bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index bumrejects.myfreeforum.org
Open discussion on just about any topic
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The United States and Egypt
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> In the News National and International
View previous topic :: View next topic  

How is 0bama handling the Egyptian Crisis?
Very well
20%
 20%  [ 1 ]
Well
20%
 20%  [ 1 ]
Ok
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Not so well
20%
 20%  [ 1 ]
Poorly
40%
 40%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 5

Author Message
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:02 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Breitbart.com wrote:
STATE DEPT REVERSES DENIAL OF HIRING BRITISH SECURITY FIRM IN BENGHAZI

In her daily press briefing on Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland admitted that she provided false information Friday about the State Department's hiring of private security firms for the American mission in Benghazi attacked on September 11th:

QUESTION: You also said there was no contract with a private security firm in Libya, and yet apparently some British security guards were hired. Is that your way of saying you didn’t contract with a firm but you did hire individual security guards?

MS. NULAND: Thank you for that, because there was an error in what I said. The external security, external armed security, as we have been saying, outside of the perimeter, was fully handled by the Libyan side. There was no contract – contracting out of that. There was a group called Blue Mountain Group, which is a private security company with permits to operate in Libya. They were hired to provide local Libyan guards who operated inside the gate doing things like operating the security access equipment, screening the cars, that kind of thing.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, they were contracted by the U.S. State Department or another agency – Blue Mountain?

MS. NULAND: They were contracted by the Department.

QUESTION: And Blue Mountain is a British company?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to let them self-identify on that front. But the people who were hired were Libyans.
     [end excerpt of Q & A]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peac...m-to-Provide-Security-At-Benghazi


The rest of the briefing Q & A, picking up where Breitbart ended his excerpt:

QUESTION: Do you know if any of these Blue Mountain Group guards were killed or injured?
MS. NULAND: I do not. I don't have any information one way or the other on that.

QUESTION: Do you know how many there were?
MS. NULAND: I don't. I don't think we would probably talk about the number. But again, you're talking about the guys who run things like the metal detectors and that kind of thing, not the external security with the weapons.

QUESTION: Right. No, I understand. I'm concerned because we were told not once, not twice, numerous times over, that there were no security contractors involved in --
MS. NULAND: Well, that was the information I had, and it turned out not to be correct.

QUESTION: No, I understand. But I - but now my concern is that there is - that there may be other information that we were given before that is incorrect and that you are just - or that the Administration is just going to let stand out there incorrect because of this - the guise of the FBI investigation. And I think it's inappropriate and irresponsible if there - if you are aware of information that was given to us that is incorrect to let it stand out there as being incorrect. And so I just want to make sure that when you say that you're not aware, are you absolutely sure that right now, to the best of your knowledge, nothing else that was told to us on Wednesday or whenever that background call was, there's nothing else in that call that was incorrect? Or are you - or is there stuff that's incorrect and you're just not going to tell us what it is because of the investigation?
MS. NULAND: Here's what I'm going to say to you: We spoke in those initial days to our initial assessment, as did Ambassador Rice. Any further information that we are, as a government, unearthing now is going to go into the FBI investigation, and they will make a complete report when they are finished. They are not going to be giving it to me and therefore I am not going to be privy to it to give it to you. I'm not even sure they're going to give it to this Department until they're completed.
So I know that is frustrating, but I have made a personal pledge to you, Matt, that if I find errors in what I have said that I can share with you and fix, I will, as I did today.

QUESTION: Okay. So that - this was one.
MS. NULAND: This was one.

QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Can you give us some context on why that happened? I mean, is it very unusual? Is this the only instance where a firm like this is contracted who then subcontract to local security guards?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is that this particular function, the hiring of local guards to do things like operate the access equipment, screen cars, et cetera, is not uncommon to use a contractor to find the best local people for that function.

QUESTION: And is this a company that you have worked with in the past or are still currently working with, or was this the first time that you worked with them?
MS. NULAND: They are still under contract pending a full assessment of the security situation is what I have here. Whether we've worked with them elsewhere, I think the issue in this particular case was that they had Libyan permits to do this kind of hiring.
So - Said.

QUESTION: And you have said that Libyans lost their lives in this attack. Were members of the security firm - were victims members of the security firm?
MS. NULAND: I do not know the answer. I think that will also come forward in the investigation
.

