New blog site address....

http://restoringhonornow.com/

Come on over for a visit!

(Update June 23, 2011:  For some reason the link to my new blog site keeps disappearing....so if you copy and paste the link above into your browser you should still get there.  Seems I've fixed it for now though :-)

He's Telling Us...We Just Have to Listen Part II

Image via Wikipedia

In an Uncommon Knowledge segment Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical in Chief, said some things that helped me put my discomfort with President Obama's goal of "fundamentally transforming this country" into context and perspective.

In segment 3 he says: "Community organizers take discontent wherever it may be found and attempt to turn that in the direction of their true long term goals....move the country toward socialism." 

Having been educated in socialistic undergraduate and graduate Social Work environments I can attest that this is indeed the case.  I had to read Cloward and Piven AND Alinsky for goodness sakes!  I guess, though, I should be happy about that.  It helped open my eyes because much to the chagrin of my professors I left my common sense switch in the on position and regularly asked questions that they did not like.  Was it the icy stare or the attempt to humiliate me that gave me the clue that my questions were not welcomed?  I'd say they both played pivotal roles :-)


In segment 4 he says: "At every turn Obama has attempted to disguise his socialist past....you need political honesty which is required if democracy is going to work." (and) " Socialists worked within the Democratic Party, seizing on elements of the liberal program that were most likely to put the country on an irreversible and structural path toward socialism...corporate democracy...grabbing control of the economy from below."

In one of their "let's call it something else" moves socialists started calling themselves contemporary liberals (NOT to be confused with classic liberals) but still maintained their socialistic ideologies.  They had previously been referring to themselves as progressives until the American people began to realize just what the heck they were trying to do to our Constitutional Republic.  So, they did what they always do, they changed the term to liberal.  As I've said before in many of my posts it doesn't matter what they call themselves the world view is still the same.


In segment 5 he responds to the question "Why does this (Obama's socialistic past, present, and future) matter?"  (as an example) Reagan leveled with the American public; he was conservative and made no bones about it.  He helped to bring the public along; to convince them and if he was opposed it was for honest reasons.  Obama has not done that.  He has not advocated ANY ideology openly....casting most of his actions as "pragmatic fixes" to the economy.  If you do not understand the ideology behind his actions how can you evaluate his reforms?" (emphasis mine)
  For example, regulation....is he (Obama) using regulation and executive order to make pragmatic system fixes or fulfilling the wishes of Congress...OR...is he using it to provoke a much more radical systemic change by abusing the regulatory process.....(which results in) the subverting of the democratic process by holding back on his true long term intentions....class-based battles. (emphasis mine.)


The political debate in our Constitutional Republic depends on the open and honest competition in the arena of ideas.  As stated above:  if you do not know and fully understand the ideology behind this administration's actions then you cannot adequately evaluate whether or not you support them.  I would slightly disagree with Mr. Kurtz when he says that Barack Obama has not advocated any ideology openly.  As I pointed out in my previous post, The Obama Narrative, he has, by his actions made a statement about his intentions through his actions.  They are not as direct and "in your face" as some of the emails circulating but they ARE there if you take the time to look closely enough. I found a collection of some of the things Obama and other progressives/socialists have said that will give you a look inside their world view; hope you can believe in becomes "socialism you can believe in." Taking things away from you through coercion or force in order to "make everything equal in everybody's house" is the change Obama spoke of.  How many people really realize that is what the progressives are saying?  I am a Christian.  I believe we need to take care of each other....but by choice and by following the gospel.  The government is not part of that equation.


In my previous post I suggested a book by Dinesh D'Souza, The Roots of Obama's Rage.  For a somewhat shorter resource you might consider How Obama Thinks by the same author at Forbes.com. In this article Mr. D'Souza says:
Theories abound to explain the President's goals and actions. Critics in the business community--including some Obama voters who now have buyer's remorse--tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist--not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution. (Emphasis mine)

You've heard the claims about the goal of the"redistribution of wealth."  In January of this year President Obama signed an executive order that he said in an op-ed would "root out dumb and outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive."  What many don't know about this executive order is that it now:

allows agencies, in weighing costs and benefits for example, to consider “equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts,” and each agency must “select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).” [Emphasis added]

Golly gee Wally that sounds great!  However, I've asked it before and I'll ask it again now:  WHO gets to define things like equity, human dignity, and distributive impacts?  It's at times like this I am reminded of the frequent use of the word "inconceivable" in the movie The Princess Bride.  At one point a statement of the obvious is made:  "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means!" And that, my friends is just the point.  I don't think the majority of people fully understand that the concept of "social justice" is diametrically opposed to our long cherished concept of equal justice.


