Tag Archives: Muslim Brotherhood

Egypt Pres-Elect Morsi’s Cleric: Jerusalem Shall Be Our Capital.

As Egyptian elections are certified and Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi declared winner one wonders what this means to the region. Last month Muslim Cleric Safwat Higazi spoke to a crowd sharing the dreams and goals of the this group. They will not be satisfied to rule in Egypt, instead they want to take over the entire Arab world and their capital will be Jerusalem.

Is this the Arab Spring that the US government supported? Watch the video (English translation).

Relax About Egypt

Muhammad Mursi

With Muhammad Mursi winning the Egyptian presidential election, I’m sure many in national security circles are worried.  Mursi is an islamist and member of the radical Muslim Brotherhood who aren’t the best of parties when it comes to discussing Middle East peace.  James Lewis of The American Thinker stated that he feels that this new election is part of the new Iron Curtain between the West and Islamic states adhering to Sharia law.  He wrote in the June 24th edition that “today an invisible but very harsh Iron Curtain is dropping over a billion people of Islamistan — the nation-states ruled by Islamic law, Shari’ah, to one degree or another… After Obama and Jimmy Carter surrendered modern nations like Iran, Turkey and Egypt to reactionary throwbacks, we are now looking at decades of another Iron Curtain, this time enforced by nuclear weapons in the hands of martyrdom fanatics. Good luck.” However, we should take this slowly.

In fact, as Jeff Martini of Foreign Affairs wrote on June 21st, the military has put in place measure to ensure it will have significant power within the government.  As Martini noted:

The first salvo was the re-imposition of martial law on June 13. Then, just as the polls were closing on June 17, the generals issued a supplemental constitutional declaration that granted them legislative authority and reinforced their role in the drafting of a permanent constitution. Not to be reined in, the brass also exempted itself from civilian oversight, giving itself the right to appoint and promote its own leadership, manage its own economic projects, and conclude arms deals. Finally, on June 18, Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi announced the reestablishment of a national defense council, which puts the generals firmly in charge of Egypt’s national security policy.

Mursi could be sworn in and go through a peaceful transition in the post-Mubarak Egypt or, as Martini continues, lead a popular effort to unseat the council. Luckily, both choices will yield no benefits for the Brotherhood.  In fact, “should Mursi take the oath of office as planned, it is unclear what authority he would actually have. The Egyptian military has already said that there will be no new parliamentary elections until a permanent constitution is drafted. The generals refuse to commit to a firm timeline, saying only that they hope to have a new constitution within four and a half months and a new parliament seated before the end of 2012. Thus, during that time, and “operating in the absence of a permanent constitution and without a legislature, Mursi would have no authority to carry out the program of Islamic “renaissance” on which he ran, nor would he have any institutional allies. The ruling generals and the judiciary have shown no interest in Islamist-led change.”

It’s still not a done deal.

Read more at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137745/jeff-martini/the-egyptian-military-wins-again?page=show

The Muslim Crescent Greener on Obama’s Watch

The Egyptian military’s recent dissolution of the Islamist-dominated parliament did nothing to forestall the inevitable rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamist group’s candidate of choice Mohammed Morsi has been elected the next president of Egypt, and ruler of one of the cultural lynchpins of the Middle East. The ascendancy of Morsi to the presidency was hailed by cries of “Allahu Akbar,” followed up by the declaration that our capital “shall be Jerusalem, Allah willing.” 

This is what democracy looks like.

In this context, President Obama’s judgment to help remove Hosni Mubarak from power looks perilously foolish. His blithe description of the transition from a petty dictatorship to an Islamist ‘democracy’ as a “transformational period” provides yet another glimpse into the president’s warped valuation of democracy as an end in itself.

It is an irony of modern times that it has been the petty dictatorships of the Muslim Crescent, a swathe of land scything from Indonesia to Morocco, that have provided the floodgates holding back the swirling waters of radical Islam.

The Arab Spring may have appeared to the sanguine eye to have been a healthy democratic reformist movement, but this estimation seriously misunderstands the history of the crescent dictatorships and the volatile nature of democracy itself.  Cynical and self-serving regimes in Syria, Egypt, and Libya, to name a few, have given rise to swelling Islamic collectivist sentiments, and a more exuberant drive to unify popular forces.

Hamas recently ditched the bloodthirsty Assad and has backed the Syrian uprising. In Libya, a state of anarchy has led to calls for democratic unity, presumably on Islamist terms. The dominant trend is that oppressive regimes over time have became brittler in the region, and less able to restrain and manipulate the masses’ anger.

This is in general a good thing, and not an endorsement of dictatorship of any kind. One would like to see peaceful reformist movements take shape that can be supported (such as in Iran, for example), but those have been predominately absent. In such cases, a foreign policy analyst often has to advocate policies that are not commensurate with one’s ideological values, because foreign policy often entails choosing among several undesirable outcomes the least desirable one. Only a blind ideologue chooses policies based on how well they smack to his aesthetic sensibilities.

Predictably enough, without pragmatic leadership from the top-down to help coordinate a grand strategy in the Middle East or a cogent directive of responses to such region-wide phenomena as the Arab Spring, the result has been a torrent of uprisings, demonstrations, and regime overthrows throughout the Islamic world, as it is commonly referred to.

But the decapitation of heads of state in the region will not cause the bloody waters to abate; instead the riptide will suck whatever dispositions for freedom there were under, as a mad power scramble will pit hard-line conservatives and social democratic Islamists in a struggle for supremacy; this in a region that doesn’t know the meaning of peaceful transfers of power. Ultimately, the parties with the broadest base of popular support will win out.

While terrorism had vented off steam in many regimes, a Western coalition spearheaded by the United States has removed the most shady organizations’ leadership elements. What remains are terroristic Islamist parties like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood, who have adapted to the changing terrain by utilizing democracy to usher themselves to power. They have seized on the frustrated emotions of years of oppression, capitalized on the scapegoat politics of antisemitism, and sought to wield power over the masses by fusing political Islam with social democratic instrumentalities. The crafty Islamists have thus used the West’s “Big Bang” strategy against it; they have flowed with the politically naive military strategy rather than resist it.

