Obama: A Heel not A Healer but At Least Consistent!

Obama demonstrates once again he is a divider, not a healer. In fact he is a heel! (See 1 and 1a below.)
---
Reports now suggest Obama's hoggish efforts, in combination with White House leaks to get mileage out of the bin Laden assassination, has endangered the families of many of our Seal families.

Yet, we still have an incoherent foreign policy and Obama's Middle East policies have fizzled and since there is nothing for Mitchell to do he is resigning.(See 2 and 2a below.)
---
The Muslim Brotherhood have crafted a crafty person to run for Egypt's presidency.

Snookering Obama and our left wing press is all in a Muslim day's work.

Meanwhile, Obama appears ready to make another pitch to Muslims and in the process undercut Israel. At least our president is consistent. (See 3, 3a, 3b and 3c below.)
---
Stratfor discusses implications of the expanding dialogue between China and the USA.(See 4 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Yes Mr. President, I Do Want Alligators in My Moat
By Lauri B. Regan

In yet another one of Obama's highly touted campaign speeches (are there any other type?), the President once again chose to use derisive rhetoric to whip up the masses against those horrible Republicans. Obama attempted to put the GOP on the defensive by suggesting that Republicans not only want the country surrounded by a moat to prevent evil immigrants from entering, but that in order to ensure success, they would fill the moat with alligators.


Apparently, the only result that Obama achieved from these ridiculous and extremely un-presidential one-liners was an electorate feeling complete and utter disgust at his obnoxious display of arrogance with regard to such an important domestic issue. The country is in economic turmoil and is being threatened by terrorists who originate in the Middle East and Northern Africa but who are crossing our borders undetected, and our president wants to lead from behind so that he can campaign (and bash Republicans) from in front.


Well Mr. President, I am proud to say that I do want alligators in a moat that protects our country. And I hope to God that you have one or more decision-makers in your administration that understand that it will take a lot more than killing Osama bin Laden and occasional drone strikes in Afghanistan to protect the citizens who hired you for that job. For while you traverse the country spiking the football and fundraising for the 2012 election, there are way too many terrorists who want to see each and every U.S. citizen dead and who are not taking time out of their planning stages to play golf; party with hateful, racist rappers; and hobnob with the rich and famous at $35,000 a plate dinners.


In addition to the more than $500,000 that Obama spends on speechwriters, he also pays up to $100,000 to an outside public relations firm that he apparently uses for teleprompter lessons, "speech preparation training," "speech writing services," and "speech coaching services." Obama likely feels as if each of the meaningless metaphors that his speechwriters develop is worth the price we pay, but I am getting sick and tired of his kitschy, fighting rhetoric designed to pit citizen against citizen. And it sickens me that the American taxpayer is paying for the garbage that comes out of this President's mouth -- the man who urges civility is the most hypocritical, uncivil President in the history of the country. And it stems from his flawed character and single-minded desire to remain in power.


And in that regard, Obama has something in common with the people from whom this country needs protection. So before joking about border security, perhaps Mr. Obama should visit the U.S. towns in the southwest that are on the front lines of dealing with the issue of illegal immigration and Mexican drug cartels. For Barack Obama cares more about picking up the votes of the millions of illegal immigrants and the American Hispanic community than he does about helping U.S. citizens in need of protection from dangerous criminals.


Of particular concern to our country's national security, however, is the growing presence of Hezb'allah just south of our Mexican border. Does the President need a refresher course in the terrorist tactics of Hezb'allah, "recognized by many experts as the 'A' team of Muslim terrorist organizations," according to a U.S. intelligence expert? According to this agent, "[w]e are looking at 15 or 20 years that Hezb'allah has been setting up shop in Mexico...I consider Hezb'allah much more dangerous in that sense because of strategic thinking; they think more long-term." Hezb'allah's long-term plans include their continued partnership with the drug cartels involving the exchange of Hezb'allah expertise for cash and protection. So while Hezb'allah trains Mexican drug lords in the arts of firearms and explosives and sophisticated tunnel development, President Obama believes that extensive plans to secure the southern border are just an irresistible opportunity to slap the GOP that takes the issue quite seriously.


If building a moat and filling it with alligators is what it takes to protect the American people, my children, family, neighbors, and friends, then I expect our elected leaders to do just that. What I do not expect the President of the United States to do is laugh it up at his adversaries' expense in order to gain political momentum in the face of falling poll numbers. American values, freedoms, and lives are on the line daily and I am sick of this administration calling me racist, Islamaphobic, conservative, evil, or whatever label the next hired gun comes up with to describe U.S. citizens who recognize that the country is at war and secure borders are no laughing matter. I want a President who will not demean me, his fellow citizens, the other elected officials chosen to lead at the State and Federal level, and those who disagree with him. That is beneath the office of the President and it shows contempt for the very people who elected him.


So as Obama announces yet another outreach to the world's Muslims, I await my disgust at listening to him offer carrots to a people who feel nothing but disdain for America and its President. And I have no expectation that he will call a spade a spade and denounce Islamic jihadists. I fully expect to hear Obama throw out yet another euphemism to describe the state of the Mideast's turmoil rather than use the absurd phrases "overseas contingency operation" and "man-caused disaster" to describe the war and the terrorist acts committed by members of the population to whom he will be speaking (the majority of whom either support such acts or remain silent in their face).


