Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Hot Mic Catches Egyptian Politician Discussing ‘War’ with ‘Enemies’ Israel and America

Egyptian Politicianr Caught on Hot Mic Discussing War with America and Israel

Just last month, Secretary of State John Kerry quietly sent Egypt an additional $1.3 billion, even though Egypt has failed to live up to democracy standards. That largesse didn’t stop a prominent Egyptian politician from talking about Egypt’s “enemy” the United States in what some pundits are classifying as a classic and embarrassing “hot mic” moment.

President Mohammed Morsi gathered a group of politicians last week who thought they were speaking privately at a parliamentary meeting. But as seen in an Egyptian television video of the meeting — excerpts of which were later translated by the Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI) — they were actually on live television, cringingly discussing secret ways to stop Ethiopia’s Nile River dam project which threatens water flowing to Egypt.

The New York Times blog reports:
Unaware that their words were being broadcast live on a state-owned television channel, many of those seated around the table said the dam was in fact a secret American and Israeli plot to undermine Egypt that must be stopped at all costs.
The participants learned they were on live TV only after Magdi Ahmad Hussein, chairman of the Islamic Labor Party, suggested that all present vow not to leak any information to the media. Before being told he was on television, Hussein described the U.S. as an enemy [emphasis added]:
I’m very fond of battles. With the enemies, of course – with America and Israel, but this battle must be waged with maximum judiciousness and calm. Even though this is a secret meeting, we must all take an oath not to leak anything to the media, unless it is done officially by sister Pakinam [el-Sharkawy, a Morsi aide]. We need an official plan for popular national security, even if we…
The viewer sees him being handed a note, which presumably points out that his words are not confined to the room. Hussein laughs, then continues with the anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric: “Okay… Fine… The principles behind what I’m saying are not really secret… Our war is with America and Israel, not with Ethiopia. Therefore, engaging in a war… This is my opinion…”
President Morsi says out for the benefit of all in the room, “This meeting is being aired live on TV,” a comment which prompts laughter all around.

In damage control mode, as if he knew all along that he was on camera, Hussein followed up by saying, “I am not presenting a secret plan or anything. All the countries do what I am saying and what has been said by others. All countries with regional conflicts do that.”

“I say to the Egyptian people: Nobody can turn off your water supply – unless they want to turn the Egyptians into the world’s most extremist people. Imagine what this people would do if its water were turned off – what all 80 million of us would do to Israel and America if our water were turned off,” Hussein concluded [emphasis added].

According to the New York Times, someone afterwards could be heard off camera saying, “Why didn’t you tell me that earlier?”

Morsi later appeared to try to send a calming message to Ethiopia, even though other participants in the parliamentary session were openly discussing sabotaging their southern neighbor, including via covert operations, supporting rebel groups or destroying the dam altogether.

“We have a lot of respect for the Sudanese people in the north and the south, and we respect their decisions, and the same is true with regard to the Ethiopian people. We are not about to start any aggression against anyone whatsoever, or affront anyone whatsoever,” Morsi said.

“But we have very serious measures to protect every single drop of Nile water – every single drop of water,” Morsi added.

Middle East analyst Barry Rubin of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) tells TheBlaze, “Here we have possibly the most embarrassing open microphone scandal in history.”

In an article which discussed the scene, Rubin wrote: “Egyptian leaders discussed covert operations to destroy the dam or giving covert support to rebel groups. This gives some hints of what longer-term policy toward Israel might well be. Advocates of aggressive action included moderate politicians.”

Before it was revealed that they were on camera, liberal politician Ayman Nour, chairman of the Ghad Al-Thawra Party suggested leaking a false story to the media suggesting Egypt might be preparing for war. He said:
The Ethiopian newspapers say that Egypt has no military option. They say that Egypt does not possess the capabilities – no airplanes, no missiles – and that Sudan would not allow this… Indeed, Sudan’s position is nauseating. It is much weaker than it should be.
But we could leak intelligence information. We could leak that Egypt is trying to buy planes for aerial refueling, and so on. Even if this is unrealistic, it would bring results on the diplomatic track.
The water issue is so sensitive in Egypt, because the country’s agriculture is completely dependent on the Nile River. According to the New York Times, Ethiopian officials say the dam will not be used for agriculture, just for the production of electricity and therefore it should not substantially decrease the amount of water flowing to Egypt.

