Our President Has Not a Clue!

Chaos is the aim of radicals. Stilling voices is one of their tactics.

Granted it is a leap but can one could postulate that Harry Reid's recent effort to prevent a vote in the Senate could be used by radicals to claim even a U.S. Senator uses such tactics?

Terrorists will continue to challenge us and we will continue to be re-active, always coming from behind the eight ball in our responses.

Obama either intends to purposely weaken our nation or is so naive as to believe he can rationalize with terrorists. Terrorists understand two things: weakness and power and the willingness to use it.

Click on PJTV.Com again and watch: " Hicks File: Protesting Conservative Ideas: Why Does the Left Fear Free Speech?Leftist agitators recently protested Koch Industries. Joe Hicks asks why leftists are so interested in silencing speech that they oppose. Can the left really oppose the Koch brothers, but support George Soros? Find out more. " (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
---
Natan Sharansky on what Egypt is all about. (See 2 below.)
---
Sent to me by a thoughtful and successful business man who is very philanthropic. It was sent to him by a friend. Both are very concerned, as they should be.

I was led to believe Rev. Stinger's congregation abuts a Muslim neighborhood in South Chicago.

Today, I understand, we sent a special envoy to Egypt. Apparently the administration is beginning to backtrack on their public demands that Mubarak vacate post haste.

There are times when it is appropriate for a president to speak out and there are times when it is best to allow diplomacy to be undertaken in quiet.

I am old enough to remember the mixed message Eisenhower sent to Hungary and many Hungarians, believing President "Ike" would support them, tried to throw overthrow the Russians. We did not lift a finger.

When America speaks, whether we understand or like it, the world listens and often misinterprets that we are unable to do anything even though we might wish we could.

Obama has flipped and flopped, he has demeaned our ally in public he has sided with Egypt's Street, he has welcomed The Muslim Brotherhood and now he seems to be pulling back a bit. In a word he has been all over the place and to make matters worse he has been overly public.

I find Obama's actions jarring, disheartening, frightening. (See 3 below.)

Several years ago I reported on Norman Podhoret'z Book: "WW 1V." If you have not read it do so. Because are living it and the producer of the show is our president.(See 3a below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Conspiracy charges filed against Muslim students

If convicted, UC Irvine students who disrupted Israeli ambassador's speech face anything from probation and community service to six months in jail. DA: We must decide whether we are a country of laws or a country of anarchy

A group of Muslim students accused of disrupting a speech by Israeli ambassador Michael Oren at the University of California, Irvine, were charged Friday with misdemeanor conspiracy counts, ending speculation about what would come from their actions nearly a year ago.

The 11 students each face one count of misdemeanor conspiracy to disturb a meeting and one count of misdemeanor disturbance of a meeting, the Orange County district attorney's office said. If convicted, they could face anything from probation and community service to six months in jail.

Muslim Student Union

The students were arrested Feb. 8, 2010, after shouting and protesting during Oren's speech on US-Israeli security, forcing the diplomat to stop his remarks for 20 minutes. Eight of the students were from UC Irvine, and three were from the nearby campus of the University of California, Riverside.


Muslim students from the Irvine school protested outside the district attorney's office earlier this week after word leaked that a grand jury had been convened in the case.

Jacqueline Goodman, an attorney for all 11 defendants, said they would plead not guilty at an arraignment scheduled for March 11.

District Attorney Tony Rackauckas defended his decision Friday, saying the protest was a pre-meditated attempt to quash the speaker and prevent the 500 to 700 people gathered there from hearing his remarks.

That made the incident about more than free speech, he said.

"This is a clear violation of the law, and failing to bring charges against this conduct would amount to failure to uphold the Constitution," he said in a statement. "We must decide whether we are a country of laws or a country of anarchy. We cannot tolerate a pre-planned violation of the law, even if the crime takes place on a school campus and even if the defendants are college students."


'This is beyond ridiculous'
Goodman said that just because the district attorney can bring charges doesn't mean he should, particularly in this case where the students protested peacefully and didn't resist arrest.

