Obama Beware the Muslim Brotherhood

Beware the Muslim Brotherhood

It might eventually take over a post-revolution Egypt

 

Sunday, February 13, 2011

By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

What will happen next in Egypt? We don't know. But the consequences -- for good or ill -- will be enormous.
Egypt is the most important nation in the Arab world. It's population (80.5 million) is more than that of Iraq (29.7 million), Saudi Arabia (25.7 million), and Syria (22.1 million) combined.

If Egypt becomes a stable, Western-style democracy, it will transform the region.

But if Egypt becomes an "Islamic republic," as Iran did after its revolution in 1979, war and depression are likely.
So it's important to get the transition right.
We're off to a rocky start. The protests caught the Obama administration by surprise, and it's been behind the power curve ever since.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigned Friday -- a day after he said he wouldn't -- and turned power over to the military. This is probably the best result possible under the circumstances.

It happened in spite of the Obama administration's ever-shifting policy. In his rambling televised address Thursday night, Mr. Mubarak stuck a rhetorical finger in the president's eye. "I would never permit ... any sort of intervention that would come from outside," he said.
"This was a direct slap at Obama," said Middle East expert Barry Rubin. "He basically said: 'I am an Arab warrior, not a community organizer.' "

To give the impression they're on top of things, President Obama and his aides have spoken out frequently. But their many shifts in position have alienated both supporters of the regime and those protesting it.

"The official U.S. position is that Mubarak needs to go immediately, he needs to stay indefinitely, he needs to stay for a bit and then go, he needs to stay for a bit longer and then go sooner rather than later, unless he decides to stay until September," summarized humorist Mark Steyn.
"The improvisational -- critics say closer to schizophrenic -- nature of U.S. diplomacy during the crisis leaves the administration in the unwelcome position of having to make amends with whichever side emerges from the Egyptian tumult as the governing power," wrote Ben Smith in the Webzine Politico.

Our news media have been of little help in understanding what's going on. The networks sent their big names to Cairo though none spoke Arabic, knew the culture or knew the players.

"Their being in Cairo was adding zero news value other than making the plight of Western reporters the focal point of the story, which was not the point of their being in Cairo in the first place," said Rich Galen, who had been press secretary for House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Few journalists have mentioned the protests were sparked by a doubling of food prices in the last year. But the greatest disservice they have done is to misrepresent the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood.
When journalists tout the brotherhood's "moderation" because it has publicly eschewed violence, they fail to mention that its goals are similar to al-Qaida's; that it grew to prominence because of its alliance with Adolf Hitler and that -- according to Kuwait's education minister -- it is the father of all current terror groups in the Middle East.

Confusion about the Muslim Brotherhood is not limited to journalists. In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee Thursday, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, described the brotherhood as "largely secular."
"This is one of the most reckless and irresponsible statements ever made publicly by an American official at a critical and delicate moment," said John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine.

Obama administration cluelessness about the brotherhood is dangerously reminiscent of Carter administration policy toward Iran in 1979. President Jimmy Carter's U.N. ambassador, Andrew Young, once described the Ayatollah Khomeini as "some kind of saint."

The Muslim brothers are bad guys. But they seem to have been as surprised by the protests -- which have been dominated by young people who seem genuinely interested in freedom and democracy -- as the Obama administration was.

Mr. Obama should be providing the democratic elements among the protesters with more than lip service. But it's evident his administration has few contacts among them, and they have little regard for him.

So maybe it's good that few in Egypt are paying much attention to what Mr. Obama has to say.

Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412 263-1476).

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11044/1124812-373.stm#ixzz1Dotx5H89

Barack Hussein Obama please go back to school

The photos say it all.

Self-explanatory: Just look at the paraphernalia that his "aides" have to carry into a school in order for him to speak to school kids. Unbelievable!

These 2 pictures make a statement!!

Here is what Obama needs set up to talk to a few school children.
Not much room for kids. Still needs to have the Teleprompters.
The secret service guy in back keeps eyes out for any terrorist-type-8-year-olds with tea partying parents.
His I.Q. gives him away!!!

Here is what the last guy needed.
(and he's called the dumb guy)


I want my country back.
Remember in November.

The US Constitution/Elena Kagan

Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Democrats are lauding praise on the Elena Kagan, occasionally in the form of a question while Republicans are asking questions for which no answers are really expected. And thus it has been since Robert Bork was sent packing by such Constitutional giants as Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden.

