OBAMA'S SPEECH IN EGYPT

OBAMA'S SPEECH IN EGYPT

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin516.htm

By Chuck Baldwin
June 9, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Much has been made of President Barack Obama's "reconciliation" speech in Cairo, Egypt, last week. For the most part, the American media have focused on Obama's attempt to "repair" relations with the Muslim nations of the world. For example, Obama referenced the Koran five times, and the Bible only once. (It is noteworthy that one of the Koranic references Obama used was a verse dedicated to Islamic Jihad, in which Muslims are required to kill infidels--meaning those who are not Muslims, of course. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of America's major media failed to report this story. See the WND report.

As nonsensical and revolting as much of Obama's speech was, the most egregiously dangerous statement he made in his Egyptian speech was another one that all but a small portion of America's mainstream media bothered to report. The sinister statement is as follows:

"Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it." (Barack Obama 06/04/2009, Source: WhiteHouse.gov)

Like his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama envisions a global union, in which all nations are linked commercially, governmentally, and militarily. Bush I called it a "New World Order;" Bush II called it an "international order;" Clinton often regurgitated Bush Sr.'s "New World Order" mantra; and Barack Obama called it a "world order." Do people not recognize that every President since Ronald Reagan (both Democrat and Republican) has called for an international one-world order? Obama's speech goes a step further, however.

In calling for a "world order," Obama blatantly said "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation . . . over another will inevitably fail." Does everyone understand what Obama is saying? In order for this new "world order" to materialize, no individual nation can be preferred over another--not even our own. In a word, no country can be allowed to maintain national sovereignty, independence, or military superiority. All nations must be willing to surrender their sovereignty and independence to the new "world order." Furthermore, all nations must be willing to submit their militaries to a new global military. Oh yes, my friend, all of this is inferred in Obama's statement.

The last half of Obama's statement is equally chilling: "Whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it." In other words, Americans must forget about the heritage and tradition of our past. The ideas of national sovereignty and independence are archaic. The notion of "America First" is passé. The principles of constitutional government must be replaced with the international principles of a new "world order."

In this regard, it would not have mattered to a tinker's dam if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack Obama. I well remember McCain repeatedly saying that one of the first things he would do after becoming President would be to implement a new "League of Democracies." In fact, look no further than to a speech McCain made to the Hoover Institution. According to McCain, "The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order." (Source: John McCain Addresses The Hoover Institution, CFR Publication, May 1, 2007)

At the national level, both the Republican and Democratic parties are taking the United States headlong into an international "New World Order." The national news media is likewise culpable, as are the vast majority of the Religious Right and most other religious entities, organizations, and movements.

As an example, outside of this column, how many warnings have you read or heard regarding the abovementioned statement by Mr. Obama? I dare say that many readers are learning of this statement for the very first time as they read this column.

The burning question facing the American people today is, are we going to do nothing as these globalists who control our political and corporate institutions sell our country into global tyranny?

Forget Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. They will do nothing to resist. Forget Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. They, too, will raise no voice of opposition. Forget Newt Gingrich. He is as much a part of the problem as anyone. Ditto for virtually every other major Republican in Washington, D.C.--with the exception of Ron Paul, of course. (At the national level, only Sarah Palin seems to bring any of the right instincts to the discussion, but she is desperately behind the curve on this issue, and needs much education if she is to be an effective voice on the subject.) Forget Nancy Pelosi and her fellow socialists in the Democratic Party. They have never seen a Big Government proposal that they did not love. And if they love big national government, think how they will love big international government.

Forget the TV news talk shows. With the exception of Lou Dobbs, they are all too busy putting big bucks in their bank accounts to have time to worry about something as insignificant (to them) as the surrender of our sovereignty and independence. Forget the vast majority of today's pastors. They are either totally ignorant or unconcerned on the subject, or too busy fighting with their own carnal church members to provide the leadership necessary to "rally the troops"--as did the patriotic clergymen of Colonial America's "Black Regiment."

That leaves you and me--and God, of course. But then again, God, guns, and guts was all it took in 1776, wasn't it?

So, while all of the attention of the "talking heads" was focused on virtually everything else Obama said, the most diabolical and potentially destructive statement that came from his mouth last week was all but ignored.

Obama in Cairo: What Are We to Make of His Speech?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-in-cairo-what-are-we-to-make-of-his-speech.html

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Counterpunch
Saturday, June 6, 2009

What are we to make of Obama’s speech at Cairo University in Egypt?

“I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

Cairo is the capital of Egypt, an American puppet state whose ruler suppresses the aspirations of Egyptian Muslims and cooperates with Israel in the blockade of Gaza.