"The district attorney enjoys wide discretion as to which crimes he's going to choose to prosecute. We don't prosecute every crime ever committed. We don't have the unlimited resources to do that," Goodman said. "It becomes very dangerous to a democracy when we allow the district attorney to prosecute a peaceful protest on a campus based on the contents of that speech."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California said it is "deeply troubled" by the decision and called on the district attorney to dismiss the charges immediately.

"We are unaware of any case where a district attorney pressed criminal charges over this type of nonviolent student protest," the ACLU said in a statement. "The district attorney's action will undoubtedly intimidate students in Orange County and across the state, and discourage them from engaging in any controversial speech or protest for fear of criminal charges," the statement said.

Many of the defendants are top students applying to medical schools or pursuing master's degrees, said Hamza Siddiqui, a senior at Irvine majoring in political science.

"This is beyond ridiculous," he told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "They have a whole future waiting for them, and this little minor incident has a chance of ruining their future."

The incident was captured on video and enflamed tension between Muslim and Jewish students at the university, which has already run high for several years.

The university revoked the Muslim Student Union's charter for one year and placed it on probation for another year after launching its own investigation. In September, the school softened the sanctions by restoring the group's charter effective Dec. 31, but it added a year of probation and 100 hours of community service.

Cathy Lawhon, a university spokeswoman, has said the university has completed its disciplinary process and has no connection to the district attorney's investigation.


1a) Egypt: No assassination attempt on Vice President Suleiman

Fox News reports armed assassins targeted the convoy in which Omar Suleiman was traveling, killing two of his bodyguards.
By Reuters and Avi Issacharoff


A senior Egyptian security source denied on Saturday a report carried in U.S. media of an assassination attempt on Egypt's Vice President Omar Suleiman

The source, who did not want to be named, said there was no truth to the report at all.

Fox News reported on Saturday that recently appointed Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman has survived an attempted assassination.


According to the report, armed assassins targeted the convoy in which Suleiman was traveling, killing two of his bodyguards.

Fox News reported that the U.S. confirmed the reports of the failed assassination attempt, however White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to address the reports.

"I'm not going to... get into that question," Gibbs told Fox News.

Embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak appointed last week the former air force commander and aviation minister in efforts to stem popular rage against his autocratic regime.

Suleiman is the first vice-president of Egypt to be appointed since Mubarak first took power almost thirty years ago. Mubarak himself occupied the position of vice-president under the former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, and took the reigns of power after Sadat was assassinated in 1981.


1b)Obama's Egypt Flip-Flop
By Leslie H. Gelb Info

U.S. media pundits are intoxicated with protests and naïve about religious and military extremists—and the White House's daily policy shifts aren’t helping, writes Leslie H. Gelb.


As the Egyptian earthquake rumbles into its second week—with implications for U.S. security in the Middle East rivaling those for the Soviet Union during the 1989 uprisings in Eastern Europe—three matters roil my mind:

First, most of the American talkocracy is now so utterly intoxicated with protestocracy, which they call democracy, that they outright neglect the enormous trials of getting from the streets to a real democracy. It's hard as hell, and the process lends itself to hijacking by extremists.


Second, the Muslim Brotherhood jumps immediately to mind as hijackers, but don't overlook the potentially equal or greater threat to democracy from Egypt's beloved armed forces. The history of venomous domestic and foreign-policy pronouncements by the MB should keep us all awake at night. And never forget that the murderers of the great President Anwar Sadat were associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and embedded in the army. All who ignore this history are naïve, best suited to cable-TV commentary, not policymaking.

Third, the Obama White House hasn't helped matters by shifting policy ground almost daily, causing confusion, and thereby squandering America's credibility and limited but precious influence. President Obama has got to learn the fundamental rule of dealing with careening crises: State your basic principles and then shut up publicly! (Meaning, just boringly repeat your mantra daily.)

I'd like to believe that, if I were an Egyptian, I would be in the streets with the protesters. I'd be mad as hell with Mubarak and would want to get rid of him as quickly as possible. But that wouldn't make me or my fellow mobsters democrats. Generally, one cannot count on mobs, no matter how nice or liberal or unfilled with hatred, to produce democracies.

The United States has no power to shape events in Egypt, but it does have real influence. Using that influence effectively absolutely requires consistency out of the White House. That has not been forthcoming.