Today, rather than have Bork’s clarity of opinion we have Elena Kagan explaining to Senator Tom Coburn “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution” during a discussion about fundamental “unalienable Rights” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

In that one brief statement Elena Kagan has shown the light on exactly what is wrong with the left and the progressives: They fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between the Constitution and the citizens. The Constitution is not the source of our rights. Our rights preceded the Constitution… despite the fact that most governments did not respect them.

The US Constitution fundamentally does two things. First it gives the three branches of government certain powers as primarily set forth in Articles I, II & III. The second thing it does, and this is largely rooted in the Bill of Rights, is constrain the government in terms of stating what it cannot do to citizens. The Bill of Rights does not confer rights on the citizenry; rather it specifies various rights the citizens have that the government may not encroach upon. Technically, the 6th and 7th Amendments do indeed confer upon citizens a number of rights: speedy trial, trial by jury etc., but these rights are specific in that they are protecting the citizens from government action rather than natural rights such as life, liberty, speech, etc.

Many years ago I heard a comparison between the United States and Mexico as thus: In the United States you have the right to do anything you want unless there is a law against it, while in Mexico you don’t have the right to do anything unless the government says it’s OK. Although from anecdotal evidence it sounds right, in reality I don’t know for certain that the Mexican element of the above statement is true. I do however know that the American part is, or at least was until the progressive cancer started to infect the American body politic early in the 20th Century.

In forming a government and writing our Constitution, the Founding Fathers understood that the citizens were giving to the federal government certain limited powers and giving up similarly limited rights specifically because there are things which are better performed by a federal government than individuals or states – national defense, coin money, patents, etc. Indeed the founding fathers were explicit about both of those factors, enshrining the primacy of individual rights in the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” and in the 10th Amendment demonstrating clearly that the federal government was not intended to be the regulatory leviathan that it has become: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

To recognize how central these limits were to the founding fathers and the country, one has to know that without the limits imposed by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would never have been ratified and the United States would never have come into being as we know it.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, and often called the Father of the Bill of Rights, fought vociferously for the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was against including such a bill for two primary reasons. First, he felt that the enumeration of some rights in the document might imply the absence of others, and second, it was his contention that such rights did not need enumeration or protection because the government had not been given the power to usurp them.

Madison won and the Constitution emerged from the Convention without Mason’s protections. So passionate was Mason about the need for those protections that he left the Convention and fought against the Constitution’s ratification in the Virginia legislature, sacrificing his lifelong friendship with his neighbor George Washington in the process.

On January 9th 1788 the Connecticut legislature ratified the Constitution by a vote of 128 to 40, the fourth state to do so out of the nine necessary for it (the Constitution) to take effect. It was then that the process hit a brick wall of Anti-Federalist opposition in Massachusetts. That opposition took the form of Sam Adams and John Hancock, who thought the Constitution vested too much power in the hands of the central government. Eventually the pair negotiated what became known as the Massachusetts Compromise, an agreement which allowed the state to ratify the Constitution with the explicit condition that the first order of business for Congress was to pass a bill of rights. If Congress failed to do so, the state’s ratification was revoked. Following Massachusetts, four of the next five states to ratify the Constitution incorporated that same language. As such, without the explicit promise of the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights the Constitution would never have passed.

Which brings us back full circle to Elena Kagan. Later in her testimony she states that “I’m not saying I do not believe there are rights preexisting the Constitution and the laws, but my job as a Justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.” That’s the same kind of equivocating we heard when Senator Hatch asked if she had written a document he was holding in his hand: “The document is certainly in my handwriting.” In the above statement Kagan specifically avoids saying she believes “unalienable Rights” exist.

The Founding Fathers never intended for the Constitution to be the source of citizen’s rights. Rather, one of its original, specific purposes was to protect those “unalienable Rights” from an over reaching, tyrannical government. If Elena Kagan doesn’t have an understanding about that most basic element of the Constitution, how is she qualified to determine whether or not something is Constitutional in the first place?

President Obama a Muslim?

“Obama a Muslim?"

Rumors Gain Steam Defying Facts"

"President Obama is a Muslim."

"He's not an American citizen." "He wasn't even born here."

"None of this is true?"

But to surprising levels, it is believed.”

Says who? What Facts? Show me the proof.

Bill “Dog in heat” Clinton did not have ….. with that …...

John “Barber Shop” Edwards was not the father of the love child.

None of that was true until the stained dress appeared and the Enquiror trapped Johnny in the mens room.