And since Obama has a pattern of denouncing American's ally, Israel, I cannot help but wonder what part of the Muslim speech will resemble the alligators in the moat phrase -- for Israel too needs secure borders and sadly, a moat filled with alligators will not suffice when she is surrounded by enemies with sophisticated weaponry that can reach all of her major cities. But I am sure Obama will have some sort of castigating remark about Israeli settlements causing the lack of peace in the Mideast and questioning Israelis' expectation of secure borders at the expense of the Palestinian people who terrorize her innocent civilians.


And so, as we watch video clips of 6 year old girls getting felt up and 7 month old babies getting felt down by TSA agents who are being trained to turn off their brains and stop using common sense, we are being led from behind by a man who makes jokes about our national security. Will it take terrorist attacks in southern U.S. towns before this administration stops campaigning, stops making jokes, and takes their job seriously? From a President who labels the rapper Common as a "socially conscious" poet; who befriended terrorist Bill Ayers and anti-Semites Rashid Khalidi and Reverend Wright; and whose administration labels the Muslim Brotherhood and Syrian dictator Bashir al Assad as moderate, we can only hope that in 2012, the American people build a moat around the White House, fill it with hungry Republicans, and hang signs that say Obamas Keep Out.


1a)Demagoguery 101
By Charles Krauthammer

“I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues.”

— Barack Obama, speech on immigration, El Paso, May 10


Constructive and civil debate — like the one Obama initiated just four weeks ago on deficit reduction? The speech in which he accused the Republicans of abandoning families of autistic and Down syndrome kids? The debate in which Obama’s secretary of health and human services said that the Republican Medicare plan would make old folks “die sooner”?

In this same spirit of comity and mutual respect, Obama’s most recent invitation to civil discourse — on immigration — came just 11 minutes after he accused opponents of moving the goal posts on border enforcement. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said sarcastically. “Maybe they want alligators in the moat.”

Nice touch. Looks like the Tucson truce — no demonization, no cross-hairs metaphors —is officially over. After all, the Republicans want to kill off the elderly, throw the disabled in the snow and watch alligators lunch on illegal immigrants.

The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith. “They’ll never be satisfied,” said Obama about border control. “And I understand that. That’s politics.”

How understanding. The other side plays “politics,” Obama acts in the public interest. Their eyes are on poll numbers, political power, the next election; Obama’s rest fixedly on the little children.

This impugning of motives is an Obama constant. “They” play politics with deficit reduction, with government shutdowns, with health care. And now immigration. It is ironic that such a charge should be made in a speech that is nothing but politics. There is zero chance of any immigration legislation passing Congress in the next two years. El Paso was simply an attempt to gin up the Hispanic vote as part of an openly political two-city, three-event campaign swing in preparation for 2012.

Accordingly, the El Paso speech featured two other staples: the breathtaking invention and the statistical sleight of hand.

“The [border] fence is now basically complete,” asserted the president. Complete? There are now 350 miles of pedestrian fencing along the Mexican border. The border is 1,954 miles long. That’s 18 percent. And only one-tenth of that 18 percent is the double and triple fencing that has proved so remarkably effective in, for example, the Yuma sector. Another 299 miles — 15 percent — are vehicle barriers that pedestrians can walk right through.

Obama then boasted that on his watch 31 percent more drugs have been seized, 64 percent more weapons — proof of how he has secured the border. And for more proof: Apprehension of illegal immigrants is down 40 percent. Down? Indeed, says Obama, this means that fewer people are trying to cross the border.

Interesting logic. Seizures of drugs and guns go up — proof of effective border control. Seizures of people go down — yet more proof of effective border control. Up or down, it matters not. Whatever the numbers, Obama vindicates himself.

You can believe this flimflam or you can believe the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The GAO reported in February that less than half the border is under “operational control” of the government. Which undermines the entire premise of Obama’s charge that, because the border is effectively secure, “Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement” didn’t really mean it.

I count myself among those who really do mean it. I have little doubt that most Americans would be quite willing to regularize and legalize the current millions of illegal immigrants if they were convinced that this was the last such cohort, as evidenced by, say, a GAO finding that the border is under full operational control and certification to the same effect by the governors of the four southern border states.

Americans are a generous people. Upon receipt of objective and reliable evidence that the border is secure — not Obama’s infinitely manipulable interdiction statistics — the question would be settled and the immigrants legalized.

Why doesn’t Obama put such a provision in comprehensive immigration legislation? Because for Obama, immigration reform is not about legislation, it’s about reelection. If I may quote the president: I understand that. That’s politics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Restoring America's Standing
By Steve McCann

"I think that we've restored America's standing in the world."
- Barack Obama, November 18, 2009

Was this the simply the usual prevarication of a President with a massive ego, or something he truly believed? In any event, the panorama of the world today is far different as America is increasingly finding itself isolated, vilified, and ignored as never before in its recent history.


The heady days of "hope and change" have given way to cynicism and mockery within the international community. There is little hesitation among world leaders and even the left-leaning global media to be openly contemptuous of the President who campaigned on fortifying American image abroad by the sheer force of his personality and self-proclaimed ability to connect with the people of the world.