The best way to get from the streets of Cairo to some semblance of a constitutional government that ensures rights and freedoms is, of course, to get Mubarak and his lot to help with the transition from dictatorship to the desired end. That's what the Obama administration is now trying to do behind the scenes. And that's the right approach. The protestocracy is justifiably skeptical of involving Mubarak and his bunch in any capacity whatsoever. And that's understandable because he disappointed and lied to them so many times before. And they're afraid that if they get out of the streets and let him take the lead, Mubarak will revert to business as usual or worse. I'd think that way if I were in their shoes as well.

But from a very safe distance here in New York, I truly believe that circumstances are different today than in the unhappy past. Mubarak will have to go, and I believe at some level he now understands this. His support has clearly dwindled, even among his own backers in the army and elsewhere. Not to be discounted at all, he now has practically no support whatsoever from any nation in the world. He can't hold on this time. The policy trick for the U.S. and others is to try to "praise" Mubarak into saving his nation once again by turning over power to his subordinates, calling for an assembly to fix the worst parts of the present constitution, and holding supervised elections in, say, three months' time. To my friends in the talkocracy, I have to say that trying this approach is far better than pretending that the protestocracy can somehow magically transform itself into a democratic government. They have no organized political parties and, alas, no experience with governing.



As for the long list of gargoyles to be encountered during this process, I've already disgorged myself about the MB. They promise democracy and nonviolence at home and not to Islamicize Egypt. Given their long history, it's simply naïve to take them at their word. And I'll bet most Egyptians are even more worried about the MB than the American talkocracy.


The other potential threat to democracy, the Egyptian military, is almost always forgotten. Right now they're seen as saviors, the keepers of peace, the ones who will preserve the future democracy. But their history is one of supporting dictators. The present corps of generals are all Mubarak men. The colonels could be anything, including secret members of the MB and plotters for future dictatorships. Just as there are groups within groups within the MB, so it is with the armed forces. It's important that Egyptians and Americans don't close their eyes to these risks.

As for Obama's performance, it has been more wanting than helpful. As I've written many times, the U.S. has no power to shape events in Egypt, but it does have real influence. Using that influence effectively absolutely requires consistency out of the White House. That has not been forthcoming.

Obama has consistently upheld the universal rights of free speech and protest, acknowledged legitimate grievances, and called for peaceful change. That's all fine.

But here's the gist of the administration's rhetorical roller coaster since the crisis began: They started out saying that Mubarak's regime was "stable," they proclaimed Egypt a "close and important ally," suggesting the need to support Mubarak, and added that he was not a "dictator." Then they threatened to review the billion-dollar U.S. aid package to Egypt, a real body blow to Mubarak and the military. After Mubarak said he would not run for reelection in September, they called for an "orderly transition." As protests continued, they called for Mubarak to begin the transition "now." In sum, they danced to and fro during the first several days and then increasingly hardened their position against Mubarak even as they were privately trying to get him to participate in his own political demise.

The only statement that made complete sense throughout this roller-coaster process was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's on Sunday: "It needs to be an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy, not faux democracy." That's the heart of the matter, and that's all the administration should have been saying publicly along with a line like, "And, of course, we stand ready to help Egyptians as and when they call upon us to do so."

One should focus sharply on Mrs. Clinton's wise words last Sunday—that is, our goal should be a real democracy, not a fake one. I'm accused all the time now of favoring an illusory stability for Egypt, but I think my critics are doing their best to encourage Egypt and the protestocracy to accept an illusory democracy. Let's hope the Obama administration can cajole Mubarak toward a peaceful and orderly transition and that Egyptian elites and protesters will be mindful of the threats lurking just beneath the surface. For if we, and far more important they, are not on their guard, we shall all be very sorry.

Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Natan Sharansky: Democracy's Tribune on the Arab Awakening
A survivor of nine years in the Soviet Gulag, Natan Sharansky believes that liberalism can take root in Egypt—if the free world supports its transition.
By DAVID FEITH

'If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book, 'The Case for Democracy.'" With that comment in 2005, George W. Bush created a best seller, impelling hordes of statesmen, policy wonks and journalists to decode this Rosetta Stone of the "freedom agenda."