If you believe Chairman Obama give Bernie Madoff a call as he needs more clients.

Blame it on the media, or on human nature. All presidents deal with image problems — that they're too weak or too belligerent, too far left or far right. But Obama also faces questions over documented facts, in part because some people identify more with the rumormongers than the debunkers.

"Trust and distrust — that explains almost all of it," says Nicholas DiFonzo, professor of psychology at the Rochester Institute of Technology and an expert on rumor and gossip research. "We are in such a highly polarized political environment. Our country is sorting itself into more closely knit, opposing factions each year" — factions, DiFonzo suggests, that in turn become "echo chambers" for factoids that aren't fact at all.

Nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, said they think Obama is Muslim, up from the 11 percent who said so in March 2009, according to a poll released Thursday. The proportion who correctly say he is a Christian is just 34 percent, down from 48 percent in March of last year.

The White House even felt compelled to respond with a terse knockdown from spokesman Bill Burton: "The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day."

Obama is the Christian son of a Kenyan Muslim father and a Kansas mother. Born in Hawaii, he lived from ages 6 to 10 in predominantly Muslim Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim to many.

Confusion about Obama's religion was common, and sometimes encouraged, during the 2008 campaign. An Associated Press photograph that circulated on the Internet, and was posted on The Drudge Report, showed Obama dressed in traditional local garments — a white turban and a wraparound white robe — during a visit to Kenya in 2006. Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton may have contributed through her response to a question, during a "60 Minutes" interview, about whether he was a Muslim. "There's nothing to base that on," she said. "As far as I know."

Others have helped keep rumors about Obama's religion and birth alive. Conservative commentators including radio talk show host Michael Savage have repeated debunked claims that Obama attended a radical Muslim madrassa in Indonesia. Rush Limbaugh has facetiously referred to "Imam Obama" in recent days, and last year praised a woman who at a Delaware town hall meeting questioned Obama's citizenship. Lou Dobbs gave significant air time to such "birther" claims on CNN — despite his own insistence that he believed Obama was born in the U.S.

The new survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and its affiliated Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is based on interviews conducted before the controversy over whether Muslims should be permitted to construct a mosque near the World Trade Center site. Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center there, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.

We have never been without misperceptions, but they are speeded and multiplied in the Internet age. Last month, right-wing bloggers — citing unnamed sources within the Laredo Police Department in Texas — reported that the Mexican drug cartel Zetas had captured two Laredo ranches. The story was picked up by author-pundit Michelle Malkin and other conservatives.

Inquiries from local media and the liberal Web site Talking Points Memo turned up different news: The raids never happened.

"The Internet has made it worse," says Lori Robertson, managing editor of the website FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan project run under the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "Any of these rumors are more rampant, and there's more stuff about them — blogs writing about conspiracy theories. People are exposed to it more."

Robertson says her organization has been asked hundreds of times about Obama's religion, even after FactCheck published an explanatory article in early 2008 called "Sliming Obama." It focused on the chain e-mail that many believe helped spread the lie.

Despite what the e-mail claimed, FactCheck.org has noted that Obama was sworn into office as a U.S. senator using the Bible instead of the Quran; a photograph was posted to prove it. FactCheck also posted videos of Obama reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the Senate, in an attempt to counter claims that he refused.

Still, the questions about Obama's faith didn't stop.

"Did Obama order creation of a postage stamp to honor a Muslim holiday?" FactCheck.org's answer: "The first class stamp honoring Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha was first issued eight years ago. Obama has followed Bush's practice of reaching out to Muslims on Ramadan."

Superstitions and myths are timeless and universal, and so are the people who exploit them, whether Holocaust deniers, race supremacists or conspiracy theorists.

Misinformation in the mass media age was captured by the author-columnist Walter Lippman in his classic "Public Opinion," published in 1922. Finding that world events were driven by a tiny minority manipulating the rest, Lippman noted "the comparatively meager time available in each day for paying attention to public affairs, the distortion arising because events have to be compressed into very short messages, the difficulty of making a small vocabulary express a complicated world."

The problem wasn't only with the media, but with the public.

"People, he wrote, "live in the same world, but think and feel in different ones." Lippman believed many "suffer from anemia, from lack of appetite and curiosity for the human scene."

And so millions have thought that the country was overrun with communists, that John F. Kennedy was taking orders from the pope, that AIDS spreads through casual contact, that Saddam Hussein or even the George W. Bush administration helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks. In the 1990s, when the government was running a surplus under the Clinton administration, a poll showed substantial numbers of people thought it was running a deficit.