Obama's campaign slogan was mesmerizingly simple and brimming with self-belief: "Yes we can." His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about "no we won't." Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: "Maybe we can...do what, exactly?" The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US be doing about the Middle East in general? What about the country's crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iraq?


Many German writers claim Obama has lost support of European leaders because he doesn't pay much attention to them. The reality is the American president doesn't have a single strong ally among the European heads of state.


The chief question numerous foreign pundits are asking: President Obama, you have lost the trust of the Arab world, destroyed confidence in American financial leadership due to your economic policies, and are forcing many Europeans and other allies to question the wisdom of relying on the U.S. -- what next?


Ryan Lizza, in the New Yorker Magazine, attempting to describe the Obama foreign policy:


The one constant thread running through most of Obama's decisions has been that America must act humbly in the world.


One of his [Obama] advisors described the President's action in Libya as "leading from behind."


It is a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty.


President Obama is pursuing foreign policy as he once said: "to break free of the old ideologies and categories." Thus the United States is being pushed and swayed by events, instead of charting a course of stability and strength. Good policy is based on good principles which guide one's actions. In the case of Barack Obama, as the result of his upbringing in Marxist/socialist ideology, his anti-Western sentiment stemming from his father's anti-colonialism, and a virulent animosity toward capitalism, his guiding principle appears to be: America will not be able to compete with others, notably China, in the future, and its best course is to slink into the background in the hope that others will treat us kindly as we atone for our egregious sins of the past.


President Obama and his fellow leftists over the years fail to understand, while wallowing in a "blame America first" mindset, that global stability over the past 65 years has been due to the very policies and principles they are dead set on overturning. These are:


The defense and best interest of the United States are paramount.


Since the dawn of man there have always been powerful civilizations which held dominion over the then known world. In all cases these nations were determined to conquer and subjugate. The United States, alone in achieving super-power status, has because of its founding and adherence to the precept of life and liberty, chosen to not conquer by arms but by the spread of this philosophy as means of promoting peace and prosperity. Thus the defense and interest of America has been best served by the spread of individual liberty throughout the world.


This requires an understanding that peace comes from strength, both military and economic. Those nations who negotiate from a position of power are more likely to achieve their goals. Paying lip-service to peace while demeaning and denigrating one's country only serves to sow confusion, embolden despotic regimes, and put the United States at risk.


Democracy is meaningless unless based on freedom and prosperity.


The left in America dotes on the terms democracy and self-determination. However, people do not aspire to self-determination as an end in itself; they aspire to freedom and prosperity that democracy can potentially bring about. Today United States policy is to overtly or surreptitiously back any group that claims to be part of a "democracy movement" regardless of their stated goals or background. A case in point: tacit collaboration with the Muslin Brotherhood in Egypt (a known sponsor of terrorism) while ignoring those in Iran trying to overturn a hostile government bent on achieving hegemony throughout the Middle East.


Thus the present regime in Washington D.C. is helping to overthrow governments in nations once allied with the United States because of a sophomoric and naive adherence to the words and not who are behind: "democracy movements and self-determination. "


Capitalism and the free market are the only route to freedom and prosperity.


What President Obama and his fellow-travelers fail to understand in their headlong rush towards a socialist utopia is that only the capitalist economic system, which is anathema to a powerful central government, can produce sufficient wealth to underwrite a social safety net for the general public, promote upward mobility, and finance the security of any nation.


History has repeatedly shown that state control of the means of production is a monumental failure and inevitably results in accelerating the downfall of a nation. By their spending, taxing, and printing of money, the current Ruling Class in Washington has placed America squarely on this same course as the nation will no longer be able to finance its security needs.


By his determination to "break free of old ideologies" President Obama has projected an image of weakness which begets chaos, and chaos is what the international scene has become, whether in the Middle East, Asia, Russia, or Latin America.


The Middle East has become the Balkans of the 21st Century as Egypt is about to be dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood; it is only a matter of time before radical jihadists control Yemen; Syria and Lebanon will soon become client states of Iran, and Libya, thanks to the indecision of the United States, has degenerated into a stalemate as the rebels become increasingly dominated by Islamic radicals. Iran, given a green light by President Obama when he did not back the anti-government movement over the past two years, will soon be the dominant power in the region.


Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others once allied with the United States are looking to open ties with Russia and China as they can no longer depend on America's assurances. Israel, now surrounded by nations bent on its destruction and buffeted by outrageous demands from Washington D.C., is more isolated than ever. Will this region be the flashpoint in a repetition of 1914 when events spiraled out of control triggering a world war that set the 20th Century on the path of being the most deadly and devastating hundred years in the history of mankind?


Beyond the Middle East, China is more emboldened than ever, openly mocking the United States and its leadership. China has begun acting as if it were already the preeminent power in Asia, which is not surprising, as the US president begs the Chinese to continue buying American debt created by the incomprehensible fiscal policies of his administration.


Russia has succeeded in intimidating Obama into abandoning a crucial missile defense system while turning a blind eye to Russia's browbeating of its European neighbors. In Latin America, Chavez and his cohorts have been given a tacit green light to continue their socialist rampage throughout the continent with no fear of any consequences from their neighbor to the north.