In the book, Mr. Sharansky argues that all people, in all cultures, want to live in freedom; that all dictatorships are inherently unstable and therefore threaten the security of other countries; and that Western powers can and should influence how free other countries are. Rarely have these arguments been dramatized as during the past weeks—in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and especially Egypt. So late Wednesday night I interviewed Mr. Sharansky to hear his explanation of our current revolutionary moment.

"The reason people are going to the streets and making revolution is their desire not to live in a fear society," Mr. Sharansky says. In his taxonomy, the world is divided between "fear societies" and "free societies," with the difference between them determinable by what he calls a "town square test": Are the people in a given society free to stand in their town square and express their opinions without fear of arrest or physical harm? The answer in Tunisia and Egypt, of course, has long been "no"—as it was in the Soviet bloc countries that faced popular revolutions in 1989.

The comparison of today's events with 1989 is a common one, but for Mr. Sharansky it is personal. He was born in 1948 in Donetsk (then called Stalino), Ukraine, and in the 1970s and 1980s he was one of the most famous dissidents in the Soviet Union—first as an aide to the nuclear physicist-turned-human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, then as a champion for the rights of Soviet Jews like himself to emigrate. His outspoken advocacy landed him in the Soviet Gulag for nine years (including 200 days on hunger strike).

Mr. Sharansky was released from prison in 1986, after his wife Avital's tireless campaigning earned his case international renown and the strong support of President Ronald Reagan. He moved to Israel, where he eventually entered politics and served until 2006 in various ministerial posts and in the parliament. Throughout, he preached and wrote about, as his book's subtitle puts it, "the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror."

This idea is the animating feature of a worldview that bucks much conventional wisdom. Uprisings like Tunisia's and Egypt's, he says, make "specialists—Sovietologists, Arabists—say 'Who could have thought only two weeks ago that this will happen?'" But "look at what Middle Eastern democratic dissidents were saying for all these years about the weakness of these regimes from the inside," and you won't be surprised when they topple, he says.

And yet policy makers from Washington to Tel Aviv have seemingly been in shock. Many of them—on the right and the left—look upon the demise of Hosni Mubarak and the potential rise of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood with dread.

"Why is there such a big danger that if now there will be free choice for Egyptians, then the Muslim Brotherhood can rise to power?" Mr. Sharansky asks. "Because they are the only organized force which exists in addition to Mubarak's regime." Mr. Mubarak quashed almost all political dissent, with the general acquiescence of his American patrons. But he couldn't stop the Brotherhood from spreading its message in mosques. Meanwhile, he used the Brotherhood as a bogeyman, telling the U.S. that only he stood between radical Islamists and the seat of power.

It worked. Mr. Sharansky says that in a 2007 meeting in Prague, President Bush told him that the U.S. supports Mr. Mubarak—to the tune of nearly $2 billion in annual aid—because if it didn't, the Brotherhood would take over Egypt.

For all his good intentions and pro-democracy rhetoric, Mr. Bush was inconsistent in practice. By Mr. Sharansky's calculus, simply propping up Mr. Mubarak's fear society would make it more likely, not less, that radicals would gradually become the only viable opposition and be best-positioned to gain power when the regime inevitably fell. And so it is today, as the Mubarak regime teeters.

Still, Mr. Sharansky finds reason for optimism. While recognizing common Israeli fears that Mr. Mubarak's ouster could give Hamas more power in and around Gaza and endanger the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, he doesn't expect the security balance to change much. As he wrote in "The Case for Democracy," over the past 30 years Israel's "border with Syria, with whom we do not have a peace treaty, has been just as quiet, and [I] suggest that Israeli deterrence is responsible for both."

Mr. Sharansky points out that Mr. Mubarak is no great man of peace. Indeed, since 1979, Egyptians' "hatred toward Israel only grew. . . . Egypt became one of the world centers of anti-Semitism." That's because all dictators must cultivate external enemies in order to maintain their grip on power. So even when Mr. Mubarak "lost Israel as an enemy, he continued to need Jews as the enemy."

Mr. Sharansky says the recent uprisings prove his fundamental contentions "that there are limits to how much you can control people by fear," and that all people, regardless of religion or culture, desire freedom. "That's a very powerful universal message. It was very powerful when the Iron Curtain exploded, and it's as powerful today," he says.