In closing I'd like to share some wisdom and some humor from one of our greatest presidents:
"Beware the temptation to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil." --Ronald Reagan

....and now for the humor watch this video :-)
 

Some other readings for your consideration and continuing education:
Spontaneous Order by John Stossel
Reagan Revisionism by Matt Kibbe
Reagan Revisionism 2 by Matt Kibbe
Barack Obama vs Ludwig von Mises at the Economic Policy Journal

He's Telling Us...We Just Need to Listen

Image via Wikipedia

He's Telling Us...We Just Need to Listen

I received an email today with the subject line:  He told us but nobody was listening.  (The text is below.)

First point: Obama did not appear on Meet the Press on September 7, 2008 as you can discover by reading the transcript at the link provided above.

Second point: A quick google search and reviewing of an Urban Legends Post show that much of the contents of the email are simply not true, nor are they accurate representations of statements made by then candidate Obama.

That said I'd like to share an additional thoughts I shared when responding to the email:

I have long held the suspicion that many of these rumors are started by those who disagree with our world view to distract us from what we really need to attend to.  There is real evidence that the progressives among us are dismantling our Constitutional Republic.  Real evidence that we need to pay attention to and respond to.  That is why I started my blog....to get the facts our there.

I believe much of what is expressed below indeed reflects Barack Obama's world view. He, however, like any good progressive will never say this outright.  So, those whom you wish to convince about what is going on in our country will point out that this is a "lie" because he never actually said this on Meet the Press.  Worse yet, they will also then subsequently totally dismiss any evidence that these quotes actually do reflect his world view.

Take for instance a comment made in the Urban Legends article:  No, Barack Obama didn't really utter these asinine words. Nor does it say much for the intelligence of a certain segment of the American population that they believe he, or any serious candidate, actually did,

Any guesses who the "certain segment of the American population" are? I'll help you out...it is anyone who disagrees with the progressive world view.  What better way to discredit a group of people than to circulate an email that may contain a couple of grains of truth mixed with "asinine" claims in order to marginalize them?

The article goes on to say:  "As if to demonstrate that smear-mongering is a team sport, additional fabricated quotes have been appended to the message on its journey from inbox to inbox."

Did you catch that?  If you disagree with their world view you are part of a smear-mongering team! I really wish there was a fact checking site that was not presented from the progressive world view, but until I find one I'll have to rely on Snopes and Urban Legends.

To be clear, I do not believe we should be passing on information via emails that we have not checked out ourselves.  However, I really do believe there is something to the theory that our opposition may actually be initiating some of these emails.  As I said in my response, our attention is given to information that is not entirely true instead of the things we CAN verify as true.  We then, in essence waste our time passing on information that can be easily proven false AND give our opponents a chance to dismiss the underlying assumptions about President Obama's world view.  We then end up "throwing the baby out with the bath water;"discarding useful information because it is mixed with false information.

So, what about this email reflects the true world view of Barack Obama and the progressives?  How about the statement in the email attributed to him:  It is my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. For fun let's look at an article:  The Plot to Destroy the US Military:

"The USS Enterprise crackdown, like the firing of General McChrystal and the push to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," completely ignore military realities for political objectives.  A political military is also a useless military....And the US military is being shaped along the same lines into a political military overseen by men whose chief credential is that they share the same politics as the politicians whom they serve."

Isn't that comparable to "disarming America?"

The article goes on to say:

The left has hated the American military because it is a vehicle of national exceptionalism. A strong military gives the country a sense of independence and confidence that many European countries have lost.

The progressives in this country see American exceptionalism, independence and confidence as "oppression."And, yes, Barack Obama is a progressive, hence while he did not make the following statements on the record, they DO reflect his underlying view of the world:

There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression

When I become President I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. (For the record, I don't even fully understand what that sentence is supposed to mean, but, hey, progressives don't WANT you to fully understand so I guess it's an excellent example of progressive-speak...and it uses the word oppressive, so they get extra points for that!)