The killing of Osama bin Laden, while good for a week's worth of fawning press coverage by the American media, does not mitigate the fact that United States foreign policy is adrift on a sea of uncertainty as there is a narcissistic and dishonest occupant of the White House who is firm in his belief that American exceptionalism is a myth. The American people will suffer the ultimate consequences as their standard of living and national security will be sacrificed on the altar of the Obama "cult of personality" and his collectivist ideology.



2a) US Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell plans to resign

The Obama administration’s special Mideast envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell, is resigning after more than two largely fruitless years of trying to press Israel and the Palestinians into peace talks, U.S. officials said Friday.

The White House is expected to announce that the veteran mediator and broker of the Northern Ireland peace accord is stepping down for personal reasons, the officials told The Associated Press. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of an afternoon announcement that will follow a White House meeting between Mitchell and President Barack Obama.

There are no imminent plans to announce a replacement for Mitchell, the officials said, although his staff is expected to remain in place at least temporarily.

Mitchell’s resignation comes at a critical time for the Middle East, which is embroiled in turmoil, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which has been moribund since last September and is now further complicated by an agreement between Palestinian factions to share power.

Obama will deliver a speech next Thursday at the State Department about his administration’s views of developments in the region, ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Jordan’s King Abdullah II also will travel to Washington next week.

In a telephone interview Friday with the MaineToday Media group in Mitchell’s home state, Obama said: “George is by any measure one of the finest public servants our nation has ever had.” He didn’t address the resignation directly, but added that Mitchell is also “a good friend.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the administration remains focused on the Middle East peace process.

“The president’s commitment remains as firm as it was when he took office,” Carney said. “This is a hard issue, an extraordinary hard issue.”

Since his appointment on Obama’s second full day in office in January 2009, Mitchell, 77, had spent much of his time shuttling between the Israelis, Palestinians and friendly Arab states in a bid to restart long-stalled peace talks that would create an independent Palestinian state. But in recent months, particularly after the upheaval in Arab countries that ousted longtime U.S. ally and key peace partner Hosni Mubarak from power in Egypt, his activity had slowed markedly.

Nimer Hamad, a senior adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, told the AP that Mitchell’s job had been made more difficult by Israeli intransigence.

“Mitchell hasn’t been in the region in three months,” Hamad said. “Whether he resigns or not, it’s clear that Mitchell wasn’t in the region because he didn’t see the possibility of being a mediator between two sides where one of them is not responsive.”

Israeli officials declined to comment until the official announcement is made.

Mitchell has led a long career as politician, businessman, congressional investigator and international mediator.

Upon being announced as the administration’s point man for Mideast negotiations, he recalled his role in producing Northern Ireland’s Good Friday peace accord in 1998.

“We had 700 days of failure and one day of success,” he said. “For most of the time, progress was nonexistent or very slow.”

Mitchell believed his patience would serve him well in the Arab-Israeli conflict and its constant forward and backward steps. Speaking of the Northern Ireland conflict, he added: “I formed the conviction that there is no such thing as a conflict that can’t be ended. Conflicts are created, conducted and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings.”

Mitchell served in the Senate as a Democrat from Maine from 1980 to 1995, the final six years as majority leader. In 2000-01, he headed a fact-finding committee on Mideast violence that called for commitments by Israel and the Palestinian Authority to immediately and unconditionally end their fighting. The panel urged a cooling-off period and other steps toward peace, but it did not lead to lasting results.

The April 2001 Mitchell report asked Israel to freeze settlements in the West Bank and called on the Palestinians to prevent gunmen in Palestinian-populated areas from firing on Israeli towns and cities. The settlements, as well as Israeli concern over rocket and other attacks on its soil, remain sticking points today.

Mitchell also led the 2007 investigation into the use of performance-enhancing drugs in major league baseball. Before that, he was chairman of The Walt Disney Co. from 2004-2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
3)Muslim contender for Egyptian presidency designed for US approval

Muslim Brotherhood's Abdel Moneim Fotouh runs for Egyptian presidentNotwithstanding the official Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's promise not to seek the presidency or any other positions of power, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, 60, member of the MB's Shura Council and head of the Egyptian Doctors' Union, has announced he would run for president in Egypt's coming election.

He claimed he would be running as an "independent," but no one doubts whom he represents.

Recently discovered by the American media, the contender is depicted as a progressive and moderate Muslim figure whose views on equal rights for women and non-Muslims should lay to rest Western fears of the Muslim Brotherhood as a radical movement.

Sources report that Fotouh's decision to stand for election has persuaded Egypt's military rulers to back off from running one of their own or a secular contender against him. The Chairman of the Supreme Military Council Field Marshall Muhammad Tantawi and his fellow (25) members are inclined to wind up their transitional tenure by organizing orderly elections to parliament and the presidency in the coming months, handing over the reins of government, quitting politics and returning to their military duties.

This is bad news for Israel, which has maintained amicable ties with Egypt's military and intelligence authorities for many years in contrast to the hostility it has encountered in Cairo's political and religious circles.

The Muslim Brotherhood was encouraged in its power bid by the March 19 referendum on constitutional changes held after Hosni Mubarak's fall. More than 14 million Egyptians, 77 percent of its participants, favored the Brotherhood's demand for changes against only 4 million (23 percent) who did not. The ayes proved to represent a large proportion of members of the MB and allied Islamic parties. Its leaders were convinced that that a moderate candidate for president would draw even more substantial support.