He has a prescription for what should happen next. First, he says there's no justification for Mr. Mubarak staying in place. "What would that mean? . . . He could continue for another few months or for another year, until [Egypt] explodes with more hatred toward America and Israel and the free world."

Second, U.S. policy should shift from its focus on illusory "stability" toward "linkage"—an approach that successfully pressured the Soviet Union. That means linking U.S. aid to Egypt's progress in developing the institutions of a free society.

If he were a U.S. senator, Mr. Sharansky says, he would immediately introduce a law to continue support to Egypt on condition that "20% of all this money goes to strengthening and developing democratic institutions. And the money cannot be controlled by the Egyptian government." Ideally his measure would kick in as soon as possible, so that it can affect the incentives of any Egyptian transitional government established to rule until September, when a presidential election is scheduled.

The model for such linkage is the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which forced the Soviet Union to allow Jewish emigration or lose the economically-valuable "Most Favored Nation" trade designation. But Jackson-Vanik has been controversial ever since its enactment 35 years ago, and Washington has shown little willingness to deploy linkage since.

But Mr. Sharansky holds out hope, partly because on Egypt "the statements from the White House are improving with every day, especially in comparison with its catastrophic statements at the time of the Iranian revolution [in 2009]." By his reckoning, the Obama administration's position during the recent Iranian protests was "maybe one of the biggest betrayals of people's freedom in modern history. . . . At the moment when millions were deciding whether to go to the barricades, the leader of the free world said 'For us, the most important thing is engagement with the regime, so we don't want a change of regime.' Compared to this, there is very big progress [today]."

Inconsistency is par for the course in this field. "From time to time," Mr. Sharansky says of the George W. Bush administration, "America was giving lectures about democracy." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a strong address in Cairo in 2005. And in 2002, by threatening to withhold $130 million in aid to Egypt, the administration successfully pressured Mr. Mubarak to release the sociologist and democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim from prison. In their final years, however, administration officials reverted to bureaucratic form and relaxed their pressure drastically.

President Obama relaxed it even further, Mr. Sharansky notes, inserting only vague language about democracy into his June 2009 address in Cairo. "There was no mention at all that at that moment democratic dissidents were imprisoned, that Mubarak had put in prison the leading [opposition] candidate in the past election," Ayman Nour.

Even if the U.S. embraces linkage, Egypt's September election could be quite problematic. "Only when the basic institutions that protect a free society are firmly in place—such as a free press, the rule of law, independent courts, political parties—can free elections be held," Mr. Sharansky wrote in "The Case for Democracy." In Egypt, those "free, developed institutions," he tells me, "will not be developed by September."

What can develop over the next eight months, Mr. Sharansky says, is a U.S. policy making clear that "whoever is elected cannot continue to survive—he cannot continue to rely on the assistance of the free world in defense, economics, anything—if democratic reforms are not continued and if democratic institutions are not built." After several years of such democracy-building, he says, when dissidents like Mr. Ibrahim enjoy the ability to build institutions like trade unions and women's organizations, "then in a few years you'll have a different country, and you can have really free elections."

For this to happen, "there must be consistent policy in the free world," says Mr. Sharansky. That means "no compromise for the sake of stability with those who will come to power—and who, inevitably, if they have the opportunity to lead as dictators, will try to lead as dictators."

"There is a real chance now," he says. "And the fact that it happened with the country which has the [second-] biggest level of assistance from the United States makes this chance for success even bigger if the leaders of the free world—and first of all the United States of America—play it right."

What shouldn't happen is a repeat of the 2006 election in Gaza, when Hamas won office without demonstrating any commitment to democracy, and Palestinian society had no checks in place to prevent the outcome from being one man, one vote, one time. But the Gaza scenario seems unlikely in Egypt, says Mr. Sharansky.

"Hamas really used a unique opportunity. First of all, there was the policy of Yasser Arafat, who really turned the daily life of Palestinians into a mafia [environment] with racket money paid by all the population to the leaders. That's why you saw when there were elections, many Christian villages like Taiba were voting for Hamas. Why is a Christian village voting for Islamic fundamentalists? Because they were like the Magnificent Seven, saving the village from the mafia. . . . Second, geographically, it was like there was a special closed area, Gaza, which was brought [to Hamas] on a plate by us."

