as “punks” by taking a wife and creating a public sham of a marriage. Normally, the woman in these relationships is somehow undesirable and difficult to deal with, which is why a straight man would not want to touch her. A few good examples of this are Star Jones, Terry McMillen, Oprah Winfrey, Jada Pickett Smith, and of course Michelle Obama. All of them either married or have a longterm relationship with a gay black man (a “punk”) but who enjoy the benefits of having this man on their arm (for however long it lasts, in the case of Jones and McMillen). One of these women is a lesbian who not only has benefitted career-wise from being married to a punk but who also hides her own homosexuality by faking a marriage.
It’s hilarious sitting at a table in a sandwich shop with people who know the real score about stuff like this and realizing just how many millions of people out there who rely on the corrupt media for their news haven’t the slightest clue in Hell what’s really going on.
Some in the Think Squad believe that Obama will just come out when he ascends to that international stage in his post-presidency but others think he’ll never do that for fear of retaliation from Muslims. It’s common practice for Muslim men to continue having relations with other males while manifestly heterosexual and married, especially if the wife in question is mannish and overbearing much like Michelle. ”If you can’t see it just by looking at him, then you’re stupid” said one of my lunch mates today. I 100% agree with that and will never understand how any of this is a mystery to Americans. I guess they just don’t want to see Obama for who he really is and maybe never will.
As lunch wrapped up today and I put on my sweatshirt for the long walk back to the Red Line, the parting thoughts from the group were these:
* No — black people are not going to riot when Barack Obama loses. Black people have pretty much given up on this guy, mainly because of the fact he didn’t deliver on his promises to them but also a lot of them see that he’s gay and don’t like that and also don’t like the gay marriage “stuff” he was “talking about a lot this year”.
* No — there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hell that blacks will vote Republican this year because they will NOT vote against Obama. They will instead sit home. ”He didn’t help me, so I ain’t helping him!” is the motto this year. Count on black turnout to be at 2004 levels, not 2008 numbers the way the corrupt media is baking into all those polls that get conservatives worked up where they show Obama leading. Without blacks voting at 2008 numbers, Obama loses Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia with no hope of making up those numbers with other groups. It’s as simple as that.
* Yes — the Obamas are already planning their move to Hawaii. Michelle is actually happy about this as she does not like being First Lady. She will enjoy having all the perks of the position for the rest of her life without any of the hard work. She is looking forward to a life of luxury and fun for the rest of her days. Michelle’s mother is thrilled to be leaving Washington for Hawaii permanently. All those years of putting up with her “punk-ass son-in-law” as she called him have finally paid off for her in her mind, because she never dreamed she’d get to retire on an estate in Hawaii that can only be described as “royal”. Obama himself didn’t actually like being president. It was always a step towards something bigger. He really wants to be UN Secretary General or something and lord over the whole world. His ego and narcissism have no bounds.
* Yes — the Think Squad believes Obama will lose, despite what the corrupt media tells you, because “who in their right mind would believe this man again when he made a mess the first time?”. Without the mass-hysteria of Hopeychange and the threats of “if you don’t vote for him then you are a racist” there’s no wave of emotion for Obama to surf to re-election. That means no second term. That’s how the Think Squad sees it as prominent members of the Chicago black community at least.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)Egypt’s New Leader Spells Out Terms for U.S.-Arab Ties
CAIRO — On the eve of his first trip to the United States as Egypt’s new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi said the United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger. A former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mr. Morsi sought in a 90-minute interview with The New York Times to introduce himself to the American public and to revise the terms of relations between his country and the United States after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, an autocratic but reliable ally.
He said it was up to Washington to repair relations with the Arab world and to revitalize the alliance with Egypt, long a cornerstone of regional stability.
If Washington is asking Egypt to honor its treaty with Israel, he said, Washington should also live up to its own Camp David commitment to Palestinian self-rule. He said the United States must respect the Arab world’s history and culture, even when that conflicts with Western values.
And he dismissed criticism from the White House that he did not move fast enough to condemn protesters who recently climbed over the United States Embassy wall and burned the American flag in anger over a video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad.
“We took our time” in responding to avoid an explosive backlash, he said, but then dealt “decisively” with the small, violent element among the demonstrators.
“We can never condone this kind of violence, but we need to deal with the situation wisely,” he said, noting that the embassy employees were never in danger.
Mr. Morsi, who will travel to New York on Sunday for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, arrives at a delicate moment. He faces political pressure at home to prove his independence, but demands from the West for reassurance that Egypt under Islamist rule will remain a stable partner.
Mr. Morsi, 61, whose office was still adorned with nautical paintings that Mr. Mubarak left behind, said the United States should not expect Egypt to live by its rules.