The liberal and democratic parties which led the Tahrir Square movement against Mubarak were shocked when tests run by the public opinion experts they hired confirmed this finding. They were forced to accept that full democracy in Egypt would raise the Muslims to the center of power with a majority in parliament and a better-than-good chance of winning the presidency and virtually eclipsing them as a force in Egyptian politics.

On Feb. 9, two days before Hosni Mubarak stepped down, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh wrote in an article run by the Washington Post:

"Contrary to fear-mongering reports, the West and the Muslim Brotherhood are not enemies. For Muslims, ideological differences with others are taught not to be the root cause of violence and bloodshed because a human being's freedom to decide how to lead his or her personal life is an inviolable right found in basic Islamic tenets, as well as Western tradition. Our track record of responsibility and moderation is a hallmark of our political credentials and we will build on it."
Our Middle East sources detect in those words echoes of the sentiments heard in the speech US President Barack Obama delivered at Cairo University in June 2009 about the common basis for a new relationship between America and the Muslim world.
Then, on Feb. 22, 2011, two days after the Mubarak regime was overthrown, the Muslim Brotherhood announced: "It's not our aim to take power, it is just to participate."
debkafile reports that the MB issued this assurance to allay Western fears of a Muslim grab for power in Cairo. But on the quiet, in the second week of April, the Brotherhood leaders picked Fotouh as their candidate for future president of Egypt.
He is depicted as devoting himself in recent years to promoting liberal ideas within the Muslim movement, having published books and articles urging its members to accept the opening of the presidency to women and Coptic Christians.

Towards the end of 2009, Fotouh and other moderates were suspended from the Muslim Brotherhood's leadership bodies. However, since his run for president was announced, it turns out that he enjoys high standing in its ranks. His reputation was certainly enhanced by the book he published in March 2010: A Witness to the History of Egypt's Islamic Movement, in which he made a prediction which looked wholly unrealistic at the time that in the coming moment in the movement's history, thousands of Egyptian students would join a relatively moderate Muslim Brotherhood.
Today, he is credited with extraordinary foresight.




3a) Am I the Only One Troubled By Cairo Street Scenes?
By Phyllis Chesler

http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/933/cairo-street-scenes

For days now, the mainstream and leftstream media have been telling us that the Muslim Brotherhood is not dangerous, not radically Islamist—but that even if they are Islamist that they are popular amongst the people. Western leftists view the Brothers as engaged in a Hamas-like form of soup kitchen social work/theocratic totalitarianism, but who nevertheless have earned the right to be democratically voted into power by the people.

Short-sightedly, they claim that if we are serious about standing for democracy and the vote, that we have no choice but to support what may turn out to be an even worse tyranny than that of Mubarak's.

Such journalists also claim that the Egyptian people in the streets are not "political," that they are impoverished, broken, barefoot warriors who have heroically risen up for jobs, food, and an end to corruption and tyranny. Indeed, the people may not be "political"—but their heroism may end up benefiting those who, unlike themselves, are already organized militarily, economically, and ideologically—like the Muslim Brotherhood.

On the other hand, unorganized though they may be, the people may still have views and beliefs. Caroline Glick, reminds us that according to a June, 2010 Pew opinion survey of Egyptians:

Fifty nine percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics….Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion…When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN's Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

Is this Pew Center survey really true? What other indicators might we rely upon?

In the last week, we have seen massive coverage of the street uprising in Cairo on every major television channel and in print and Internet media of all political persuasions. No one has commented upon what the photos are showing us. Some say that a picture speaks a thousand words—and so it does. Follow along with me.

First, view these photos of Cairo University graduates in 1959, 1978, 1995, and 2004. Clearly, there is a progression—a regression really, in terms of women's rights. Former feminist gains have, increasingly, been washed away.

As you can see, the female graduates in 1959 and 1978 had bare arms, wore short sleeved blouses, dresses, or pants, and were both bare-faced and bare-headed. By 1995, we see a smattering of headscarves—and by 2004 we see a plurality of female university graduates in serious hijab: Tight, and draping the shoulders.



3b)Obama's newest ambush
By Caroline B. Glick



It is hard to believe, but it appears that in the wake of the Palestinian unity deal that brings the genocidal, al Qaida-aligned, local franchise of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Hamas into a partnership with Fatah, US President Barack Obama has decided to open a new round of pressure on Israel to give away its land and national rights to the Palestinians. It is hard to believe that this is the case. But apparently it is.

On Wednesday The Wall Street Journal reported that while Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is in Washington next week, and before the premier has a chance to give his scheduled address to a joint session of Congress, Obama will give a new speech to the Arab world. In that speech, Obama will praise the populist movements that have risen up against Arab tyrannies and embrace them as the model for the future. As for Israel, the report claimed that the Obama administration is still trying to decide whether the time is right to put the screws on Israel once more.

On the one hand, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told the Journal that Arab leaders are clamoring for a new US initiative to force Israel to make new concessions. Joining this supposed clamor are the administration-allied pro-Palestinian lobby J-Street, and the administration-allied New York Times.