QUESTION: Can I just ask --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I'm not begrudging the fact that you gave - that you told us this, but why - what's different about this bit of information than something about the timeline? How is this okay to correct --
MS. NULAND: Because I had --
QUESTION: -- and other things might not be.
MS. NULAND: I had inaccurate information, which I gave to you, which has since been corrected. So there were people who saw the transcript who were not involved in the original assembling of information for me who came forward and said, no, we need to fix this. And so we have.

QUESTION: All right. And just to the best of your knowledge at this moment, there is nothing else that needs to be corrected?
MS. NULAND: There is not to my knowledge. But again, my knowledge is not going to be complete until there's an investigation
.

QUESTION: Yesterday, you said the investigation would be joint between both the Libyans and the United States. Is it --
MS. NULAND: I think I didn't quite say that, Dana. What I said --

QUESTION: You said --
MS. NULAND: What I said was that the Libyans have an investigation. We also have an open FBI investigation, and they are going to collaborate with each other. And we now have FBI in Libya starting that process.

QUESTION: And so, as the Libyans are - they've been saying a lot of things and giving, sort of, frequent updates on what they view as their investigation. Are we going to hear anything from here about that or --
MS. NULAND: You're not going to hear anything from here unless my guidance changes. Whether you're going to hear anything from the FBI, I think that's their decision. We - when we open a criminal investigation in the United States, generally, we don't brief out in pieces until the investigation is complete so we don't prejudice the outcome. I have to respect their process, obviously.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that. In instances like this where you have the FBI investigating in a foreign country, does the FBI operate as a completely independent entity? Or do they operate sort of under State Department rules and regulations?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, they come like any visiting interagency team operating with the support of the embassy platform. They will work themselves with the Libyans, but they'll obviously seek the Embassy's political support, guidance, et cetera, to the extent that they need it, and we'll hear back here in Washington if they need any further support from us.

QUESTION: And so they don't - for instance, they don't sort of become temporary embassy personnel or anything like that?
MS. NULAND: Well, they are what we call TDY-ers in-country -- temporary duty personnel in-county of the U.S. Government if that makes sense. Generally, they're expected to obviously abide by the same rules of the nation and respect for our protocols as other agencies.

QUESTION: And you mentioned that they do have staff now in Libya --
MS. NULAND: That's my --
QUESTION: -- (inaudible) that's in Benghazi. Do you know when they arrived there?
MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to them for more details. My understanding is that they have now -- they are now there.

QUESTION: Can you --
QUESTION: Just the last one on this, had the question not been asked, how were you going to relate this correction to us?
MS. NULAND: I was going to talk to you about it afterwards on background.
QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Is there a commitment from the U.S. Administration that this - the findings of this investigation will be made public?
MS. NULAND: I don't know the answer to that. I think we need to do the investigation first. Clearly, there's going to be a lot of interest, but I think we're - it's premature to talk about whether any, all, or most will be able to be made public. We have to see what we find, I would guess. But I'll talk to the - I would send you to the FBI for their protocols on these things.
             =====

Breitbart.com also wrote:

Blue Mountain Group is a British security firm hired by the State Department to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi. Blue Mountain Group was chosen by State, in part, because it was willing to accept the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya that prohibited security guards at Benghazi from carrying weapons that contained bullets.

The State Department has refused to release the document that describes the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya to Breitbart News. On Friday, Breitbart News filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the document.


It is essential to understanding to distinguish between the three levels/layers of security which exist in State Department facilities in countries around the world - all of which are subject to negotiated Rules of Engagement agreements between the Dept. of State and the host countries (analogous to the Status of Forces Agreements negotiated by the Dept. of Defense in countries where U.S. military personnel are stationed).

1. The external armed security outside of the facilities' (Embassy, Consulate, Station, Office) perimeters is always provided for by the host nation - no Private Security Contracts (PSCs) with U.S. tax dollars and no command or control by the U.S.

Benghazi is in eastern Libya, which is not under effective security of the post-revolution Libyan government, and is rampant with tribal, al Qaeda, and former Qaddafi insurgents fighting each other and the central government. God/Allah only knows who the perimeter guards were loyal to, and if they would fight to protect the U.S.-rented property or staff.