Here is video of the hot mic moment, courtesy of MEMRI:

This post  has been updated to correct that Hussein is not a cabinet minister.

FOX News host Brian Kilmeade tells English Defence League leader, Tommy Robinson, “We got your back” and “it’s great what you’re doing.”

378749From Bare Naked Islam

Kilmeade offered his endorsement to the English Defence League (EDL) and co-founder Tommy Robinson, who appeared on Kilmeade’s Fox News Radio show June 10th. Kilmeade’s support followed an interview in which Robinson warned of Muslims ‘forcefully putting us under Sharia’ and planning to implement Sharia in the UK and across the world.

In the full interview below, Tommy describes some of the problems of Muslim mass immigration into England:

  • “Sit and work out the demographics. Look at how our country’s changed. I think, every ten years the Islamic community doubles … Where does it stop?” 

  • “In the World War, we need America’s help. Now in this country, we need America’s support because we need to take our country back.” 

  • “In thirty years’ time, they will be forcefully putting us under Sharia. There will be a violent struggle across this country, complete civil breakdown and disorder.”  

  • “I don’t regret doing it at all.” — Robinson on entering the United States with improper documentation. 

  • “That’s the tip of the iceberg. You see, the violent jihadists — now they are a real problem and they do [inaudible] what they’re doing. But this silent jihad that’s going on. This silent takeover and planning to take over and implement Sharia, they’re the ones I’m terrified of because they’re actually sitting around tables of government. They’re actually in positions of power. They’ve infiltrated major positions across the whole entire government. And I say don’t listen to what we’re saying. Listen to what they’re saying. They’re openly telling us they want to take over the country. They’re openly committing treason. They’re openly Islamifying areas, and it has to end, and that’s what we’re saying.   



Here is the full interview:

h/t Media Matters

WASHINGTON - Several key elements in the bombshell story about the government's secret surveillance programs have been either underreported or left out of the narrative altogether.

The first is the degree to which all three branches of the government -- executive, legislative and judicial -- oversee these programs. The second is how did a little-known, low-level, 29-year-old, high school drop out with no academic or work credentials to speak of gain access to America's most critical national security secrets.

The first element, often completely missing from network nightly news stories, is that surveillance programs such as these are being closely monitored under laws established by Congress and overseen by a special court of federal judges.

The second story is a scandal of enormous proportions inside the Obama administration: its failure to establish and enforce a leak-proof system of access rules among intelligence agency employes, especially among private, contract workers employed by outside consultants.

In this case, the culprit is Edward Snowden, a low-level tech specialist who was hired a bare three months ago by the consulting firm Booze Allen Hamilton that provides an army of contract specialists for the top-secret National Security Agency.

The fact that someone with scant credentials -- who not that many years ago was a security guard at the University of Maryland -- could so easily gain access to the nation's top-secrets exposes a gaping hole in the administration's internal security system and has put the nation's national security in jeopardy.

As the story has rapidly unfolded, you would think that the surveillance program, gathering data from phone calls and foreign communications on the Internet was overseen by no one.

Last week, as the little-known surveillance programs triggered renewed debate, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. sharply criticized the news media for leaving out a critical component in the story: the "extent to which these programs are overseen by all three branches of government."

It was a justifiable complaint, because the oversight system is an elaborate one, set forth in law.

Every surveillance initiative must be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), created by Congress in 1978. It is composed of 11 specially selected federal judges chosen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Justice Department attorneys must go before one of the judges on this panel to win their approval of each and every surveillance action. They must present their case in written and oral arguments that set forth why the FISA court should sign off on the surveillance and defend their request under intense questioning by the jurists. Last year, the court approved 1,789 eavesdropping applications.

One request was withdrawn and some 40 others were modified to obtain the court's approval.

The judges exercise special vigilance to insure that the eves-dropping on foreign targets will not unwittingly violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment rights "against unreasonable searches." There was only one case during this period when the court found this to be the case.

These judges take their work seriously and dismiss any notion they've become rubber stamps for the government. "It has opened my eyes to the level of hatred that exists in the world," U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, the court's chief judge, told the Washington Post in 2009.