On the other hand, the Netanyahu government and the US Congress are calling for a US aid cut-off to the Palestinian Authority. With Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization now partnering with Fatah in governing the PA, it is illegal for the US government to continue to have anything to do with the PA. Both the Netanyahu government and senior members of the House and Senate are arguing forcefully that there is no way for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians now and that the US must abandon its efforts to force the sides to sign an agreement.


The Israeli and Congressional arguments are certainly compelling. But the signals emanating from the White House and its allied media indicate that Obama is ready to plough forward in spite of them. With the new international security credibility he earned by overseeing the successful assassination of Osama Bin Laden, Obama apparently believes that he can withstand Congressional pressure and make the case for demanding that Israel surrender Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to Hamas and its partners in Fatah.

The signals that Obama is setting his sights on coercing Israel into agreeing to surrender its capital and heartland to Hamas and its partners in Fatah came in three forms this week. First, administration officials are trying to lower the bar that Hamas needs to pass in order to be considered a legitimate political force.

After Fatah and Hamas signed their first unity deal in March 2007, the US and its colleagues in the so-called Middle East Quartet - Russia, the EU and the UN - set three conditions that Hamas needed to meet in order to be accepted by them as legitimate. It needed to recognize Israel's right to exist, agree to respect existing agreements with Israel and renounce terrorism.

These are not difficult conditions. Fatah is perceived as having met them even though it is still a terrorist organization and its leaders refuse to accept Israel's right to exist and refuse to abide by any of the major commitments they took upon themselves in precious agreements with Israel. Hamas could easily follow Fatah's lead.

But Hamas refuses. So speaking to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius two weeks ago, administration officials lowered the bar. They said Hamas had made major concessions to Fatah in the agreement because it agreed to accept provisions of the 2009 unity deal drafted by the Mubarak government that it rejected two year ago and because Hamas agreed that the unity government will be manned by "technocrats" rather than terrorists.

Even if these contentions are true, they are completely ridiculous. In point of fact, all the 2009 agreement says is that Hamas will refrain from demanding to join the US-trained and funded Fatah army in Judea and Samaria. As for the "technocratic" government, who does the Obama administration think will control these "technocrats"?

And as to the truth of these contentions, in an interview last week with the New York Times, Hamas terror-master Khaled Mashal denied that he had agreed to the terms of the 2009 agreement. Indeed, he said that Fatah agreed to add annexes to the agreement reflecting Hamas's positions.

The second pitch the administration and its friends have adopted ahead of Obama's address next week is that Hamas has become more moderate or may become more moderate. Robert Malley, who in the past advised Obama's presidential campaign made this argument last week in an op-ed in the Washington Post. Malley claimed that by joining the government, Hamas will be more moved by US pressure. A New York Times editorial last Saturday argued that Hamas may have moderated, and even if it hasn't, "Washington needs to press Mr. Netanyahu back to the peace table."

Adding their voices to the din, Middle Eastern leaders like Amr Mussa, the frontrunner to serve as Egypt's next president and Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan have given interviews to the US media this week in which they denied that Hamas is even a terrorist organization.

Here it is important to note that none of the administration's statements about the Hamas-Fatah deal and none of the media coverage related to it have included any mention of the fact that has deliberately murders entire families and targets children specifically. No one mentions last month's Hamas guided rocket attack which deliberately targeted an Israeli school bus. Hamas murdered 16-year-old Daniel Viflic in that attack. No one has mentioned the caf� massacres, the bus bombings, the university campus massacres, the breaking into homes massacres, the Passover seder massacres Hamas has carried out and bragged about in recent years. No one has mentioned that when seen as a portion of the population, Hamas has killed far more Israelis than al Qaida has killed Americans.

The final pitch the administration and its surrogates are making is that the deal needs to be seen as part of the overall regional shift towards popular rule. This pitch too is difficult to make. After all, the first casualty of the Arab world's shift towards popular rule is the 30-year old Camp David peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Now that Egypt's citizens have gotten rid of US-ally Hosni Mubarak, they have committed themselves to getting rid of the peace he upheld with Israel throughout his long reign.

Again, despite the difficulties, the Obama administration is clearly willing to make the case. Regarding Egypt, they argue that the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power is a good. This was the point of Obama's Passover and Israel Independence Day messages.

As for the regional shift, the fact that Obama reportedly intends to place the so-called Palestinian-Israeli peace process into the regional context signals that he sees potential for an agreement between Israel and Syria as well. His advisors telegraphed this view to Ignatius. Obama's advisors made the unlikely argument that if Syrian leader Bashar Assad survives the popular demonstrations calling for his overthrow, he will feel compelled to distance his regime from Iran because his Sunni-majority population has been critical of his alliance with the Shiite mullocracy.

This argument is unlikely given that the same officials recognize that if Assad survives, his will owe his regime's survival to Iran. As they reminded Ignatius, US intelligence officials reported last month that Iran has "secretly supplied Assad with tear gas, anti-riot gear and other tools of suppression."

What is perhaps most remarkable about Obama's apparent plan to use the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as an excuse for a new round of diplomatic warfare against Israel is how poorly coordinated his steps have been with the PLO-Fatah. Abbas and his predecessor Yassir Arafat always viewed the US obsession with getting the Arabs and Israel to sign peace treaties as a strategic asset. Anytime they wanted to weaken Israel, they just needed to sound the fake peace drum loudly enough to get the White House's attention. US presidents looking for the opportunity to "make history" were always ready to take their bait.