2. The next layer of security is the internal security - inside the gates/doors - operating the detectors, screening vehicles, scanning visitors/staff, etc.

Depending on the negotiated agreements, they may be armed or unarmed PSC-contracted by the Dept. of State, or armed uniformed U.S. Marines.

In Libya the PSC-contracted Blue Mountain Group was responsible for the internal screening security by recruiting local Libyan personnel as sub-contractors, and Breitbart is pursuing an FOIA request to determine if they were armed or not. My guess is that they were NOT armed, based upon our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan where internal (and external) security guards turned on U.S. personnel.

3. The final and most important level of security are the private-sector-hired armed PSCs who are the personal bodyguards and transportation vehicle drivers of State Department staff personnel. They are both the inner security within Stations, and the transportation security during travel outside the Stations.

As we know two former Seals, working as private-contracted PSCs were killed in the Benghazi attack, although I haven't found to which company they were sub-contracted i.e. the company which held the overall contract with State.

The reason that ALL State Dept. personnel and properties around the world aren't guarded at Level 2 and Level 3 by USMC guards is simply that many nations will not allow armed uniformed personnel from other countries to roam around in-country -- even our Generals and Admirals wear mufti to official meetings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A word to rioting Muslims

http://youtu.be/GCXHPKhRCVg

_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Video: Obama now ducking questions on security failures at Benghazi consulate


SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

   
Via BuzzFeed, simple question from the Univision moderators: Why wasn’t your administration better prepared to secure America’s embassies on September 11th? The response, true to form, is nearly six minutes of meandering about how it’s important to stay engaged in the Middle East, how the Mohammed movie is “offensive” but shouldn’t be a pretext for violence, how he’s decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership, etc etc etc — everything except an answer to the question that was asked. The closest he gets is insisting that they redoubled their security efforts afterward, which is super but not much of a consolation to Chris Stevens, I’d imagine. And if you’re thinking maybe he’ll address this at length later, go watch the video of Ben LaBolt that Guy Benson’s posted. For obvious reasons, the Foreign Policy President will not be speaking about this particular foreign-policy “achievement.” In fact, according to The Cable blog at Foreign Policy, the Marines aren’t expecting to deploy a security detail to Libya for a good five years or so — even though Chris Stevens himself reportedly worried for months before his death about being on an Al Qaeda hit list. Why the Romney campaign isn’t destroying Obama over this instead of hammering at that old “redistribution” audio, I’ll never understand. Presumably, after the media wet itself over his earlier Libya-related attack on O, Team Mitt has simply decided to back off.

Two clips for you, one of Obama and the other from CBS this morning citing witnesses to the Benghazi attack who say there was no Mohammed-movie protest at all beforehand. That’s three credible news sources that have reported that; McClatchy was on it first and then Fox News’s sources chimed in a few days later. The press seems consumed with the daily spectacle of Jay Carney lurching from one new talking point to another about whether the Benghazi attack was preplanned or whether it was even a “terrorist attack” (yes to the latter, says Carney — finally), but those are secondary questions. The threshold question is why Chris Stevens was left effectively without security in an area that’s crawling with jihadis and has been for years. Forget for a moment whether the assault on the consulate was spur of the moment or carried out by Al Qaeda versus some other paramilitary group. The fact that some group would attack at some point and would do so quite effectively was a foregone conclusion. Why wasn’t the White House prepared?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/0...y-failures-at-benghazi-consulate/


http://youtu.be/xEoHWLX0Dts

http://youtu.be/TGMlnBkUztM
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Egyptian Islamist Muhammad Saad Al-Azhari Opposed to Clause in Constitution Preventing Sex Trafficking

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3608.htm

_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Egypt's top judges slam Morsi's new powers amid protests, reformist warns of turmoil


November 24, 2012
Associated Press


Egyptian court: Morsi power grab an 'unprecedented...

Thousands of Egyptians protest government power...