One of the statements in the email that jumped out at me was:

"Of course now I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside.

If you look closely at Barack Obama's history and his statements that are on record you see clearly that his world view is not unlike the view reflected in the email in question.   The title link above takes you to an article that gives you an excellent summary of President Obama's world view....and it is NOT one that is conducive to the protecting and defending of the United States Constitution.  President Obama, to paraphrase Van Jones, has set his hatred aside for the radical ends.

Finally, the email also includes the comment:  I will use my power to bring change to this nation and offer the people a new path. He has always made it clear that he is about "hope and change."  The question you MUST ask yourself, however, is:  What does that MEAN?

Additional recommended reading/viewing:

Glenn Beck's TV segment with Dinesh D'Souza, author of The Roots Of Obama's Rage

My previous Post:  Will We Allow Whoever "Tells the Best Story" to Win?

***************

Text of email:

Yes, he told us in advance what he planned to do.  Few were listening.  The following is a narrative...from Sunday, September 7, 2008 "Meet the Press."  The then Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.

He was asked by General Bill Ginn USAF (ret.) to explain why he does not follow protocol when the National Anthem was played.

The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171:  During the rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.  Or at the very least stand and face it.

Senator Obama replied:  "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides.  There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression...The anthem itself conveys a war-like message.  You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."  Obama continued:  "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose.  I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.'  If that were our anthem then I might salute it.  In my opinion we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our flag to better offer our enemies hope and love.  It is my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren.  If we, as a nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam where peace prevails.....perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments..."

When I become President I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts.  We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrepects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past."

"Of course now I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside.  I will use my power to bring change to this nation and offer the people a new path.  My wife and I look forward to becoming our country's First black Family.  Indeed change is about to overwhelm the United States of America.

Conspiracy Theories Update

Image via Wikipedia

Bylaws Disappear From the Muslim Brotherhood’s English Language Site

As a follow up to my Conspiracy Theories post I share the link above.  The link takes you to an article that has an archived version of the web page in question.  It is also worth noting that the Arabic language site still has the bylaws still posted.  Why the removal of the bylaws from the English Language site?  Are there attempts to conceal the real agenda of this group?  This article indicates that there are and provides sources and links for the facts presented.


And, as a reminder:  The truth has no agenda.

March 4th Update:  Media Matters doesn’t like the moderate Muslim voice of reason expressed by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser

March 8th Update: Coptic Christians killed by Egyptian military? An interesting development given the quote in the NYTimes by Sally Moore, a Coptic Christian:
“I like the Brotherhood most, and they like me,” said Sally Moore, a 32-year-old psychiatrist, a Coptic Christian and an avowed leftist and feminist of mixed Irish-Egyptian roots. “They always have a hidden agenda, we know, and you never know when power comes how they will behave. But they are very good with organizing, they are calling for a civil state just like everyone else, so let them have a political party just like everyone else — they will not win more than 10 percent, I think.”
A hidden agenda and “you never know when power comes how they will behave?”  I guess she was right about that.  I will pray for her safety.

Are You a Person "Worthy of Protection?"

A pro-abortion professor, Dr. Mark Mercer recently argued:
Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age.....
Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality. (emphases mine)

This reminds me of the mental gymnastics on display in a discussion between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Rick Santorum in 1999 on the subject of partial birth abortion.  Life begins not at conception, but when you "bring your baby home?"


Next consider Virginia Ironside who said she would "put a pillow over my child's face if it was "deeply suffering." The questions that begs to be asked is who gets to define "deeply suffering?"

Then, just for the heck of it, consider Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw who said that we all probably know at least a "half a dozen people who are no use in this world."  He suggests putting them in front of a committee and having them justify their existence.  And let's not forget his appeal that "chemists discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly...deadly, by all means, but humane, not cruel." I think a review of history will show us that Adolph Hitler took him up on that challenge.

Returning to the issue of abortion...Media coverage of the abortion issue uses subtle language choices to influence the debate; choosing who is a "foe" and who is a "supporter." If you believe in the sanctity of all life you are an "abortion foe."  If you subscribe to the belief in "abortion rights" you are a "supporter." Why would they do that?  Why are the people who want to save the lives of the unborn the "bad guys?"