But the situation still appears preferable to most Western observers, who routinely and sometimes purposefully confuse democracy with freedom.  What some may not be fully appreciate about the strategy, however, is that such a unification of popular will as the Arab Spring will lead to a potentially fatal slip of foreign policy control. Once the narrowly self-interested rulers are vacated from the scene, it will be harder to redirect essentially Islamofascist forces away from the West. The election of Islamist regimes, especially combined with social democratic instead of liberal democratic means of rule, fuses mass prejudices and hatred to the state instead of disperse them.

In addition, the economies of the region, the grave relative deprivation in material terms, are not likely to develop in such conditions and therefore will not likely soften sentiments. Food inflation will continue, due in part to the dollar and Euro weakening, further exacerbating things.  The region can only hope that oil prices stay relatively high; if the United States throws off its environmentalist chains in the next round of elections and begins developing energy resources due to declining demand, this will additionally put pressure on regimes to diversify economies, adding to more dislocation and confusion.

When people are disoriented, they tend to turn to the familiar; and in this case, the religion of Islam. When they feel they are wrongfully impoverished and could do better if not for an envied or hated adversary, preconditions for collective violence will foment. And when political bounds to religious unification are removed after centuries, a flurry of social energy is likely to ensue. The Shiite, Sunni, Wahhabi, and Salafist divisions in Islam, look to temporarily melt away, and common cause against the most threatening other, the Christian West, is certain to take first priority.

It didn’t have to be that way. The regimes could have been pitted against one another. By removing ourselves as the most imminent threat, instead relying on strong, swift, and painful deterrence against state sponsors of terrorism, the Islamists could have been induced to focus more on their religious divisions than their common foes.

A rising caliphate is spreading across the Muslim Crescent, making the region greener religiously and freer to exercise its will. Those who assume that will is benevolent or even benign because it is being facilitated by democratization are beyond naive. They are dangerously lacking in judgment, quixotic beyond belief, and incredibly myopic.

If this sounds alarmist, it is. The United States has sown the seeds for Islamist backlash for decades to come; and not merely by helping to topple petty dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, but by voyeuristically observing democracy run wild throughout the region afterwards.  While it is theoretically possible to manage democracy after the removal of tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, and the Taliban, it takes a much more intensive political effort than has been shown. Simply unleashing popular democratic forces throughout the region is not enough to bring about meaningful ‘democratic’ change, rather than a nominal change in leadership. In addition, the potential for an intensification in human rights atrocities is significant.

President Obama’s shallow, venal, and particularly socialistic brand of understanding democracy, along with his dearth of strategic vision, has thus brought about precarious conditions for freedom throughout the Muslim Crescent, and much more danger for the West and its allies in the long-run.

Muslim Brotherhood Takes Egypt; Targets Israel

It was announced Sunday that Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi has won the Egyptian Presidential election with 51.73% of the vote.

The Muslim Brotherhood‘s own stated end goal is to create an Islamic Calaphaete or empire  using democratic processes in Middle-Easter and European nations. While many discount the self-announced goal as fear-mongering, the words of Egypt’s new president cannot be so easily dismissed.

At a rally for the President-elect, the cleric chosen to introduce Morsi’s cleric sang to the crowd as “lovers of Martyrdom” and that they must “banish the sleep from the eyes of all Jews”. He continued saying that all Egyptians “are Hamas and that they should “brandish their arms” and march on Jeruselam.

Are Egyptians the same Hamas that has fired 150 rockets into Israel over the past week?

Obama’s Arab Spring could end up being an Israeli and European nightmare.

Egyptian Supreme Court Wants Parliament Dissolved

Outrage was sparked in Egypt Thursday when that country’s Supreme Court ruled that the recent parliamentary election was unconstitutional. That decision led to emergency meetings of the ruling military council. In response, the country’s interim military rulers declared full legislative authority.

Supreme Court head Farouk Soltan said: “The ruling regarding parliament includes the dissolution of the Lower House of parliament in its entirety because the law upon which the elections were held is contrary to rules of the constitution.”

Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, who won 46% of the vote, said the ruling would take Egypt into a “dark tunnel”.

Freedom and Justice Party and Salafist Al-Nur Party critics who said it would leave the next incoming president without either a parliament or a constitution, describing the ruling as a “complete coup” and “a complete disregard for the free will of the voters”.

The Supreme Court also decided in a separate ruling that former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq could run for president in the June 16-17 election, rejecting a law that would have kept him from competing against the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi in a run-off election. Ahmed Shafiq was Egypt’s last Prime Minister under ousted President Hosni Mubarak. Some in Egypt have called for the disqualification of Shafiq because he is a “remnant of the old guard”.

The makeup of Egypt’s government is crucial to future peace in the Middle East. Should the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt it will then be in position to put its long held hostility towards Israel into motion. The Brotherhood is dedicated to establishing an Islamic state in Egypt. Islamic law has no room for either democratic principles or religious freedoms. It uses violence against dissenters and tramples the rights of minorities and women. The Brotherhood is, in its own words, dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within”. They were early critics of the Egypt Israeli peace treaty and have long been held responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who signed the treaty in 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood also has close ties to Iran, which is accused of engaging in hegemony and suspected of secretly developing nuclear arms.

Even though the Muslim Brotherhood was still outlawed in Egypt at the time of his June 4, 2009 Cairo speech, barack obama invited the group to attend. his administration established relations with the Brotherhood in 2011. Today three members of the Muslim Brotherhood wield influence over White House policy.

What was the White House reaction to the Egyptian Supreme Court’s ruling?

*Cue the sound of crickets*


Egypt: Broken, Unfulfilled Promises and Wild Cards

Facing a divisive run-off vote for president of Egypt, Mohammed Mursi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, is trying for the center ground. He’s said he would include a wide range of political forces in government, promising to provide representation to women and children. “I stress to all people that the presidency… will never be individual,” he said. “Rather, the presidency will be an institution.”