At the same time, the House and Senate Intelligence Committee members are briefed on the government's classified national security activities, but are barred from publicly revealing what they are told.

"The Intelligence Committee knew and members [of Congress] could go into the Intelligence Committee room and read the documents, Jennifer Hoelzer, a former staff assistant to Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon who is a member of the panel, told the Post this week.

Is there a need to fine-tune the Patriot Act under which government surveillance operations are approved and conducted? Perhaps. That will be fully explored in the coming debate and likely hearings.

But the frightening, cold-blooded fact remains that global terrorism still threatens all Americans. We know that al-Qaeda cells and other related terrorist groups -- from a number of foiled plots and other sting operations -- are constantly testing our security, probing for opportunities to enter our country to kill as many Americans as possible.

Far-left activists like filmmaker Michael Moore and Daniel Ellsberg are hailing Edward Snowden as a "hero," and legions of terrorist plotters are cheering his dirty deed, seeing it as a major blow to homeland security.

"For me, it is literally -- not figuratively -- literally gut-wrenching to see this happen because of the huge, grave damage it does to our intelligence capabilities," Clapper said this week.

Snowden is a naïve, libertarian ideologue with delusions of grandeur about his new-won fame, given to hyperbolic and exaggerated claims about the power he had as a low-level tech consultant. In one of his self-absorbed diatribes, he bragged he could order wiretaps on any government official, from "a federal judge to even the president."

In a note to the Post, he said that "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."

Decisions about all surveillance operations should be "made by the public," he said in a video with the Guardian newspaper. But, in fact, they were made by the public and approved by them at the polls in the people they elected to Congress to write our laws.

Snowden will be arrested, brought back to the states and fully prosecuted for his crimes. But Obama and the administration have to answer some troubling questions, too. How did this security risk gain entrance to the nation's most classified national security secrets? How many other little-know contract employees -- among the thousands who work in other classified programs -- are leaking information to those who want to do us harm?

The president and his top intelligence advisers are sitting on a major breach of national security, but they have yet to explain how this happened and what they're doing to make sure it can't happen again.
The contradictions at the heart of the Obama presidency are finally out in the open. As a result, a man who came into office hell-bent on restoring faith in government is on the verge of inspiring a libertarian revival.

There have always been (at least) two Barack Obamas. There is the man who claims to be a non-ideological problem-solver, keen on working with anybody to fix things. And there is other: the partisan, left-leaning progressive-redeemer.

As E.J. Dionne, a columnist who can usually be counted on to make the case for Obama better than Obama can, recently wrote, the president "has been a master, as good politicians are, at presenting different sides of himself to different constituencies. In 2008, he was the man who would bring us together by overcoming the deep mistrust between red and blue America and the champion of progressive change, the liberal answer to Ronald Reagan."

The dilemma for Obama is that neither is panning out because both incarnations rely on trust. The president never had much trust among Republicans, and he lost what he had when he opted to steamroll the stimulus and, later, Obamacare, on a partisan basis.

Of course, that's not how most Democrats have seen things. They've seen the last five years as a tale of Tea Party-fueled madness and racism. The conviction that conservatives are crazy, stupid and bigoted in their opposition to Obama is what has allowed the two Obamas to exist side by side. Both iterations could blame the Republicans for any shortcomings or failures.

Then came the Benghazi debacle. The president's base, according to polls and what little MSNBC viewing I could stomach, never wavered in its conviction that Benghazi was a nonscandal. But even if you don't think it was a scandal (as I do), many partisans admit the administration's response, politically and in real time, was a mess, casting the White House as deeply political and not exactly truthful.

Cue the Justice Department, which deployed the Espionage Act against a Fox News reporter and subpoenaed the records of more than 20 Associated Press phone lines. Obama tried to play the Janus game again, saying that he was "troubled" by the reports of his own administration's actions. The media has let him get away with this bystander act when it comes to things like the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but not necessarily when it comes to threats to themselves.

And then the floodgates opened. The IRS compromised the integrity of the domestic agency that is supposed to be the most immune to politics. Worse, the White House's best defense was that it was simply asleep at the switch as the agency went rogue -- in ways that just happened to align with the president's oft-expressed ideological and political preferences.

The IRS scandal is a cancer because if you can't trust Obama to keep that agency from being politicized, you can't trust him to keep anything immune from politics -- including health care and, more relevant, the National Security Agency.