To help us figure this out we need to remember that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it"

Maggie, as any good progressive would, supported the concept of Eugenics.  She had quite a few things to say about building that new race.

Mercer, Ironside, Shaw, Sanger...what they all have in common is a progressive world view and would probably refer to themselves as socialists or progressives.  Hillary Clinton describes herself as a progressive.  And what this means is that they all have a collectivist view of the world.  The individual is not important it is the collective that matters. I am not sure what kind of mental gymnastics one has to go through to avoid the realization that the collective is actually made up of a bunch of individuals, but I'm sure it is quite strenuous.

Ideas and world views have consequences.  If the world view is focused on the collective, it becomes increasingly easier to ignore the "individual" to the point that they become something "not human."  De-humanization leads to horrors.  History has shown us this.

How much has this progressive view infiltrated our society?  I would say quite a bit when we see in the news that Oklahoma House overwhelmingly passes fetal pain bill. We need a law to say it is wrong to inflict pain on a fetus?

Finally consider the Complete Lives System proposed by Ezekiel Emmanuel: Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions.  These "principles" include age-based prioritization of allocating medical care as well as a discussion of "promoting and rewarding social usefulness."  I think George and Maggie would approve. (And, for the record:  "Yes Virginia, there are death panels in the new health care law."  They have nicer names but the result is the same as far as I can determine.)

I am not ignoring the realities facing us.  I am merely asking you to consider the vast difference between people who have principles and values that say every life is precious and worthy of protection and those whose principles consider that only those deemed to be socially useful are worthy of protection.  Which group of people do YOU want making tough decisions?

Principle #4: The Family is Sacred

Van Jones could qualify as one of the biggest threats to our way of life in America today.  He has indeed dropped the radical pose for the radical ends.  In this video he tells a group of young adults that there is no basis for them to respect their elders anymore.  In his view they are like God with their vast stores of knowledge….no need to listen to or respect their parents or their elders.

This is quite reminiscent Al Gore’s comments to a group of middle school kids when he told them that they “know things their parents don’t know.”  This was said to a group of 12 year old kids!

The Progressive’s use of youth to promote their agenda is getting bolder with each passing day. Parents need to educate themselves with this agenda and they steps that are being taken to basically usurp parental rights on a global scale.

Consider the following:
NEA to UN: More Graphic Sex-Ed Needed
Perhaps you thought public school sex education programs are graphic enough as it is. Not so, according to a statement by the National Education Association’s (NEA) Diane Schneider to a U.N. panel last week. According to a report by C-FAM, Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia that “[o]ral sex, masturbation and orgasms need to be taught in education,” and that anyone opposing homosexuality is “stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.”

I want you to let that last part of that last sentence really sink in:  ..“stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.” In other words, religion and the family unit present obstacles to the furtherance of their agenda.  Schools need to combat your influence on your own children.  They see it as “indoctrination” and they want to see to it that you can’t raise your children with the values, morals, and principles that your belief system and world view prescribes.

I strongly suggest that you visit parentalrights.org and read their proposed amendment to the United States Constitution:
SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

If you think this amendment is not necessary please also consider one of the other issues discussed at this site:

High Court Finds Christian Parents Unsuitable
The United Kingdom’s High Court ruled yesterday that Christians with traditional ethical views of sexuality are not suitable to serve as foster or adoptive parents. The judge held that Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality are harmful to children and violate a child’s international human rights. (emphasis mine)

You may also want to familiarize yourself with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  This is not a conspiracy theory it is real and it is something every American parent needs to know about.

Principle #4 of the 9-12 Project states:

1. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
   Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson

I say AMEN to that!


UPDATE March 10th:  Christian parents jailed in Germany for objecting to sexuality curriculum.

Related articles

• NEA to UN: "Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education" (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
• "Educate, collaborate, AGITATE!": Alinsky's teacher corps (michellemalkin.com)
• Sex education is about a lot more than the mechanics (guardian.co.uk)

(NOTE:  In response to the third article link above I refer you to the information I presented in an earlier post:  Textbooks, Truth, and World View.  The information on Mary Calderone near the end of the post will be especially enlightening.

Conspiracy Theories?