Mursi also tried to reassure the uprising’s youth group leaders, saying he wanted a “democratic, civil, and modern state” including freedom of religion and a right to protest. “There will not be emergency law, and there will be no arrests,” he said. “Youths are free, but they should bear part of the responsibility.”

Mursi added that Coptic Christians would be named as presidential advisers and even one as vice-president “if possible”. “Our Christian brothers, they are partners in the nation. They will have full rights that are equal to those enjoyed by Muslims.” There would also not be an enforced Islamic dress code, he insisted. “Women have a right to freely choose the attire that suits them.”

Egypt in 2011-2012 is a lot like Iran was in 1979-1980. A highly unpopular Western-backed leader heavily protected by a lavishly financed army being toppled by public demonstrations led by youthful protestors in advance of “democratic” popular elections. It also sounds like a 2012 version of “Hope and Change” Egyptian style.

Tell the people what they want to hear. Promise a transparent, inclusive, post-partisan government that secures freedoms and preserves rights. In fact, whatever the promises required to secure enough votes to win election are, make them. Once in office, keeping those promises will lose priority in the face of enacting the unspoken agenda. If broken promises become a problem, simply blame the very same political opposition you vowed during the campaign to work with as part of an inclusive government for preventing you from fulfilling those promises. Then, as in the case of the “progressive” Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency, re-vow to keep the promises you’ve failed to keep over the past three years after you’re re-elected.

In June 1979, Khomeini’s Freedom Movement released a draft constitution for an Islamic Republic that included a Guardian Council to veto un-Islamic legislation. Despite claims of “vote-rigging, violence against undesirable candidates and the dissemination of false information to produce an assembly overwhelmingly dominated by clergy loyal to Khomeini”, the new constitution was approved by Khomeini and the Assembly of Experts. Khomeini and the Assembly then changed course, rejecting the constitution, declaring the new government should be based “100% on Islam.” The National Democratic Front was banned in August 1979. The Muslim People’s Republican Party was banned in January 1980. The People’s Mujahadin of Iran was attacked in February 1980. University purges begun in March 1980.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, like all cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, is a proxy for the Iranian Islamic Republic. The likelihood is high that promises will be broken, political opposition ruthlessly oppressed, with freedoms and rights denied. Throughout human history, society has broken down into conflicting groups. Each group has said “We are right and you are wrong”, and if it’s strong enough, imposed its will upon the others.

Egypt’s pro-democracy activists already know the Brotherhood only joined their 2011 uprising after it had gained irreversible momentum. They also know that in order to secure goodwill with the generals who took the country over post-Mubarak the Brotherhood ditched them during their protests against military rule. The Brotherhood lost still more credibility when it reversed a decision not to run a presidential candidate in the election. Then it tried to stack a 100-member panel assigned to draft the constitution with Islamists, compromised mostly of it’s own members.

Given the history of Islamists co-opting popular uprisings against pro-western leaders in order to impose a theocratic regime, do not be surprised to see that occur in Egypt.

As it will be in the United States should the current White House occupant attempt an unconstitutional coup to prevent electoral defeat, the military is the ultimate wild card.


A Year of Historic Elections

The year 2012 is rapidly becoming a year of historic elections.

Greece held one recently where no single Party won enough of the vote to form a government. In ensuing weeks, no progress was made by the nation’s Parties while negotiating to form a coalition. This potentially could lead to a chaotic situation – not just for Greece. The eventual outcome might lead to that country’s exit from the Eurozone. Fragmentation or an unraveling of the Eurozone would have enormous impact on Europe as well as a sagging global economy.

France elected a Socialist president who plans to reopen the spigot of government largess. What’s noteworthy about the French election is that Hollande’s victory was due in large part to a boost from Islamist voters. Having a presidential election within one of the European Union’s largest economic powers decided by voters whose cultural background includes centuries of antagonism and hostility towards Europe should be quite alarming to all of western civilization.

Now Egypt’s presidential election is apparently headed for a runoff between Mohammed Mursi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate and former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq. The Egyptian election, declared by world leaders as an historic first, could well be a harbinger for the Middle East, Europe and the world

Egypt was the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel and sign a peace agreement in 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood has since called for an end to the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. The strongly conservative Islamic movement wants Egypt to move away from secularism and be ruled by the Quran. That does not bode well for western civilization. If an Egyptian government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood ends the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty, the front line of western civilization will be in enormous peril. Not only is Israel the only true democracy in the Middle East, it’s the sole nation in the region where religious tolerance is practiced.

In America, November’s election will also hold historical significance. Will voters in the United States re-elect an incumbent who sat silently by while a tyrannical, Quran ruled theocracy in Iran slaughtered it’s own citizens in cold blood for disputing election results? Will voters re-elect the candidate who openly supported the Arab Spring revolts that led directly to the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Will voters choose to retain someone who so lusts to bask in glory for “getting” Osama bin Laden that his administration granted access to highly restricted national security information to Hollywood producers to make a movie glorifying “his” achievement? A movie scheduled for release right before the election? Will the United States choose to keep those in power that leaked to Pakistan the name of the doctor who helped find bin Laden, resulting in his being sentenced to decades in prison by what’s at best a fair weather ally? Will voters elect to continue an administration that insists on calling the war on terror “an overseas contingency operation”? That continues calling terrorist attacks “man caused disasters”? That’s own Secretary of State officially refers to Osama bin Laden as a murder, instead of a terrorist?

The current White House occupant violated the Constitution by accepting the position of Chaimanship of the UN Security Council. He reduced NATO security by canceling missile defense shield installations in Europe, supported a pro-Chavez candidate in Honduras and violated the Law by engaging the United States military in overseas hostilities without the consent of Congress. He’s abandoned enforcing the security of American borders while transferred billions of taxpayer dollars to enemies of the United States through Foreign Aid. He’s snubbed Britain, one of America’s traditional allies repeatedly, and treated the duly elected Prime Minister of Israel the way a member of the KKK would treat a Negro.

Over the past century, especially post WWII, America has been leader of the free world. Having originated from and being comprised primarily of former European colonies, America is naturally the leader of the western world. By extension, that makes the President of the United States the leader of western civilization. Will U.S. voters re-elect someone whose own actions indicate open hostility towards western civilization, or elect someone who will defend the west?