In contrast to the Islamic University of Al-Azhar, Cairo University was founded as a civil university. Obama’s Cairo university audience was secular.

Nevertheless, Obama said startling words that many Muslims found hopeful. He said that colonialism and the Cold War had denied rights and opportunities to Muslims and resulted in Muslim countries being treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. The resulting blowback from “violent extremists” bred fear and mistrust between the Western and Muslim worlds.

Obama spoke of the Quran, his middle name, and his family connections to Islam.

Obama praised Islam’s contributions to civilization.

Obama declared his “responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

Obama acknowledged “the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.”

Obama acknowledged Iran’s “right to access peaceful nuclear power.”

Obama declared that “no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other.”

Obama’s most explosive words pertained to Israel and Palestine: “Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

Obama declared that “the only resolution [to the conflict] is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires.”

For Obama’s commitment to be fulfilled, Israel would have to give back the stolen West Bank lands, dismantle the wall, accept the right to return, and release 1.5 million Palestinians from the Gaza Ghetto. As this seems an unlikely collection of events, the nature of the “two-state solution” endorsed by Obama remains to be seen.

After the euphoric attention to idealistic rhetoric dies down, Obama will be criticized for extravagant words that create unrealizable expectations. But were the extravagant words other than a premier act of schmoozing Muslims designed to quiet the Muslim Brotherhood in our Egyptian puppet state and to get Muslims to accept US aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Obama decries regime change, but continues to practice it, invoking women’s rights to gain support from secularized Arabs. He admits that Iraq was a war of choice but claims that al Qaeda, the Taliban, and 9/11 make Afghanistan a war of necessity.

Obama said that “the events of 9/11” and al Qaeda’s responsibility, not America’s desire for military bases and hegemony, are the reasons America’s commitment to combating violent extremism in Afghanistan will not weaken. Will Muslims notice that Obama’s case for America’s violent extremism in Afghanistan and now Pakistan is hypocritical?

Al Qaeda, Obama says, “chose to ruthlessly murder” nearly 3,000 people on 9/11 “and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale.” These deaths are a mere drop in the buckets of blood that America’s invasions have brought to the Muslim world. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the Muslims America has slaughtered are civilians, just as are the unarmed Palestinians slaughtered by the American-equipped Israeli military.

Against al Qaeda, whose “actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings,” Obama invokes the Koran’s prohibition against killing an innocent. Does Obama not realize that the stricture applies to the US and its “coalition of forty-six countries” in spades?

America’s wars are all wars of choice. The more than one million dead Iraqis are not al Qaeda. Neither are Iraqi’s four million refugees. Yet, Obama says Iraqis are better off now, with their country in ruins and a fifth of their population lost, because they are rid of Saddam Hussein, a secular ruler.

No one has a good tally of the dead and refugees America has produced in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, declared Obama, “The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals and our need to work together.”

In his first 100 days, Obama managed to create two million Pakistani refugees. It took Israel 60 years to create 3.5 million Palestinian refugees.

What Obama has really done is his speech is to accept responsibility for the neoconservative agenda of extending Western hegemony by eliminating “Muslim extremists,” that is, Muslims who want to rule themselves in keeping with Islam, not in keeping with some secularized, Westernized faux Islam.

Muslim extremists are the creation of decades of Western colonization and secularization that has created an elite, which is Muslim in name only, to rule over religious people and to suppress Islamic mores. All experts know this, and most of them hail it as bringing progress and development to the Muslim world.

Obama said that “human progress cannot be denied,” but “there need not be contradiction between development and tradition.” However, the West defines development and education. These terms mean what they mean in the West. Muslim extremists understand that these terms mean the extermination of Islam.

In typical American fashion, Obama offered Muslims money, “technological development,” and “centers of scientific excellence.”

All the Muslims have to do is to cooperate with America and be peaceful, and America will “respect the dignity of all human beings.”

Hypocrite Brzezinski Slams “Conspiratorial View” Of History While Highlighting 50’s Iran Overthrow

http://www.prisonplanet.com/hypocrite-brzezinski-slams-conspiratorial-view-of-history-while-highlighting-50s-iran-overthrow.html

Declares American people “skewed” for questioning government

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, June 8, 2009

Hypocrite Brzezinski Slams Conspiratorial View Of History While Highlighting 50s Iran Overthrow 080609Maddow During a discussion with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow last Friday, Trilateral Commission co-founder and top Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke of those who question the official version of events on 9/11 in the same context as those who deny the holocaust.