DiFonzo was stunned when he heard one of those rumors stated as fact in his upper-level social psychology class last year. A student raised her hand and insisted, "But George Bush was behind the bombings of Sept. 11."

"She was serious," DiFonzo said, adding that he believes she accepted the rumor because other people in her life gave her the impression that it was plausible.

"This isn't a partisan thing," he said. "It's not a characteristic of Democrats or of Republicans. It's a human characteristic. It's a place that we happen to be at in our culture today. What seems outlandish is often based on what we think may be plausible."

President: BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF A CATHLOC NUN.

Carlos A. Martinelly Montano, a multiple DUI offender, has been charge with killing a nun and injuring two more in a drunk driving accident Sunday morning. (Provided by Prince William County Police)

"While grieving and dealing with the death and severe injuries of our sisters, we would like to refocus attention on the consequences of drinking and driving, and on Christ's command to forgive," the community's Aug. 3 message said.

"The young driver of the other car will experience the consequences of his decisions through our justice system," it added. "We sincerely hope this heartbreak will help him evaluate his decisions and give him motivation to make life-changing choices."

After the accident, Sister Denise, who had been asleep in the back seat, was pronounced dead at the scene. Sisters Charlotte and Connie were airlifted to Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, where they remained in critical condition Aug. 4.

The injuries to Sisters Charlotte and Connie were severe, according to school officials. Sister Charlotte lost some of her intestine and has internal bleeding.

Sister Connie, who was driving the car, has a fractured leg, ankle and wrist. Part of her thumb was amputated, and she suffered organ injuries and internal bleeding.

Father Charles W. Merkle III, Catholic chaplain for Inova Fairfax Hospital, was paged at the hospital when the sisters arrived. He alerted Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde, who said he went to be with the nuns immediately after the accident.

"Our faith gives us the knowledge that the Lord is with us in all things, even in this profound sorrow," Bishop Loverde said in a statement Aug. 2. "This devastating event is a reminder that we are pilgrims on this earthly journey. In remembering the many ways they have supported the faithful of the Diocese of Arlington, I pledge to the sisters that our entire diocesan family is likewise lifting them to the Lord in prayerful support."

The Virginia man suspected in a drunken-driving crash that killed a Catholic nun in Prince William County this weekend is an illegal immigrant and repeat offender who was awaiting deportation and whom federal immigration authorities had released pending further proceedings, police said Monday.

Carlos Montano, a county resident, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and drunken driving. Mr. Montano had been arrested two other times on drunken-driving charges, and on at least one of those occasions county police reported him to federal authorities.

"We have determined that he is in the country illegally. He has been arrested by Prince William County Police in the past, said police spokesman Jonathan Perok.

He said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was notified at the time of one of those arrests. "At the time of this incident, the accident yesterday, he was in the deportation process and was out on his recognizance for court proceedings."

The crash at around 8:30 Sunday morning killed Sister Denise Mosier and injured two other nuns as they were driving to a retreat at the Benedictine Monastery in Bristow, Va. The two injured nuns were in critical but stable condition late Monday, according to St. Gertrude High School in Richmond run by the Benedictine Sisters of Virginia.

Mr. Montano was being treated for injuries he received in the crash and was expected to be released from the hospital into police custody as early as Monday evening.

Messages left with ICE and the Homeland Security Department were not returned, but the incident raises questions about the agency's policy of detaining only some illegal immigrants awaiting deportation.

"I have been saying for months now that this administration's new policy of concentrating almost solely on 'criminal aliens,' and not enforcing the laws by deporting known illegal aliens, would have devastating consequences. Now, we see the tragic results this 'virtual amnesty' policy of the Obama administration has caused," said Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee.

"A life could have been saved had ICE just simply done their job to begin with," Mr. Rogers said. "By implementing selective amnesty one case at a time, the U.S. government is literally putting lives at risk."

The Obama administration has issued a policy of putting a higher priority on convicted criminals and suspected terrorists.

In a June 30 memo, John T. Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for ICE, said agents should focus their capture and deportation efforts on illegal immigrants who were suspected of terrorism, had been convicted of violent crimes or were repeat offenders, gang members or "aliens who otherwise pose a serious risk to public safety." He did not define what rose to the level of serious risk.

The latest ICE statistics show that the agency has stepped up deportations of criminals, but has slowed deportation of other illegal immigrants. The agency also is holding fewer illegal immigrants at any one time than it did last year, according to the statistics.