History shows Americans will vote to defend the west. What “progressives” will choose is largely foretold by the actions already taken by their choice in 2008 for the Office of the Presidency.

The November 2012 U.S. elections will indeed be historic. Not just for Americans.


America’s Destructive Lack of Realism

Last winter, when I heard John McCain drummed up support to bomb Syria, it makes me wonder if the 535 members in Washington have dementia.  We already had an unnecessary intervention in Libya, we’ve mostly concluded our business with Iraq, and Afghanistan is crumbling.  In a time where Americans are anything BUT enthusiastic or willing to become involved in another nation’s affairs, we must first ask, as George Will has, how many wars do we want to fight.

I was an unabashed neoconservative who supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq until I saw, as William F. Buckley aptly pointed out, how this movement grossly underestimates American power.  This was evident in the negligence in the post-war Iraqi reconstruction operations that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government. The planning of the entire reconstruction effort, outlined in National Security Presidential Directive 24 issued in January 2003, gave the Department of Defense complete authority over the post-war operations.  It’s absurd.  Rebuilding Iraq into a modern, free market democracy in three months or less.  No wonder chaos ensued.  This whole notion of liberal democracy proliferating throughout the Middle East, in a region with no historical precedent of such values, is mind numbingly naive.

Even with our involvement winding down in Iraq, it appears the only winner is Iran since we’ve weakened the only nation in the region to curb its growing influence.  The resilience of the new democracy in Iraq and its disposition towards the United States in the future remains to be seen.  However, Syria is still holding out from the so-called “Arab Spring,” Iran still has nuclear ambitions, which would set off a regional arms race, and Egypt has fallen prey to the radical Muslim Brotherhood after we threw our good friend, Hosni Mubarak, under the bus in the hopes that a vibrant democracy will emerge there. Is this our dividend after spending $700 billion in Iraq?  Was this the best use of American political and military resources?

America’s destructive lack a realism is becoming disastrously expensive and straining our military.  Afghanistan and Iraq has cost us a whopping $1.2 trillion dollars in war expenditures.  We could be facing a $4-6 trillion dollar price tag when this whole ordeal is over.  We need to reexamine our financial stability and national interest for future engagements.

Case in point, Libya had nothing to do with American interests.  We do not receive oil from Libya. We don’t have diplomatic relations with Libya.  It was a civil war that was none of our business in a tribal society whose various clans hated Qaddafi more than each, hence the fragile display of national unity.  Like in Iraq, civil institutions were derived from one man and his family creating a power vacuum that will lead to more bloodshed.  The various militias refuse to disarmand the eastern half of the country has declared autonomy.  Did we really stop a slaughter? I feel more bloodshed will ensue because of our reckless engagement in their affairs.

People die in war, especially in the brutal theater of civil war.  Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean it’s our business. Especially when we have become involved in tribal societies before with little success.  We realists do not deny the existence of moral truths and principles, but when applied in the anarchic field of international relations, it is inherently dangerous.  It thrusts a nation, whose only purpose is to survive, into entanglements that are diplomatically obtuse, detrimental to its interests, and leads to prolonging the conflict.

If Qaddafi had squashed the insurrectionists in Benghazi, it would have been over, but we intervened, allied ourselves with rebel elements affiliated with al-Qaeda, and escalated the civil war leading to more deaths. In Somalia, our intervention culminated in the infamous Black Hawk Down incident, despite the fact it was hopeless from the start. There was no government to open up a diplomatic channel, no infrastructure, and clan ties that prevented national unity.  We lost nineteen American soldiers to help feed people in a failed state. A tragic waste of American resources.

The era of nation-building and humanitarian interventions need to end.   If our criteria for involvement is humanitarian based, we will be in a perpetual state of war.  The essence of nation-building, as George Will rightly said on Charlie Rose, is oxymoronic since it’s an organic entity that take generations to perfect.  Just because American marines are on the ground, doesn’t mean the maturation process will be accelerated.  In all, these attempts at social engineering are textbook cases of the irresponsible and arduous tasks that have drained American power over the past decade.  I’m thankful that a growing consensus in this country is starting to view such ventures as nonsensical.  It’s simply not worth the cost.

Obama Hosting the Muslim Brotherhood Signals a Dangerous Shift in Foreign Affairs

As the Obama administration hosted delegates from the Muslim Brotherhood, the socialist-Islamist group that rose to political power following the “Arab Spring” revolts, rockets were virtually flying from the Egyptian-controlled Sinai peninsula into the territory of our ally Israel.  As with its terrorist offspring al Qaeda, the timing of the Muslim Brotherhood’s White House visit and the relatively rare rocket attack on Israel from Egyptian territory, represents “signaling” — that the days of detente between Egypt and Israel are likely over.

Not-so-strange Bedfellows?

The significance of the White House hosting the Muslim Brotherhood at this point in time is accentuated by a cluster of events. These are both international and national in nature. As this analyst has argued before, the president’s foreign policy is an extension of, and is reflective of, his domestic agenda. Since the president is an ideologue, albeit one very shrewdly and pragmatically refraining from overtly expressing his core beliefs, there is a high degree of continuation between his foreign policy and his domestic agenda.

By taking into account a number of direct and indirect signs, the president and the Muslim Brotherhood can be considered tacit allies. The evidence is multi-faceted and will be addressed further below. The broader context of the shift in U.S.-Middle Eastern relations under President Obama is that the Muslim Brotherhood can be considered Alinsky-style community organizers; they are radical pragmatists with Marxist-Leninist ideological ties who use religion to bolster their drive for totalitarian power. Democracy is but a means to the end of assuming control over society; while “liberation” may be promised to the people initially in order to usher the Muslim Brotherhood into power in countries under authoritarian regimes, this is but a temporary maneuver until sharia can be established.  Evidence of this will be provided during the article. But first we will address a few basic points about the Muslim Brotherhood’s visit and the political timing.