“If you want to judge the performance of the Egyptian people by the standards of German or Chinese or American culture, then there is no room for judgment,” he said. “When the Egyptians decide something, probably it is not appropriate for the U.S. When the Americans decide something, this, of course, is not appropriate for Egypt.”
He suggested that Egypt would not be hostile to the West, but would not be as compliant as Mr. Mubarak either.
“Successive American administrations essentially purchased with American taxpayer money the dislike, if not the hatred, of the peoples of the region,” he said, by backing dictatorial governments over popular opposition and supporting Israel over the Palestinians.
He initially sought to meet with President Obama at the White House during his visit this week, but he received a cool reception, aides to both presidents said. Mindful of the complicated election-year politics of a visit with Egypt’s Islamist leader, Mr. Morsi dropped his request.
His silence in the immediate aftermath of the embassy protest elicited a tense telephone call from Mr. Obama, who also told a television interviewer that at that moment he did not consider Egypt an ally, if not an enemy either. When asked if he considered the United States an ally, Mr. Morsi answered in English, “That depends on your definition of ally,” smiling at his deliberate echo of Mr. Obama. But he said he envisioned the two nations as “real friends.”
Mr. Morsi spoke in an ornate palace that Mr. Mubarak inaugurated three decades ago, a world away from the Nile Delta farm where the new president grew up, or the prison cells where he had been confined by Mr. Mubarak for his role in the Brotherhood. Three months after his swearing-in, the most noticeable change to the presidential office was a plaque on his desk bearing the Koranic admonition, “Be conscious of a day on which you will return to God.”
A stocky figure with a trim beard and wire-rim glasses, he earned a doctorate in materials science at the University of Southern California in the early 1980s. He spoke with an easy confidence in his new authority, reveling in an approval rating he said was at 70 percent. When he grew animated, he slipped from Arabic into crisp English.
Little known at home or abroad until just a few months ago, he was the Brotherhood’s second choice as a presidential nominee after the first choice was disqualified. On the night of the election, the generals who had ruled since Mr. Mubarak’s ouster issued a decree keeping most presidential powers for themselves.
But last month Mr. Morsi confounded all expectations by prying full executive authority back from the generals. In the interview, when an interpreter suggested that the generals had “decided” to exit politics, Mr. Morsi quickly corrected him.
“No, no, it is not that they ‘decided’ to do it,” he interjected in English, determined to clarify that it was he who removed them. “This is the will of the Egyptian people through the elected president, right?
“The president of the Arab Republic of Egypt is the commander of the armed forces, full stop. Egypt now is a real civil state. It is not theocratic, it is not military. It is democratic, free, constitutional, lawful and modern.”
He added, “We are behaving according to the Egyptian people’s choice and will, nothing else — is it clear?”
He praised Mr. Obama for moving “decisively and quickly” to support the Arab Spring revolutions, and he said he believed that Americans supported “the right of the people of the region to enjoy the same freedoms that Americans have.”
Arabs and Americans have “a shared objective, each to live free in their own land, according to their customs and values, in a fair and democratic fashion,” he said, adding that he hoped for “a harmonious, peaceful coexistence.”
But he also argued that Americans “have a special responsibility” for the Palestinians because the United States had signed the 1978 Camp David accord. The agreement called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank and Gaza to make way for full Palestinian self-rule.
“As long as peace and justice are not fulfilled for the Palestinians, then the treaty remains unfulfilled,” he said.
He made no apologies for his roots in the Brotherhood, the insular religious revival group that was Mr. Mubarak’s main opposition and now dominates Egyptian politics.
“I grew up with the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said. “I learned my principles in the Muslim Brotherhood. I learned how to love my country with the Muslim Brotherhood. I learned politics with the Brotherhood. I was a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
He left the group when he took office but remains a member of its political party. But he said he sees “absolutely no conflict” between his loyalty to the Brotherhood and his vows to govern on behalf of all, including members of the Christian minority or those with more secular views.
“I prove my independence by taking the correct acts for my country,” he said. “If I see something good from the Muslim Brotherhood, I will take it. If I see something better in the Wafd” — Egypt’s oldest liberal party — “I will take it.”
He repeatedly vowed to uphold equal citizenship rights of all Egyptians, regardless of religion, sex or class. But he stood by the religious arguments he once made as a Brotherhood leader that neither a woman nor a Christian would be a suitable president.
“We are talking about values, beliefs, cultures, history, reality,” he said. He said the Islamic position on presidential eligibility was a matter for Muslim scholars to decide, not him. But regardless of his own views or the Brotherhood’s, he said, civil law was another matter.