So can the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt replicate Hamas's electoral coup in Gaza? "Only in one case: if the systematic practice of keeping people under dictatorship—so the dictatorship becomes more and more cruel against any dissident thinking— continues and strengthens. Then it'll unite people more and more around the only force which can resist this and get military and organizational and financial support: the Muslim Brothers. . . .

"That's why I'm saying we must be happy that [Egypt's uprising] happened now and not a few years later because then the Muslim Brothers would be even more strong. . . . This revolt happened when the Muslim brothers are not as strong as Hamas was."

With Cairo's streets still aflame, the immediate question is how far Mr. Mubarak will go to maintain his rule—how many police trucks will run down street protesters, how many plainclothes thugs will hunt down Western journalists in their hotel rooms. Beyond that, the question is whether over time Egypt will come to pass the town square test. "There is a good chance," says Mr. Sharansky, "but a lot depends. Some Egyptians are now working for this. The thing is whether the free world will become a partner in this work."

Mr. Feith is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The US Betrays Israel and the World


The Muslim Brotherhood is on the verge of taking over Egypt and is actively beginning an attempt to take over Jordan and Yemen. The Muslim Brotherhood are extreme Islamists and are allies of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the regime in Iran. They are dedicated to the obliteration of Israel, and the establishment of Shariah law all over the earth. The grand Ayatollah of Iran has announced that this will do irreparable harm to the US. They are willing to endure millions of Muslim casualties in World War III in order to destroy the nation of Israel and slaughter its inhabitants.

Our government and the news media are portraying this as a pro democracy movement. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The present government of Egypt, for all its flaws is more democratic than anything that will result from this revolution.

The worst part of all this is that President Barack Obama is a conscious part of this conspiracy to replace relatively pro-American governments who are at peace with Israel with radical extremists dedicated to destroying Israel. This would not be happening without the cooperation of Barack Obama. This is much more clearly understood in other parts of the world than it is here. The Egyptian military is dependent on aid from the US. We are completely in control of their military supplies. Our president threatens to cut them off if they resist The Brotherhood. The revolutionaries are counting on this. This is how Jimmy Carter gave Iran to the radicals. It sends a message to all of our allies.

I believe that God has spared the US from judgment because we have blessed Israel. Now we have become co-conspirators in the planned destruction of Israel.

This appears to be the personal policy of President Obama. Vice President Biden, supposedly chosen for his foreign policy experience, was clearly caught by surprise by what is happening. Secretary of State Clinton also seems to have been out of the loop.

This is an extreme foreign policy change with huge implications. We need to pray for a miracle that prevents the implication of this policy.

When the people of Iran voted out their Islamist leader, he refused to leave and kept control of the country. When the people protested President Obama stood with the fraudulent administration. Now he stands with the protesters in Egypt. In both cases he stands with the militant Islamists. We need to be in fervent prayer.

We conservatives had our problems with George Bush and John McCain. However, if either was President this wouldn't be happening. The media in other countries are reporting events much more accurately.

God help us as we head towards WW III.


Pastor Phil Stringer

Ravenswood Baptist Church

Chicago, IL USA



3a) Obama Well Knows What Chaos He Has Unleashed
By Victor Sharpe

Not content with creating havoc in the U.S. economy, setting Americans against each other, and forcing through a health reform act which has nothing to do with health but everything to do with the redistribution of wealth and an immense increase in governmental interference, our president has now opened a Pandora's Box in the Middle East. It may well usher in a catastrophe not seen since World War 2.


From his notorious Cairo speech to the present, President Obama speaks, and disaster follows. Some commentators believe that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are so utterly naïve as to make themselves unable to understand what will happen in Egypt as a result of their undermining of the Mubarak regime.


The question is justifiably asked: Do they truly believe that the next regime that comes to power will have the interests of the U.S. and the West at heart?


My fear is that Obama is not naïve at all, but he instead knows only too well what he is doing, for he is eagerly promoting Islamic power in the world while diminishing the West and Israel, however much innocent blood will flow as a result.