White House spokesperson Jay Carney denied any broader significance of the Muslim Brotherhood visit, pointing out that two mid-level administration officials met with the delegates, the organization won representation in the Egyptian government through democratically held elections, and other politicians, namely Lyndsey Graham and John McCain, had met with members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) while in Egypt. Ironically, the two GOP Senators had met with these representatives while U.S. hostages were being held in Egypt. The GOP Senators, who took heat at the time from conservatives for meeting with the MB, were seeking to expand U.S.-Egyptian business ties. They criticized the holding of the American hostages, who were members of Non-Governmental Organizations or NGOs. Meeting with representatives of even enemy nations or organizations does not necessary entail endorsement of policy.

But some things should be kept in mind about the Obama administration’s meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood.  The administration has made no substantive criticism of the MB or of several other takfiri or jihadist groups around the world. A wall of silence seems to have been erected since Obama took office regarding socialist or communist regimes. On the other hand, “conservative”-authoritarian, nationalist, and liberal democratic (U.K., Israel) regimes have come under fire; not to mention conservative groups and tea party activists. The president has had nothing but warm words for the seemingly disastrous Arab Spring and the Occupy movement.

The “democratic” Arab Spring movement that is ushering socialist-Islamist groups to power throughout the Middle East is so well-regarded on the left that Obama’s former “Green Jobs” Czar and self-professed communist/truther Van Jones is launching a “99% percent spring” movement whose astro-turfing is set to begin next week. One wonders what the group looks to accomplish since Obama is the current dictator-in-training and we are scheduled to have free and fair elections in November (unless Obama’s Department of Justice gets its way).

The New Left and International Relations

A few things about the New Left and international relations. As mentioned before, the president’s foreign policy is an extension of his domestic policy. When Obama warmly greets ailing Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez, that is a signal that America does not seek to go after his regime aggressively. When Obama hands an iPod filled with his speeches to the Queen of England, that means the narcissist-in-chief believes her royal majesty could learn a thing or two from his soaring, vacuous rhetoric. This isn’t always the case in international relations. But the New Left view is such that we live in a world where literally everything is political and represents hierarchical structures.

Following these assumptions, President Obama’s actions can be best interpreted through the prism of Critical Theory. Whom or what Obama attacks or criticizes, and whom or what he praises or endorses, are just as important as whom or what he should be commenting on or addressing — and isn’t. Note that the president himself is not the only channel for evaluating such signals; various regime mouthpieces, allies, and sycophants may do the messaging for the president. So when Obama waits ten days to say anything about the Iranians’ democratic uprising, that means something. When he refuses to confront the Iranians on its nuclear (weapons) program, that means something. When he overlooks the Russians’ assistance to Iran (and Syria), that means something. And so on. These are big ticket items, and not trifling matters, it should be noted.

The above being glossed on, we are well-prepared to begin dissecting Obama’s foreign policy signaling over the past few weeks in regards to the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt, and by relation, Syria.

Signaling a Seismic Foreign Policy Shift

The president is already indicating with his “flexible” comment to Dmitry Medvedev that he plans to jerk this country in a dangerous foreign policy, should we Americans be so gullible and misfortune to re-elect the man. The same applies with the president’s increasingly public embrace of hostile Muslim organizations. As a Heritage article that gives a bit of relevant background on the Muslim Brotherhood points out (James Phillips, the same author, also provides a nice briefing on the Muslim Brotherhood.):

A delegation of officials from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood met with White House officials Wednesday, according to a White House spokesman who stated that “we have broadened our engagement to include new and emerging political parties and actors.” […]

The Obama Administration has bent over backwards to demonstrate its good intentions toward the anti-Western Islamist organization, which is now positioned to hijack Egypt’s pro-democracy revolution.

Early the next day, Reuters reports that a Palestinian rocket attack was fired from the Sinai peninsula (Egyptian territory). Although none were killed this time, a rocket strike fired from the Sinai into Israel killed eight Israelis last August.

Now let us dig a little deeper. In the president’s “Passover Statement” (again, no official Easter statement so far this year), Obama attempted to link the Jewish exodus with the rise of “social transformation” and “liberation” in Egypt — the same country that has grown increasingly hostile to Israel under the parliament partly controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood (through the Freedom and Justice Party, which is the main party within the dominant Democratic Alliance for Egypt bloc).

We don’t have to get into dialectics here, but the president’s admixture of lies and truth is a forked-tongue way of trying to commandeer the Jewish holiday for the political purpose of propping up the Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood (watch the video here).  Some can argue that he is attempting to mend bridges. But the president’s history of slamming Israel reinforces the perception that Obama’s address to the Jewish world was at the very least, a backhanded compliment.

Interestingly, the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical-pragmatic Islamist group that spawned the terrorist umbrella organization al Qaeda and the Sunni fundamentalist group Hamas (in much the same way the Students for a Democratic Society begat Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground), just this March re-aligned with Hamas in opposition to the Bashir Assad regime in Syria. Since the Muslim Brotherhood announced this alliance of convenience, both the UN and the Obama administration has promised “non-lethal” aid to Assad’s opposition, viz. Hamas and indirectly, its new ally the Muslim Brotherhood.

So why is the timing of the president’s meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood additionally important. As one analyst put it:

How the Brotherhood receives Hamas in the long run remains to be seen, however. The revolution may well have brought the two closer and certain elements within the Brotherhood will likely back Hamas strongly. But the Brotherhood has other issues to consider, too. ‘The MB leadership will be more concerned at managing the relationship with the Egyptian military (whose contacts with Israel continue), and reassuring the US that the MB is a responsible interlocutor … [so] that funding … through the IMF and other agencies continue[s].

Therefore, we can assume that the meeting was part of a public relations campaign to make the Muslim Brotherhood look more legitimate and worthy of international aid. A key pointman in the Obama administration is Rashad Hussain, a delegate to the Organization for Islamic Cooperation with Muslim Brotherhood ties. The Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a 57 member bloc that has a permanent delegation at the UN, and has condemned the Syrian regime’s violent crackdown on protesters.