“I will not prevent a woman from being nominated as a candidate for the presidential campaign,” he said. “This is not in the Constitution. This is not in the law. But if you want to ask me if I will vote for her or not, that is something else, that is different.”
He was also eager to reminisce about his taste of American culture as a graduate student at the University of Southern California. “Go, Trojans!” he said, and he remembered learning about the world from Barbara Walters in the morning and Walter Cronkite at night. “And that’s the way it is!” Mr. Morsi said with a smile.
But he also displayed some ambivalence. He effused about his admiration for American work habits, punctuality and time management. But when an interpreter said that Mr. Morsi had “learned a lot” in the United States, he quickly interjected a qualifier in English: “Scientifically!”
He was troubled by the gangs and street of violence of Los Angeles, he said, and dismayed by the West’s looser sexual mores, mentioning couples living together out of wedlock and what he called “naked restaurants,” like Hooters.
“I don’t admire that,” he said. “But that is the society. They are living their way.”
4a) Bill Clinton stuns Dems by hosting Morsi in NYC
By: Dave Reaboi
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, the recently elected president of Egypt, will be a featured participant at the eighth annual meeting of Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative in New York next week.
Morsi is a prominent figure in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the most important of the world’s Islamist organizations and ideological progenitor of al Qaeda and nearly every jihadist terrorist group in the world. Its slogan reads, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”
Clinton’s welcoming of Morsi to his high-profile event in New York City is surprising and may undermine the tough-on-terror image the Democratic Party is trying to cultivate ahead of the November elections.
4a) Bill Clinton stuns Dems by hosting Morsi in NYC
By: Dave Reaboi
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, the recently elected president of Egypt, will be a featured participant at the eighth annual meeting of Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative in New York next week.
Morsi is a prominent figure in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the most important of the world’s Islamist organizations and ideological progenitor of al Qaeda and nearly every jihadist terrorist group in the world. Its slogan reads, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”
Clinton’s welcoming of Morsi to his high-profile event in New York City is surprising and may undermine the tough-on-terror image the Democratic Party is trying to cultivate ahead of the November elections.
----------------------------------------------------
5)
Before the meeting, I confided in Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg – my friend of 30 years – that I was unsure if any of the pastors would agree to join this new organization. The first rule of the organization would be that we would go to Washington, D.C. annually to educate our people and to engage the members of Congress with our absolute solidarity with Israel and the Jewish people. We were a one-issue organization: Israel!
To my surprise, all 400 pastors agreed to join the effort, and Christians United For Israel was born. Though I viewed this moment as miraculous (if you disagree, try getting 400 pastors to agree on anything), I could not even dream of what CUFI would become.
Today, we have more than 1.1 million members; we hold an average of 40 pro-Israel events in cities and towns across America every month; we meet in Washington every year to remind our elected officials that there are Christians who stand with Israel. We have been welcomed with open arms by the American Jewish community and successive Israeli governments (regardless of party).
In spite of how dramatically the organization has grown and the extent to which we have been welcomed in mainstream American and Israeli political circles, there are many who do not understand the phenomenon. Why would Christians support the Jewish state?
To quote one of our CUFI On Campus student leaders, “I support Israel because I am a Christian.” Christian Zionists do not believe that God’s covenant with the Jewish people has been replaced by Christianity. Quite the contrary. We recognize that our faith would not exist were it not for Judaism. The first family of Christianity, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, and all the disciples, were Jewish. Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to the Jewish faith, and we have been commanded to stand with our Jewish brethren. Yet for centuries some of the greatest atrocities against the Jewish people were committed by Christians, in the name of Christianity.
Genesis 12:3 explains that God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse her. Has this not come to pass? Israel is a prosperous nation - in spite of being surrounded by tyrannical enemies who wish her destruction. And the U.S., Israel’s primary ally? Have we not thrived as a nation since recognizing Israel’s independence minutes after it was declared? We have our ups and our downs, but on our worst day, we are still the envy of all the earth.
Christian support for Israel is the product of Christians reading their Bible and rightly concluding that it is a Zionist document. Upon this foundation has been built a modern understanding of Israel’s history, and recognition that Israelis and Americans share the same democratic values.
CUFI is the largest pro-Israel organization in the country and among the largest Christian grassroots movements in the U.S. Support for Israel is not just an issue for Christians; it is our primary foreign policy focus. When we set out to form CUFI we had a simple mantra: we will awaken the sleeping giant of Christian Zionism. Ask any member of Congress – it is wide awake.
-------------------
Pastor John Hagee, founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, is the author of “The Power of the Prophetic Blessing.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No comments:
Post a Comment