Inevitably, sooner or later, the Muslim Brotherhood will take power, usher in a barbaric Islamist power in Egypt that will control the Suez Canal, and show no mercy to its own people or its perceived foes.


So now we see what the present incumbent in the White House has wrought, and so can our few remaining allies. They must now wonder what confidence they can ever have in any future alliance with the United States.


We should be aware of what endemic Islamic violence has wrought in the past. For example, assassinations of Arab leaders are not an infrequent occurrence. After the 1948 Arab-Israel War, the King of Jordan, Abdullah, was murdered by followers of the Muslim fanatic, the Mufti of Jerusalem.


The Egyptian prime minister, Nokrashi Pasha, was also struck down. The forces behind the killings were elements of both Arab socialist movements and the Muslim Brotherhood. Today, in the streets of Cairo, we have an unholy alliance of the current radical left with the same Muslim Brotherhood.


The Suez Canal is a major lifeline for the economies of Europe and the United States. It has been the source of political disruption in the past, as it may well be in the near future. And the Muslim Brotherhood may soon control it. As always, the past is our guidepost to the future.


In 1952, Gamal Abdul Nasser seized control of the Egyptian state and forged an alliance with the Soviet Union, which provided enormous arms shipments to Egypt.


Feeling greatly empowered, Nasser broke both the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Israel and international law by blocking the Suez Canal to Israeli ships and other vessels bringing cargoes to and from the Jewish state. At the same time, Nasser blockaded the narrow Straits of Tiran at the foot of the Sinai peninsula, thus preventing Israeli maritime trade with the Far East and Africa.


Nasser eventually nationalized the Suez Canal on July 27, 1956. This illegal act threatened the oil supplies to Britain and France from the Middle East. The economic stranglehold on Israel became intolerable, and Arab terrorism against the Jewish state led to many Israeli civilian deaths. (Incidentally, Arab terrorism began long before the so-called Israeli "occupation," which Arab and pro-Arab propagandists now use as the excuse for present Arab aggression against Israel.)


In October 1956, war by Britain, France, and Israel against Egypt broke out. Israeli forces, in what became known as the One Hundred Hours War, defeated the Egyptians in Sinai and Gaza and broke the naval blockade. Britain and France invaded the Canal Zone to end Nasser's blockade of the Suez Canal.


Under U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Britain and France were eventually forced out of Egypt. This was, as future events showed, a dreadful blunder on the part of the Eisenhower administration. It was the beginning of Britain's decline as a world power. It also led to Nasser remaining in power.


The Egyptian dictator's political and pan-Arab ambitions again climaxed in 1967. Nasser again blockaded the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping and reinstituted the naval blockade at the mouth of the Tiran Straits.


This in turn led, in 1967, to the hasty withdrawal of the U.N. buffer force that had been in place to prevent further Egyptian aggression against Israel. U.N. Secretary General U. Thant folded under Arab pressure and arbitrarily withdrew the buffer force. Egyptian armed forces then entered the Sinai, heading for the Israeli border.


The Arab and Muslim world called then, just as now, for Israel's extermination, and huge mobs in Arab capitals uttered lurid threats for Israel's defeat and the slaughter of her people. The world prepared for Israel's destruction, but everyone was astonished when in June 1967, Israel -- forced to fight a defensive war of survival -- destroyed the combined Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian armies and air forces within six days.


The Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran were again open for the free passage of Israeli ships. Nasser fell from power and was replaced by Anwar Sadat. However, in 1973, the Syrian and Egyptian armies attacked Israel on the holiest day in the Jewish religious calendar, Yom Kippur, which gave its name to the war.


Israel was hard put to survive initially, but she gradually beat back the Arab threat. Sadat eventually decided that war was not an option for the time being and chose to make peace with Israel.


Israel vacated the entire Sinai desert (95% of the territories Israel conquered) and gave up the oil-producing facilities it had developed at Abu Rodeis -- all in return for a signed peace agreement with Egypt. Jordan eventually followed Egypt's decision, but both Arab nations maintained a frigid peace with the Jewish state.