The two were analyzing Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, and in particular, his tacit warning regarding 9/11 Truth.

During the speech Obama said “I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11,” suggesting that anyone who asks questions about the attacks also somehow justifies them.

“But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day …These are not opinions to be debated, these are facts to be dealt with.” Obama asserted.

“He took time to debunk both 9/11 conspiracists and deniers of the holocaust,” Maddow said to Brzezinski, “…is there a reason to believe that he thinks those issues are holding back political progress, those specific conspiracies and misconceptions of our modern political history are part of the problem in terms of moving forward?” she asked, wearing what can only be described as a painfully rehearsed puppy dog face of false concern.

“There’s no doubt over recent years, both many Americans viewed the world in a very very skewed fashion,” Brzezinski replied, “and many outside of America, had a totally conspiratorial view of America, including even the idea that 9/11 was somehow or other a put up job and really wasn’t done by Osama Bin Laden and others, so I think president Obama is breaking through a whole mythology that has paralysed American dealings with the world.”

The Orwellian doublespeak on display here is astounding, given that almost in the same breath Brzezinski and Maddow allude to the fact that in the same speech Obama also admitted that the U.S., via the CIA, played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, a fact that the criminal intelligence apparatus then attempted to bury and keep secret for decades.

How on earth do the two expect to get away with denouncing the American people as “skewed” for not swallowing the official government line on 9/11 when said government has been engaged in such criminal actions for generations?

Indeed, Brzezinski himself has even previously warned of false flag attacks being used to kick start wars, yet here he is now comparing such lines of thought to holocaust denial. The total hypocrisy of the man defies belief.

“It was a gutsy speech… In effect what he was saying was if we are to go forward, if we are to have a normal relationship, we cannot re-hash the past… Let’s not exchange accusations” Brzezinski gushed.

“By redefining what America means to the world, and how America views the world, and how Islam and America should view each other, I think he has laid the basis for a much more constructive, much more effective American foreign policy.” Brzezinski said.

Meanwhile, unmanned drones continue to drop more and more bombs on precision targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan, pounding innocent civilians into the dust by the scores almost everyday.

Former Reagan White House official Paul Craig Roberts hits the nail on the head in his latest piece, emphasizing the abject hypocrisy of Obama’s words:

Obama said that “the events of 9/11” and al Qaeda’s responsibility, not America’s desire for military bases and hegemony, are the reasons America’s commitment to combating violent extremism in Afghanistan will not weaken. Will Muslims notice that Obama’s case for America’s violent extremism in Afghanistan and now Pakistan is hypocritical?

Al Qaeda, Obama says, “chose to ruthlessly murder” nearly 3,000 people on 9/11 “and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale.” These deaths are a mere drop in the buckets of blood that America’s invasions have brought to the Muslim world. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the Muslims America has slaughtered are civilians, just as are the unarmed Palestinians slaughtered by the American-equipped Israeli military.

Against al Qaeda, whose “actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings,” Obama invokes the Koran’s prohibition against killing an innocent. Does Obama not realize that the stricture applies to the US and its “coalition of forty-six countries” in spades?

Brzezinski’s words, and his desire to see the exercise of a “constructive” foreign policy, ring hollow, especially when it is understood that it was the former National Security Advisor to Carter himself who was responsible for drawing up the plan to arm and train the Islamic fundamentalist mujahideen at the end of the 70’s and groom Osama bin Laden as a client of the U.S.

In addition, in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Brzezinski calls for the U.S. to install itself as the world’s only superpower by taking over the Middle East and using it as a lever to control what he terms the “Eurasian Balkans”.

Similar to the infamous PNAC yearning for a “new Pearl Harbor,” Brzezinski concludes that the realization of such an agenda will only be accomplished with the aid of “a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat,” which was helpfully provided by the events of 9/11.

Yet, now we are supposed to shut up and swallow it as he declares his great concern that the U.S. is “becoming bogged down militarily” in the middle east.

To do so would require a myopic leap of logic that completely omits the past history of Brzezinski’s rampant warmongering.

Of course, Obama would love to see questions over 9/11 shut down for good, only that way will he be able to carry out his stated goal of changing the law for the military commissions at Guantánamo to clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.

Those who seek to expose the truth behind the events of September 11th 2001, and counter the hellish road toward tyranny that has been paved in the years thereafter, are not the ones “holding back political progress” as Maddow so disgustingly suggests.

It is the indentured elitists, such as Brzezinski himself, who have continued to use the American military industrial complex as an engine to wage an endless war on the rest of the world that most certainly shoulder the blame for that.