The Muslim Brotherhood, for its part, has also endorsed Turkish President Recciyep Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), which helped found a “Friends of Syria” coalition that opposes Bashir Assad and desires a socialist-Islamist regime like itself in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood has called the AKP an “ideal party”; and though the latter ran on such social desirables as freedom of speech and the press prior to coming to power in Turkey, it has severely cracked down on such freedoms once gaining control. This is a page straight out of the socialist playbook. Freedom, democracy; they are are means to an end. And the end is power.

In such light, we are to interpret the activity of hardcore socialist groups’ role in the engineering of the Tahrir protest. “Democracy” and “liberation” are often catch-phrases for the breakdown of authoritarian rule in order to make them ripe for the plucking for socialist, Islamist, or otherwise totalitarian ones. Not once during the entire play-out of the Arab Spring or the Occupy movement or the forthcoming “99 percent spring” uprisings will one hear an utterance about individual rights. One will, however, hear a lot of clap-trap about “humanitarian” causes and “human rights.” These have been usurped by the left for the cause of advancing socialism.

Critiquing the President’s Non-critical Embrace of Muslim Organizations

Since the president has forged such cozy relations with the Muslim world, giving the religion of Islam unwarranted accolades, a few questions come to mind about Barack Obama’s disposition and his non-critical and even supportive relations with the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Since the Republican Party is alleged to be carrying out a “war on women,” because it doesn’t support taxpayer-funded abortions and subsidized birth control, then what about the Muslim world’s abysmal record on treating women?
  • Since American conservatives are supposedly “racist” for opposing anything the obviously liberal Barack Obama supports, then what about the Muslims who enslaved “blacks” for centuries and do in some countries to this day? When will President Obama condemn Islamists in Mauritania and Sudan for enslaving blacks, instead of condemning “teabaggers” for supposedly being racist for opposing universal healthcare?
  • What about the Muslim Brotherhood’s pre-eminent scholar Sayyid Qutb, who highly disapproved of the culture of the United States and who advocated armed jihad to resist American values? Is President Obama alright with that aspect of the Muslim Brotherhood’s heritage?
  • Since Obama is a Christian, as he claims, when are we going to hear the sharp condemnation of the increasing maltreatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt, or Christians in Sudan, or in Indonesia, or anywhere else in the Muslim world for that matter?

It is not always what those on the New Left say, but rather, what they don’t say that matters. And in the case of Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood, as in every other important matter, what the president doesn’t say speaks volumes.

Rick Perry and the Truth About Turkey

Governor Rick Perry has drawn quite a bit of criticism for his recent remarks regarding the country of Turkey during the Fox news/WSJ SC GOP debate on Tuesday night. When asked about his plans for cutting all U.S. foreign aid to zero,and whether Turkey still belongs in NATO, Perry responded as follows: “Obviously, when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then yes — not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO, but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it,” he said.

Note that Perry states in his answer that Turkey is “being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.” He didn’t call them terrorists or identify any certain individuals as terrorists, but instead stated that many people would perceive the rulers of Turkey to be Islamic terrorists. So does Governor Perry’s statement carry any weight? Yes it does, and there are plenty of facts to back it up, which may be found by doing some very basic research on the subject of Turkey.

While the U.S. State dept, which is currently run by Hillary Clinton, has distanced itself from Perry’s statement, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs came out with a very U.S. DNC-type statement in which they attacked Perry’s credibility, as opposed to putting up any facts to denounce his statement. “Those individuals who are candidates for positions requiring responsibility such as the U.S. presidency are expected to be more knowledgeable on global affairs and more careful in their statements,” the ministry said in a statement. “Turkey became a member of NATO when the governor was just 2 years old. … The U.S. has no time to lose with such candidates who do not even know America’s allies.” So just because Governor Perry was two years old when Turkey joined NATO., we are led to believe that he could not possibly know anything about the country of Turkey, and their eligibility for NATO admittance. With the Muslim brotherhood surging into power within Egypt due to the recent uprisings across the region, we see the political climate changing at a rapid pace today. The anti-American, anti-Israeli sentiment is at a dangerous level throughout the Middle East and North Africa today. Governor Perry obviously wasn’t referring to the Turkey of 50 years ago when he made his statement.

For some factual history of the examples of historic Turkish genocide, mainly aimed at wiping out Christians in the region, see this article. Millions of people were murdered or fled religious persecution by the Young Turks of the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey’s government has shown the propensity to deny those facts, even today. And recently, William Dalrymple penned “Christians Fleeing the Middle East’ in which he wrote, that Christianity is suffering “a devastating decline in the land of its birth.” While today’s Turkey proclaims itself to be a Republic, it appears to be anything but a free Republic when we read about the Turkish-Muslim Persecution of Christians.

Fast forward to today. In this Fox News article, we see that recently the Turkish government has expelled the Israeli Ambassador, that Turkey’s [lack of] freedom of the press currently resembles that of Russia, and that Turkish authorities have recently met with Hamas leaders. Add to that information the reports that violence against women are up some 1400%, (2002-2009) and that the director of the Turkish Research Program, Mr. Capaptay, wrote an essay that stated that the Turkish government has “neutered domestic checks and balances” since 2002, a “consolidation of power” that could have consequences for its relationship with the U.S. He noted that Turkish officials have demonized Western nations, and polls show the Turkish people mostly do not view the U.S. Favorably. To Governor Perry’s credit, he stands by his statements, as he recently stated, “When you see the number of actions against your citizens that we would consider to be terrorist acts, I stand by my statement,” Perry said. “You need to be putting protections in place for your citizens if you’re seeing those types of attacks against, particularly, well, particularly females. That is particularly heinous from my perspective.”