Have you heard the latest Glenn Beck conspiracy theory? This link will take you to an article discussing the statements made by Glenn Beck on his radio and television programs.  He stated:

Groups from the hardcore socialist and communist left and extreme Islamists will work together because of the common enemy, Israel.

Groups from the hardcore socialist and communist left and extreme Islamists will work together because of the common enemy, Capitalism and the Western way of life.

Groups from the hardcore socialist and communist left and extreme Islamists will work together to overturn relative stability because in the status quo, they are ostracized from power and the mainstream in most of the world.

The New York Times (2/10/11) gave Glenn a Birthday present by outlining the “unusual bonds” formed during the Egyptian revolt.  They said, in part: “In the process many have formed some unusual bonds that reflect the singularly non-ideological character of the Egyptian youth revolt, which encompasses liberals, socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The assumption that most people seemed to make while discussing the Egyptian revolt was that it was a “pro-Democracy” movement.  The people just want the rule of dictator Hosni Mubarak brought to an end and have more freedom.  Hosni Mubarak is indeed a monster if reports of his actions are accurate (and I believe that they probably are) but what facts do we have to make the assumption that the end game of the demonstrations is Democracy and Freedom?

Do we know who organized the demonstrations?  They were obviously well planned and coordinated.  The uprising did not seem “spontaneous” to me.  To determine what the goals of the demonstrators one has to look at who was involved in organizing the uprising.  Is the Muslim Brotherhood in search of a Democracy or are they interested interested in forming an Islamic State? I guess to assess their goals you would have to look closely at their writings, statements, and videos to develop a clear picture of their world view; how it views itself and defines its mission.  Jihad is the Way is the last of a five volume work The Laws of Da’wa by Mustafa Mashhur, who headed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt from 1996-2002.  They detail the Brotherhood’s objectives of advancing the global conquest of Islam and reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate, the public and private duties of jihad and the struggle Muslims must wage against Israel. That doesn’t sound like Democracy to me.  (Please go to the link Jihad is the Way…above for a more complete translation.)  Many, including  our Director of National Intelligence, have commented on the Muslim Brotherhood, calling them “moderate,” “peaceful,” and “democratic” organization. 

Media personalities have stated that the Muslim Brotherhood “have matured politically.“  Former President Jimmy Carter says, “We have nothing to fear from the Muslim Brotherhood.” Secretary of State Clinton cautiously welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood into the discussions.  Her stated goal, however, was a peaceful transition and to facilitate “free and fair elections.”  From what I read about the Muslim Brotherhood I don’t find that free and fair elections is one of their stated goals.
How about the radical left?  The Workers World Party discusses the Egyptian revolution via a powerpoint presentation that can be found at the New Zeal blog site. Please take the time to view the two video’s at this site.  Worker’s World Party: Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World Unite…..sounds like a radical leftist slogan to me.  Do the people in these videos make valid points about the atrocities of Mubarak and Suleimam?  There seems to be evidence that they do.  Did the US participate in Extraordinary Rendition, whereby individuals were transferred to other nations?  Yes. Did the US knowingly transfer terror suspects to nations that practice torture?  In 2006, according to Condolezza Rice, then Secretary of State, the US does not transfer people to places where it is known they will be tortured. If the US has made mistakes we will have to face that, but more to the point of this post, the people in these videos make it pretty clear that “US Imperialism,” “Capitalism,”  and “Israel” are targets labeled for destruction.  This may sound familiar to you at this point…oh, yeah, it’s that crazy conspiracy theory.

So how do we evaluate the outcomes of this “cry for Democracy” in Egypt?  There is a great article by Charles Krauthammer titled From Freedom Agenda to Freedom Doctrine. In it he states what the US needs: “We need a foreign policy that not only supports freedom in the abstract but is guided by long-range practical principles to achieve it.”
Evaluation also depends of the “competition of ideas” as stated recently by Donald Rumsfeld:  “The thing that was on the backside of that however is that there’s something about our country that we’re reluctant to engage in a competition of ideas in government. We are up against a vicious enemy, the radical Islamists are there, they intend to try to create a caliphate in this world and fundamentally alter the nature of nation states, and we’re reluctant to engage in the competition of ideas and point out what they really are and how vicious they are. This current administration is even afraid to say the word Islamist. And we need to fight. We need to be willing to say what it is and be willing to tackle it.”