Anwar Sadat was subsequently assassinated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. His successor was Hosni Mubarak, who, for the last thirty years, has kept control over the seething Egyptian masses and the volatile Arab street.


Now his thirty-year rule has been fatally undermined by U.S. President, Barack Hussein Obama, in a betrayal that is as astonishing as it is deplorable.


It is clear to any child that a new Egyptian regime will, if not immediately, be hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now calling for Egypt to prepare itself again for war with Israel and for the blockading of the Suez Canal to American, Western, and Israeli shipping. Obama is no fool; he engineered this.


So, thanks to President Obama, we are back to square one with an Islamic Egyptian regime poised to send Egypt's massively armed army back into Sinai and towards the Israeli border with the aim of exterminating the Jewish state. So much for "land for peace."


But what economic turmoil would a new Egyptian Islamic closure of the Canal mean to the West?


It is estimated that slightly more than two million barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum products flow both north and south through the Suez Canal every day.


In 2009, for example, almost 35,000 ships transited the Suez Canal, and 10 percent were petroleum tankers. Oil shipments from the Persian Gulf travel through the Canal primarily to European ports, but also to the United States.


Additionally, the Sumed Oil pipeline provides an alternative to the Suez Canal, transporting as much as 3 million barrels of crude oil from Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states. It amounts to up to seven percent of Europe's oil needs. Since the violence erupted in Egypt, European oil prices have risen far more than they have in the United States.


If the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928, takes over Egypt, it is more than likely that both the Canal and the pipeline would be shut again, causing oil tankers to travel around the Cape of Good Hope, adding six thousand miles to the journey to Europe alone. Not what an economically strapped Europe wants.


At the same time, the Brotherhood, now governing over 80 million Egyptians and possessing a huge military, would join with a radicalized Yemen in blockading the Bab al Mandeb straits at the foot of the Red Sea.


Add to the noxious mix the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we may well see the closure of the Gulf of Oman, with additional disruptions of oil shipments to the West. The economic reality for America will be catastrophic.


Under Obama's watch, the true democratic revolution against the mullahs in Iran was snuffed out because the American president refused to support the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran. In contrast, the same Obama ordered Hosni Mubarak to leave office and let the rioters in Cairo have "free" elections.


Following Condoleezza Rice's naïve call for "free" and democratic elections in Gaza, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) used the democratic process to come to power and immediately trashed all semblance of democracy by instituting oppressive sharia law and raining thousands of missiles upon Israeli towns and villages.


The grotesque policies of Obama have caused Lebanon to fall under Islamic occupation, with the Iranian puppet, Hezb'allah, now controlling the Lebanese government. Jordan's kinglet, Abdullah, sits on a powder keg whereby his throne is under increasing pressure from violent members of the same Muslim Brotherhood.


So there you have it. Islam increasingly holds Europe, America, and what is left of the free world in its clutches...and the left cheers it on.


Let me close with the words of Michael D. Evans, New York Times bestselling author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos:


It's no coincidence that Al Baradei showed up in Cairo only two days after the uprising began and was immediately named a negotiator by the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, he had been waiting in the wings for quite a while.


He's on the board of an organization headed by George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski called International Crisis Group. Brzezinski is the same man who supervised the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979.


Another board member of the ICC is one Javier Solana. Solana is one of the most powerful figures in the European Union. Because of Solana's Marxist sympathies, and his support for the regime of Cuba's Fidel Castro, Solana was on the USA's subversive list.


Former U.S. National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, who once smuggled incriminating documents out of the Clinton White House [editor's note: the documents were smuggled out of the National Archives] by hiding them in his clothing, is another Board Member, as is General Wesley Clark, once fired from his NATO command.


Mohamed El Baradei also sits on the ICC's Board and thus, seeing the hand of George Soros along with the other players who for so long have plotted against the West and Israel, the Islamists are joined together."
Update: Clarice Feldman writes:

The ICG site has now updated his membership as a board member.


Mohamed El Baradei


Mr. ElBaradei suspended his membership from the Board of Crisis Group concurrent with his January 2011 return to Egypt.


Director-General Emeritus, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Nobel Peace Prize (2005)

What, one wonders, will history say of the foreign policies of Barack Hussein Obama?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------