Finally, some pundits and assorted academics have falsely argued that Turkey does not currently receive and U.S. Foreign aid, in another attempt to discredit Perry’s statements. Apparently, the very same government-paid propagandist who wrote the essay mentioned above, Mr. Capaptay of the “Turkish Research Program” are incapable of telling the truth and doing proper research to back up statements, such as the following: “First, Turkey does not receive U.S. foreign aid. Some time in the 1980s it was phased out, so this is not your mother’s Turkey,” U.S. Aid to Turkey has been “phased out” since 1980? Not according to the U.S. Government it hasn’t, as seen here. That shows Turkey receiving $5.4 million from the U.S. In 2011 and another $5.6 million slated to be given to them in 2012. Keep in mind that those figures are only for “base appropriations.” For instance, in FY 2009, the U.S. Government gave Turkey $7 million tax dollars for.. “economic development.” Mr. Capaptay would be advised to be careful with his own “inaccurate statements” as per his condescending statement to governor Perry concerning U.S. cash being given to Turkey today.

In conclusion, Governor Perry is 100% correct in demanding that the U.S. reset all foreign aid back to zero, reevaluate each case, and then reestablish the programs based on protecting American interests and preventing U.S. tax dollars from funding anti-American regimes. And yes, that should include Islamic-terrorist supporting governments and anyone else caught promoting and/or aiding them. Why in the world does the United States government continue to dole out billions of taxpayer dollars to hostile countries out to destroy America?

U.S. officials conduct talks with Muslim Brotherhood

The AP has reported the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest Islamist group, met with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns. The Brotherhood is prepared to have major control of the country’s new parliament and favors a mix of parliamentary and presidential systems for its new government.

Having won more than 40% of the seats in the incoming parliament, the Brotherhood is getting set to create a new constitution when the body convenes on January 23rd:

Its primary purpose is to appoint a 100-member panel to write a new constitution.

Mohammed Morsi, head of the Brotherhood’s political party, told Burns during the Wednesday meeting that there is a consensus on civic freedoms and rights for the new constitution, according to a statement from Morsi’s office.

Before the visit, State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Burns would talk about US “support for Egypt’s democratic political transition, including an active and independent civil society, and the current economic challenges facing Egypt.”

The Obama administration is attempting to establish a dialog after decades of the U.S. government avoiding the Islamist group.


Tahrir Square: MSM Reports What It Wants To, Ignores What It Wants To

By now we are all aware of what the MSM deems as newsworthy in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt. We are aware of massive demonstrations demanding that the ruling military generals cede power to a civil government elected by the “people.” For more than a week, protesters have demonstrated against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), a council of 24 generals which, protestors say, has continued the policies and tactics of former president Hosni Mubarak.

But there is much more going on in and around Tahrir Square that the MSM is NOT reporting. For example;

  • The Muslim Brotherhood, as is Hamas and Hez’ballah, is portrayed by the MSM as a peaceful, religious organization, just another political party. So when the Muslim Brotherhood staged a rally in a prominent Cairo Mosque, and thousands of its followers shouted to “one day kill all the Jews” and volunteered for “jihad” to liberate all of Palestine, most MSM gave this event a pass. Never mind that it revealed a dark side of the Muslim Brotherhood’s real agenda and cast a cloud over Egypt’s adherence to its 1979 peace treaty with Israel. That picture of the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t fit the favorable perception propagated by the MSM.   See this article by DJ Redman about the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – Muslim Brotherhood – Hamas – OWS connection, and this article by Jeff P about the CAIR – Muslim Brotherhood connection and recent activities in this country.
  • Two journalists were sexually assaulted in Tahrir Square. Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-born U.S. columnist, said she was sexually assaulted Thursday, November 24, 2011. Caroline Sinz, a reporter for France 3 television, said on Friday, November 25, 2011, that a day earlier she and her cameraman were attacked by young men in the square. Sinz said she was punched, then “subjected to a sexual aggression in front of everyone in full daylight.” She continued, saying boys 14 to 16 years old “tore off my clothes and undergarments” and assaulted her.

  • Reporters Without Borders, an international journalism group, issued an advisory to the MSM to not to send female journalists near Tahrir Square, making it clear that last February’s rape of CBS News reporter Lara Logan was not an isolated incident. But that organization was forced to withdraw the statement. According to one Cairo-based woman reporter, sexual harassment has been more prevalent in the past week than during the revolution earlier this year. “I’ve never experienced this much [harassment] in all my time in Egypt,” she said. “Today’s Tahrir Square has a menacing feel. It’s a grittier and dirtier Tahrir than before.”

With their fixation and preference for an end to military rule, the MSM ignored the fate that may await women under Egypt’s new civilian rulers. The MSM has ignored all of the recurrence of sexual assaults in Egypt, and of the Muslim Brotherhood’s hatred of the Jews. Almost anything that does fit the MSM template is ignored.

But that’s just my opinion.

CAIR’s Continued Whitewashing of Jihad and Attack of Free Speech

Via http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com

A recent report by FrontPageMag, reveals CAIR’s latest attempts to stifle opposition of Islam and hide attempts at Jihad in the United States. The Muslim Brotherhood front group continues to pressure federal and local officials, as well as law enforcement agencies, into removing any traces of radical Islam and it’s agenda for America from their literature and training manuals.

A recent article on CAIR’s website stated: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced today that 15 of its chapters nationwide have filed 87 separate public records requests about possible Islamophobic training of local, state and national law enforcement personnel. CAIR is seeking information about state-level trainings that may have used federal taxpayer dollars to fund anti-Muslim trainers, a phenomenon highlighted in recent research and media reports.”

Director of Communications for CAIR Los Angeles, Munira Syeda, recently defended the actions of of group of Muslims students associated with the radical Muslim Student Union. Apparently, unable to wait till the end for the Q & A session,  the students were found guilt of disrupting a speech which was being presented by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren on US-Israeli relations. Repeatedly, the students were asked to stand down as they shouted numerous epitaphs and went as far as to ask  “How many Palestinians did you kill?” While the students and Syeda viewed this as an exercise in 1st Amendments rights, Judge Peter J. Wilson did not, and sentenced the students to 56 hours of community service and three years of informal probation.

Syeda also condemned a rally protesting Siraj Wahhaj (an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center attack) who was speaker at a Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) fundraiser held at a community center in Orange County, California last February. While the protestors were adamant in their cause, they did so peacefully and 50 yards away from the community center entrance. Councilwoman and Republican Party Vice Chair Deborah Pauly who also was upset with the pro-Jihadi guest list was quoted saying to the protestors “Let me tell you what’s going on over there right now – make no bones about it – that is pure, unadulterated evil. … I know quite a few Marines who would be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise.” Strong words, yes, but not illegal and was spoken outside without heckling the event.