I have some sympathy for Obama in that his support of these vast data-mining programs might be a sign that he has matured in office. He naively denounced the "false choice" of compromising our ideals for the sake of security in his 2009 inaugural speech. Now he's touting such trade-offs as essential.

Or it could be that, like so many presidents before him, Obama thinks there's nothing wrong with executive power when he's the executive. Either way, the NSA story undermines trust in both Obamas.

In late May, the president announced in a speech that the war on terror was essentially over. In early June, he's defending a data-mining operation that even Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) -- an author of the Patriot Act, which authorizes surveillance by the NSA -- is denouncing as dangerous overreach he never intended.

The idealist wants credit for ending the war, while the alleged pragmatist wants to keep a surveillance apparatus that has no justification if the war on terror is truly over. Maybe he's right on the merits.

The problem is that fewer and fewer people are willing to take his word for it.
Our borders must be secured before any immigration reform can happen 
By: Diane Sori                                                                                            

Turkey is on fire…shades of Egypt to be sure but you know what…I’m sick of these muslim savages dominating the news. I know they won’t do it but the media should ignore them, and maybe then with NO audience to play to they’ll just go away. We have major issues in our own country right now that are a hell of a lot more important than giving airtime to riots by ‘the uncivilized man’ (thank you Pamela Geller) for right here, right now we have scandals galore, and adding into the now ever-growing scandal mix is the battle over immigration reform.

Immigration reform is really quite easy and is actually NO reform at all…just enforce the laws already on the books…it’s that simple. But sadly for whatever reason that does NOT seem to be an option. And if it was up to me, seriously, I would round up all ILLEGALS and ship them back to their home countries for the very word ILLEGAL means they’ve broken our laws…they’re criminals…by NOT following the rules we already have in place for those wanting to come to this country.

But that will NOT happen…it’s just a pipe dream of mine…a pipe dream of many I’m sure.

And if on key to deflect more attention away from all the scandals, yesterday the Senate passed, 82 to 15, a procedural vote to begin debate on the bipartisan ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration reform bill…a bill that if enacted would create a 13-year pathway to citizenship for 11+ million ‘undocumented’ (the ‘politically correct’ bleeding heart liberal word of choice)…ILLEGAL…aliens.

But, in my opinion, NO bill should be passed or even discussed before a bill is passed that SECURES our borders…ALL our borders…because if we don’t stop the influx of those crossing our borders ILLEGALLY NO bill we pass putting them on a path to citizenship will stop new people from coming here…ILLEGALLY of course.

And while the bill that will now be debated does try to strengthen border security it falls way short of what’s really needed because strengthening border security is NOT the issue that needs addressing…SECURING the borders is…and the two are vastly different animals. Strengthening existing border security is quite the joke for how do you strengthen something that in its current form simply just does NOT work in the first place, while SECURING the borders means locking down our borders…as in NO one crosses our borders without our permission…and that is something that will work and can be done if we’re serious about doing it.

And SECURING our borders is what needs to be done BEFORE any discussions can begin with Hispanic Americans, or with anybody for that matter, about those living ILLEGALLY in this country.

And only after SECURING our borders can the ‘givens’ be put in place…’givens’ like passing background checks, learning English, paying back taxes along with a penalty, deporting ILLEGAL documented criminals, and going to the back of the line behind all those who came here legally.

And only after SECURING our borders can a convincing case be made for Republicans controlling the immigration issue…and control it they must because we sure don’t want the liberal Democrats controlling it for all they will do is open the floodgates to even more immigration…immigration garnered for votes and votes alone.

And truth be told but the fact is that eventually immigration reform will happen whether we like it or NOT. Thankfully there’s still a glimmer of hope that a guaranteed SECURING of our borders will be happen because some Republicans who voted for yesterday’s initial procedural measure say they will NOT support the final product when it comes up for vote unless amendments are added to strengthen the legislation’s requirements to SECURE our nation’s borders…and this means in NO uncertain terms...NO SECURING OUR BORDERS...NO IMMIGRATION REFORM.

And as Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his administration continue to be way too anxious to secure third world country’s borders they are more than willing to leave our borders exposed…and that is something ‘We the People’ will NO longer abide.