Unlike his predecessors, Obama's interest in the Palestinians is not opportunistic. He is a true believer. And because of his deep-seated commitment to the Palestinians, his policies are even more radically anti-Israel than the PLO-Fatah's. It was Obama, not Abbas who demanded that Jews be barred from building anything in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. It is the Obama administration, not the PLO-Fatah that is leading the charge to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood.

Like his belated move to demand a permanent abrogation of Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Abbas arguably embraced Hamas because Obama left him no choice. He has no interest in making peace with Israel, so the only thing he can do under the circumstances Obama has created is embrace Hamas. He can't be less pro-Islamic than the US President.

All of this brings us to Netanyahu and his trip to Washington next week. Obviously Obama's decision to upstage the premier with his new outreach-to-the-Arab-world speech will make Netanyahu's visit more challenging than it was already going to be.

Obama is clearly betting that by moving first, he will be able to coerce Netanyahu to make still more concessions of land and principles. Certainly, Netanyahu's earlier decisions to cave to Obama's pressure with his acceptance of Palestinian statehood and his subsequent acceptance of a Jewish building freeze give Obama good reason to believe he can back Netanyahu into a corner. Defense Minister Ehud Barak's hysterical warnings about a diplomatic "tsunami" at the UN in September if Israel fails to capitulate to Obama today no doubt add to Obama's sense that he can expect Netanyahu to dance to his drums, no matter how hostile the beat.

But Netanyahu doesn't have to give in. He can stick to his guns and defend the country. He can continue on the correct path he has forged of repeating the truth about Hamas. He can warn about the growing threat of Egypt. He can describe the Iranian-supported butchery Assad is carrying out against his own people and note that a regime that murders its own will not make peace with the Jewish state. And he can point out the fact that as a capitalist, liberal democracy which protects the lives and property of its citizens, Israel is the only stable country in the region and the US's only reliable regional ally.

True, if Netanyahu does these things, he will not win himself any friends in the White House. But he never had a chance of winning Obama and his advisors over anyway. He will empower Israel's allies in Congress though. And more importantly, whether he is loved or hated in Washington, if Netanyahu does these things, he will be able to return home to Jerusalem with the sure knowledge that he earned his salary this month.


3c)President to Renew Muslim Outreach
By JAY SOLOMON And CAROL E. LEE

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama is preparing a fresh outreach to the
Muslim world in coming days, senior U.S. officials say, one that will ask
those in the Middle East and beyond to reject Islamic militancy in the wake
of Osama bin Laden's death and embrace a new era of relations with the U.S.

Mr. Obama is preparing to deliver that message in a wide-ranging speech,
perhaps as early as next week, these officials say. The president intends to
argue that bin Laden's death, paired with popular uprisings sweeping North
Africa and the Middle East, signal that the time has come to an end when al
Qaeda could claim to speak for Muslim aspirations.

"It's an interesting coincidence of timing—that he is killed at the same
time that you have a model emerging in the region of change that is
completely the opposite of bin Laden's model," Ben Rhodes, deputy national
security adviser at the White House, said in an interview.

Since January, popular uprisings have overthrown the longtime dictators of
Tunisia and Egypt. They have shaken rulers in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen
and Jordan, marking the greatest wave of political change the world has seen
since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But the push for democracy appears to have stalled in some countries. The
street protests against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi have morphed into a
civil war, with North Atlantic Treaty Organization backing the rebels.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Bahrain's ruling Khalifa family have
both met demonstrations with violence.

Bin Laden's death gives Mr. Obama a chance to underscore the belief among
many administration officials that the terror leader's relevance had already
begun to diminish during the so-called Arab Spring. Mr. Obama, who has made
outreach to the Muslim world a cornerstone of his presidency, plans to
describe the Islamic world as at a crossroads, said U.S. officials, making
the case that bin Laden represented a failed approach of the past while
populist movements brewing in the Middle East and North Africa represent the
future.

Mr. Rhodes said timing of the speech remains in flux but Mr. Obama could
deliver it before leaving on a five-day trip to Europe on May 23. The White
House is already telegraphing the message of the coming speech to the
Islamic world by placing American diplomats on Arab television and radio,
according to U.S. officials.

The White House is still debating, however, whether Mr. Obama should lay out
a concrete plan for revitalizing the stalled Arab-Israeli peace process.

Many Arab governments have been pressing Mr. Obama to publicly outline his
own parameters for the creation of an independent Palestinian state as a way
to exert more pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who
visits Washington next week. These diplomats said the Mideast's democratic
surge is raising expectations among their own populations for an end to the
decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.

White House officials said they are still reassessing the monumental changes
in the Middle East and whether an aggressive U.S. push to resume peace talks
would likely be successful.

Last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas forged a unity government
with the militant group Hamas, which the U.S. and European Union designate a
terrorist group. Israeli officials have already cited Hamas's role in the
Palestinian Authority as the reason why Mr. Netanyahu is unlikely to unveil
any major new overtures to the Palestinians during his Washington trip.

"We need to sort through these issues as we consider the next steps on a
peace process," Mr. Rhodes said. The May 20 Obama-Netanyahu meeting "is a
chance for the U.S. and Israel to review the full range of issues, from Iran
to the regional change to the peace process."