One of the issues raised by Glenn Beck in his commentary on the revolution in Egypt was that the endgame for the radical Islamists was the establishment of a global Caliphate.  I’ll let you do your own research on the folks that decried this as “crazy” and “fear mongering.” It won’t be difficult to find.  You may, however, wish to visit khilafah.com. Khilafah is the Arabic word for Caliphate.  You may be particularly interested in reading their CIA’s 20/20 Vision for the Future Caliphate is Short-Sighted.

In which it states:
“The attachment to individualism has led the West to grossly underestimate the penetration of Islamic thoughts and sentiments in the Muslim countries, and also to miscalculate the wide spread support for the re-establishment of the Caliphate.  Another point of contention in the report is the claim that the emergence of the Caliphate will not cause the regimes in Muslim countries to collapse one after the other – the domino effect.”

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and a few more are experiencing demonstrations.  Dominoes?  You might say that. Are they in search of Democracy and freedom?  Only time will tell, however, we might want to keep these questions in mind:

Are there positive/negative changes in the way Egypt and other countries deal with US?

Are there positive/negative changes in the way Egypt and other countries deal with Israel?

Do we see Egyptian and other politicians expressing extreme Islamic rhetoric?

Do we see human rights violations increase or decrease?

Is the government increasing or decreasing the rights of women?

Is the government increasing or decreasing the rights of religious minorities?

In a partial answer to these questions it will be important for you to understand Google executive, Wael Ghonim’s role in the uprising and his treatment when the ousting of Mubarak was achieved. He was not permitted to speak.  Who spoke?  Yusuf al Qaradawi, the influential Muslim cleric that has been called “the voice of the Muslim Brotherhood.”  In the past this individual has praised Hitler’s treatment of the Jews.  He has also stated that Islam will once again conquer Europe. There are quite a few videos at Youtube on Qaradawi, some of them ostensibly demonstrating “Islamic tolerance” for others who hold different religious beliefs.  My question is this: “How do you dismiss his statements praising Hitler and:
“I’d like to say that the only thing I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Allah’s mercy and blessings upon you.”) 

Tell me….how do you dismiss so much evidence that some of these people seek the destruction of Israel and the US and the establishment of a global Caliphate and instead call them secular, moderate, and peaceful.  HOW?


Finally it is of great importance that you understand that our Founders rejected a direct Democracy because it was seen as leading to mob rule; the best organized group gets to oppress the weaker groups.  So the biggest and best organized “mob” gets to rule.  Our Founders selected a Constitutional Republic for many reasons.  One of those was their knowledge of what a direct Democracy can bring.  Freedom from dictators is a worthy goal.  The question is what will replace those dictatorships?

Recommended reading:
Why We Cannot Rule Out an Egyptian Reign of Terror (foreignpolicy.com)

Unions Aligned with Egypt Protesters? (glennbeck.com)

Communist Party of Australia on Egyptian Revolution: Socialistic not Islamic (newzeal.blogspot.com)

Shariah: The Threat to America (The American Thinker); which includes a link to Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy’s website where you can get a copy of the full report referenced in the article. Think Progress presents Frank Gaffney’s claims as “Radical Right Wing Agenda” but offers no evidence that I could find demonstrating that the Muslim Brotherhood is other than Frank Gaffney presents.

David Horowitz speaks at CPAC This is a video of David Horowitz’s keynote address at this year’s CPAC, speaking about the Muslim Brotherhood and its connections and influence in the U.S.

Communist Leader on the Tunisian Revolution (newzeal.blogspot.com)
The Red Green Alliance (Israel Matzav)

Egypt Exposes Obama Doctrine Happy Talk (The Heritage Foundation)

Soros, The Youth, High Tech, and the Fundamental Change that is Revolution (newzeal.blogspot.com)

The Real Roots of Political Islam (newzeal.blogspot.com)

Troubling indications emerging out of Egypt (renewamerica.com)

Think Soros has Nothing to do With Egypt? (Enemy of the State)

Alan West on how to Defeat Radical Islam (newzeal.blogspot.com)

Rise of Islam Conference in Illinois (2009) (marbiesblog@wordpress.com)

American Islamic Forum for Democracy (Dr. Zhudi Jasser a moderate Muslim speaks out)

Muslim Scholar Says Islam will Conquer Europe and the World