It possibly could be ascertained that CAIR is a proponent of free speech, for CAIR, and just as long as is does not paint the wrong image of Islam and expose Jihad.


But We Were Tolerant!

courtesy of http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/


Islamization is one the largest, if not the largest, threat facing the nation today. If you don’t think so, chances are you haven’t done your homework regarding the subject. Don’t be fooled by lack of Muslim violence in the United States, as opposed to Muslim nations, or what you see in Europe.

A thought occurred to me the other day. Why is it that the only country in the world I hear Imams talk of peace is the United States? It is my firm belief that the ONLY reasons are the First and Second Amendments. Americans can say whatever they want about Islam without fear of reprisal. Although it appears that Muslims, in conjunction with their “progressive” partners, are trying to change that. In addition, the Second Amendment is our right to bear arms. So if Muslims, or anyone for that matter, decide to threaten our sovereignty we can defend ourselves. American, you need to wake up and realize what is happening right before your eyes. Do not conform to the political correctness standard. That’s what they did in Europe, especially France. Worked out well for them didn’t it?

I decided to write a “what could happen” piece on what the United States could look like in the not so distant future if we don’t stand up to the threat of Islamization. If it seems far fetched to you, then I encourage you follow the hyperlinks associated to get an idea of what’s happening in the world today.

A typical American family, (what you would’ve considered typical today) is walking down the street. The problem is, things aren’t typical anymore. The family of five moves down the street looking more a tactical military unit than a family. They do so for good reason. Mom and Dad hold the hands of their toddler son and two teenage daughters, moving from building to building with a vigilance born of experience. Dad remembers the days of the entire family climbing in the car for the Sunday morning drive to church. Sometimes the morning routine was peaceful, sometimes not. But, they never had worry about dying on the way. The underground church network has done a good job rotating the meeting place and filtering the message to it’s members.

The Waters family disappeared last week and everyone learned from their mistakes. The O’Niell family’s daughters were kidnapped last month and no one has seen or heard from them since. Everyone knows what probably happened. People had an inkling leading up to this, but we all chose to ignore it. It could never happen in the United States, right? We were supposed to have an airtight Constitution that would protect us from this sort of thing. The Government kept telling us to trust them! That they could make decisions for me, better than I. Additionally, there were the groups like CAIR, who said they protected the rights of all people and religions. And now here we are.

Dad spots them first and moves quickly to get his family to side of the building and out of sight: A gang of about 6 to 9 men and boys of all ages. You know who they are because of their signature head wraps and hats. They stopped pretending to be our friends years ago. Especially after they had control of the local and state governments. When we sit down and really discuss it, we draw the conclusion that it started in Florida. The day that judge ruled Sharia law could be used in a civil dispute. It seemed so insignificant at the time….. It was gradual and hardly anyone even noticed it. Before we realized what happened, they flooded all levels of the federal government. The First Amendment was abolished, followed shortly by the Second. It went down hill from there. Soon all religions, except theirs, were abolished. Everyone who refused to convert was called an infidel, hunted down, and most times murdered. How could this be? I thought this sort of thing only happened in movies and fictional books. They said they represented a religion of peace and tolerance, that they only wanted to live a moral life. One that was pleasing to Allah.

OH NO! They’ve been spotted!! Dad couldn’t get the family to the side of the building fast enough. Like a pack of wolves they move in on the family. Hollering and screaming in English and other languages the message is the same. Mom and Dad are savagely beat to a bloody pulp. Through blood soaked eyes the parents search for their children, they hear the screams. The last thing the parents hear before the fade the black was the son crying and the men arguing over who would get the daughters first. As he lays on the ground unable to move or speak, Dad silently weeps for his family. And amidst the many the many thoughts racing through his head, one of last are……But we were tolerant!

Muslim Brotherhood/CAIR Caught on Video Organizing Occupy Orlando

The United West investigative team recently went to the Occupy Orlando protests to try to understand just what the protesters were trying to achieve there. What they stumbled upon was quite informative, as you can tell by the following video:

This “Terror Alert” video will detail some “dots” that need connecting, in order to see the complete picture of what may be a move by a Muslim activist to take over control of “Occupy Orlando,” in the “spirit of the Arab Spring.”




For those of you whom are not familiar with Mr. Shayan Elahi , he is a Muslim activist lawyer who represented the father of the young Muslim girl in Ohio who ran away from home because she believed her parents would kill her for converting to Christianity. (Rifqa Bary) The United West folks know Mr. Elahi well, as they have had numerous confrontations with him before concerning. the Rifqa Bary case and attempts to install Sharia law into the United States judicial system.

The United West team sums up the Muslim Brotherhood’s involvement in Occupy Orlando event as follows:

Once we watched Shayan Elahi in action, running around, signing up speakers, providing direction, telling people what to do, we started to connect the dots to the stated Face Book Mission Statement of “Occupy Orlando,” which reads, “…we plan to use the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic of mass occupation to restore democracy in America.

So, here we have a Muslim attorney who collaborated with the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Rifqa Bary case, the same CAIR that is an unindicted co-conspirator, the same CAIR that is HAMAS, the same HAMAS that was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Huge hat tip to The United West team for exposing these facts about the Occupy Wall Street sister group, Occupy Orlando, whose protests  are being run by a Muslim brotherhood lawyer-activist. United West has vowed to continue to expose the Muslim brotherhood’s involvement in the Occupy Wall Street/ Occupy Orlando protests. Where is the Florida/ National media on this? They simply refuse to report on the fact that we see right on Video evidence of The Muslim Brotherhood taking over/organizing the Occupy Orland0 protests to turn it into an Egypt-style Arab Spring. (Picture at left is of Mohammed el-Baradei visiting the Muslim Brotherhood office in ..Cairo Egypt.) What say you Fox13 here in Florida? How about anyone in the media reporting on this  huge news story?






« Older Entries Recent Entries »