Arab officials and Mideast peace advocates say there are major risks for the
U.S. and Israel in delaying a return to talks.

Mr. Abbas is pressing the United Nations to recognize an independent
Palestinian state during the September gathering of the General Assembly. He
has specifically cited his frustration with the lack of progress in
negotiations with Mr. Netanyahu, as well as the rising expectations among
his own people as a result of the Arab Spring.

"There's clearly a lot going on in the region, and there's a case to be made
and some are making it, that now is not the time," said Jeremy Ben-Ami,
founder of J-Street, a U.S. lobbying group that advocates Washington laying
out its own peace plan, something Israel's government opposes. "But we do
believe that the only way to avoid U.N. action on a Palestinian state in a
unilateral kind of way is for either the president or prime minister to put
forward" a peace plan.

A number of lawmakers have cited Hamas's new alliance with Mr. Abbas as
reason for the White House to move slowly in restarting the peace process.
Mr. Netanyahu is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress during his
Washington visit as well the annual conference of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, the U.S.'s most powerful pro-Israel lobby.

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister, on Tuesday broke with Israel's
policy of keeping quiet on the regional turmoil, saying the international
community's response to repression of demonstrations in Syria, Lybia and
Yemen has been "inconsistent'' and "confusing." In remarks delivered before
Mr. Netanyahu's scheduled White House visit, Mr. Lieberman added that the
confusion sends a "damaging message to the people of the Middle East, and
further erodes the path to peace, security and democracy for our region."

Mr. Obama is also scheduled to meet Jordan's King Abdullah II in Washington
next week. The Arab monarch has been at the forefront of Mideast leaders
calling for the U.S. to impose its own peace plan on the Israelis and
Palestinians. Jordan's population is 60% Palestinian, and the king has faced
his own popular protests in recent months.

—Evan Perez and Joshua Mitnick contributed to this article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

The United States and China began the third Strategic and Economic Dialogue since the Obama administration took office. The range of topics is expanding, and both sides are maintaining the warm relations that they began in the beginning of the year. But the underlying strains on the relationship are very much present and can burst forward at any point.

What's new to this round of dialogue is that the two sides will initiate a strategic security track of dialogue, which China has just agreed to. This was an American proposal to discuss defense and military matters alongside the normal foreign affairs and economic and financial matters that are discussed at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Now the reason this is important is because the U.S. and China have a really irregular past when it comes to sharing information and communicating on their military. Now they'll be able to broach topics like nuclear disarmament or missile defense or general naval issues and questions about how China intends to use its growing military power in the region. And these topics will be discussed in a format that perhaps could become more regular, although it's really hard to say; typically, China cuts off military-to-military communications when the U.S. sells a new arms package to Taiwan. Perhaps the hope is that by initiating a new track of strategic security dialogue, that irregularity can be put to an end and they'll have a consistent means of communicating on the really tricky defense matters that these two countries face, especially going forward.

Now the next point is the economic and financial issues. Looking at the Chinese yuan, this as always is a major topic of discussion. The United States is going to be pressing for China to appreciate its currency faster against the dollar. The yuan has risen by about 5 percent over the past year and the U.S. is glad to see movement there. But at the same time it's clear that this movement isn't really very comparable to what's happened with other currencies, such as the Japanese yen, the euro, the Swiss franc or the British pound, all of which have risen much more dramatically against the dollar in the past year. But the U.S. isn't really going to limit its focus to the yuan. But now, Washington wants to expand the range of topics including interest rate ceiling, the idea being that if China can raise the interest rates for its vast pool of depositors at home, they will make more money on their savings and eventually they'll be able to build up savings and feel more comfortable, perhaps even consume more. And at the same time that would force China's banks to be much more particular about what rates they lend to their state-owned companies. In other words, it would force a total rebalancing of the Chinese economic system in which consumers would have more money and corporations and industry would have to pay more for the capital that they borrow.

On the strategic track, the truth is that China has a lot to be anxious about going forward. On the one hand, the U.S. has introduced the topic of Middle East unrest and how that applies to Chinese society, implying that China has this large problem of growing social frustration. How is China going to deal with that? Is it going to use force to quell protests or is it going to be proactive and improve living standards for people? China is afraid that the U.S. is simply going to be fanning the flames of domestic unrest in order to weaken China and take advantage of it. So obviously there's a lot of distrust there, especially with the U.S. taking this very proactive stance on Internet movements, social networking and projecting democratic values across the world. On the other hand, in South Asia, with the U.S. having killed Osama bin Laden, we're getting closer to a time that China realizes the U.S. will withdraw from Afghanistan and take less of a role in the region. That will put more of a burden on China and its ally Pakistan to stabilize the region, and China will be concerned that militancy running wild in the area will impact its western borders. So China's looking at having to take a much bigger role in stabilizing the area and in making sure that Pakistan does its part to prevent militancy from spreading.

And finally, China fears that if the U.S. does withdraw successfully from South Asia, that the increased freedom of maneuver that the U.S. gains will in fact later be brought to bear on China itself, as the two are seeing much greater strategic competition, and a number of U.S. allies in the region are demanding that the U.S. take a greater role in the Asia-Pacific to counterbalance China's rising power.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------