Critics have long demanded that ICE increase its bed capacity. In the years after the Sept. 11 attacks, some proposals called for a capacity increase to 60,000 beds to try to keep illegal immigrants off the streets while awaiting deportation. The president and Congress, however, never funded that request, and so far in fiscal 2010 ICE is holding 30,349 people on an average day.

The incident comes at a thorny time for the Obama administration and the immigration issue.

Early last week, a judge halted key parts of Arizona's new immigration law, delivering a partial victory to the Justice Department, which had argued that the law intruded on federal jurisdiction.

But late last week, a draft memo obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, showed that the administration has pondered ways to work around Congress and use its authority to extend legal status to many illegal immigrants. The memo called one of the methods it explored "a non-legislative version of 'amnesty.' "

In the days since, Republicans have demanded that the administration rule out an end run around Congress.

Administration officials have said they won't use the powers to offer blanket legal status.

Napolitano seeks review of illegal immigrant's release

Man charged with manslaughter

"This administration believes that the only way to deal with immigration is to do it comprehensively, to do it through Congress with Democrats and Republicans working together," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told Fox News in an interview last week after the memo surfaced.The Virginia man suspected in a drunken-driving crash that killed a Catholic nun in Prince William County this weekend is an illegal immigrant and repeat offender who was awaiting deportation and who federal immigration authorities had released pending further proceedings, police said Monday.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has demanded a review of why federal immigration authorities released an illegal immigrant after a drunken-driving arrest in 2008 and who now has been charged with manslaughter stemming for a suspected drunken-driving crash that killed a Catholic nun this weekend.

The suspect, Carlos Montano, was first picked up by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in October 2008 after Prince William County police arrested him and accused him of drunken driving, but ICE said he was released on his own recognizance and is still awaiting final deportation proceedings.

"Secretary Napolitano has ordered an immediate review into the circumstances leading to this individual being released in 2008," said Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for Miss Napolitano, adding that the department "regrets the tragic loss of life in Prince William County."

Meanwhile, the Benedictine Sisters of Virginia, the slain nun's order, issued a statement Tuesday decrying the focus on Mr. Montano's immigration status.

"The Benedictine Sisters are dismayed and saddened that this tragedy has been politicized and become an apparent forum for the illegal immigration agenda," the order said. "While grieving and dealing with the death and severe injuries of our sisters, we would like to re-focus attention on the consequences of drinking and driving, and on Christ's command to forgive."

Sister Denise Mosier was sleeping in the back seat of a car Sunday morning when it was struck by a vehicle driven by Mr. Montano. She was killed and the two other nuns riding with her were critically injured.

Police said they had twice arrested Mr. Montano for drunken driving and on one of those arrests turned him over to ICE. An ICE spokeswoman said he was given a Notice to Appear, was released on his own recognizance and has checked in every time the agency requested.

But the fact that the agency, under both President George W. Bush and President Obama, did not detain him and never pushed to have deportation proceedings sped up has angered lawmakers.

"As the facts surrounding this tragic case continue to come to light, I think it demonstrates the need for ICE to be more efficient and effective in their deportation duties," said Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, the ranking Republican on the homeland security appropriations subcommittee. "This appalling case illustrates why deferred action doesn't work. It underscores why immigration enforcement matters and why this administration's policy of selective amnesty is flawed and potentially dangerous."

Mr. Chandler defended the administration's record, saying under Mr. Obama they have focused "on identifying and removing criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety." He said they have deported a record number of criminal aliens.

Statistics released last week by ICE show the administration has stepped up removals of illegal immigrants with criminal records, but has slowed deportation of other illegal immigrants.

And ICE is detaining fewer illegal immigrants on an average day than the agency did a year ago, the statistics show.

Part of the problem is the government has not lived up to its promise after the Sept. 11 attacks to build more detention space.

In 2004, the agency had about 20,000 detention beds, but the intelligence overhaul bill passed late that year called for 8,000 more beds a year for five years, meaning the total should have reached 60,000 beds in 2010. But on any given day this year, ICE is detaining only slightly more than 30,000 illegal immigrants.

Drunken-driving arrests don't necessarily rise to the level of seriousness needed for the immigration authorities to detain someone or expedite deportation.

Mr. Montano now faces charges of involuntary manslaughter and a third drunk-driving arrest in a five-year period. He was still being treated at a hospital Tuesday afternoon.

The two surviving nuns were still in critical condition Tuesday, according to their order.

We The People