Administration walking fine line with Egypt


CAIRO –  Prominent Egyptian democracy advocate Mohammed ElBaradei warned Saturday of increasing turmoil that could potentially lead to the military stepping in unless the Islamist president rescinds his new, near absolute powers, as the country's long fragmented opposition sought to unite and rally new protests.
Egypt's liberal and secular forces -- long divided, weakened and uncertain amid the rise of Islamist parties to power -- are seeking to rally themselves in response to the decrees issued this week by President Mohammed Morsi. The president granted himself sweeping powers to "protect the revolution" and made himself immune to judicial oversight.
The judiciary, which was the main target of Morsi's edicts, pushed back Saturday. The country's highest body of judges, the Supreme Judical Council, called his decrees an "unprecedented assault." Courts in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria announced a work suspension until the decrees are lifted.
Outside the high court building in Cairo, several hundred demonstrators rallied against Morsi, chanting, "Leave! Leave!" echoing the slogan used against former leader Hosni Mubarak in last year's uprising that ousted him. Police fired tear gas to disperse a crowd of young men who were shooting flares outside the court.
The edicts issued Wednesday have galvanized anger brewing against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, from which he hails, ever since he took office in June as Egypt's first freely elected president. Critics accuse the Brotherhood -- which has dominated elections the past year -- and other Islamists of monopolizing power and doing little to bring real reform or address Egypt's mounting economic and security woes.
Oppositon groups have called for new nationwide rallies Tuesday -- and the Muslim Brotherhood has called for rallies supporting Morsi the same day, setting the stage for new violence.
Morsi supporters counter that the edicts were necessary to prevent the courts, which already dissolved the elected lower house of parliament, from further holding up moves to stability by disbanding the assembly writing the new constitution, as judges were considering doing. Like parliament was, the assembly is dominated by Islamists. Morsi accuses Mubarak loyalists in the judiciary of seeking to thwart the revolution's goals and barred the judiciary from disbanding the constitutional assembly or parliament's upper house.
In an interview with a handful of journalists, including The Associated Press, Nobel Peace laureate ElBaradei raised alarm over the impact of Morsi's rulings, saying he had become "a new pharaoh."
"There is a good deal of anger, chaos, confusion. Violence is spreading to many places and state authority is starting to erode slowly," he said. "We hope that we can manage to do a smooth transition without plunging the country into a cycle of violence. But I don't see this happening without Mr. Morsi rescinding all of this."
Speaking of Egypt's powerful military, ElBaradei said, "I am sure they are as worried as everyone else. You cannot exclude that the army will intervene to restore law and order" if the situation gets out of hand.
But anti-Morsi factions are chronically divided, with revolutionary youth activists, new liberal political parties that have struggled to build a public base and figures from the Mubarak era, all of whom distrust each other. The judiciary is also an uncomfortable cause for some to back, since it includes many Mubarak appointees who even Morsi opponents criticize as too tied to the old regime.
Opponents say the edicts gave Morsi near dictatorial powers, neutering the judiciary when he already holds both executive and legislative powers. One of his most controversial edicts gave him the right to take any steps to stop "threats to the revolution," vague wording that activists say harkens back to Mubarak-era emergency laws.
Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in nationwide protests on Friday, sparking clashes between anti-and pro-Morsi crowds in several cities that left more than 200 people wounded.
On Saturday, new clashed broke out in the southern city of Assiut. Morsi opponents and members of the Muslim Brotherhood swung sticks and threw stones at each other outside the offices of the Brotherhood's political party, leaving at least seven injured.
ElBaradei and a six other prominent liberal leaders have announced the formation of a National Salvation Front aimed at rallying all non-Islamist groups together to force Morsi to rescind his edicts.
The National Salvation Front leadership includes several who ran against Morsi in this year's presidential race -- Hamdeen Sabahi, who finished a close third, former foreign minister Amr Moussa and moderate Islamist Abdel-Moneim Aboul-Fotouh. ElBaradei says the group is also pushing for the creation of a new constitutional assembly and a unity government.
ElBaradei said it would be a long process to persuade Morsi that he "cannot get away with murder."
"There is no middle ground, no dialogue before he rescinds this declaration. There is no room for dialogue until then."
The grouping seems to represent a newly assertive political foray by ElBaradei, the former chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency. ElBaradei returned to Egypt in the year before Mubarak's fall, speaking out against his rule, and was influential with many of the youth groups that launched the anti-Mubarak revolution.
But since Mubarak's fall, he has been criticized by some as too Westernized, elite and Hamlet-ish, reluctant to fully assert himself as an opposition leader.
The Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice political party, once headed by Morsi, said Saturday in a statement that the president's decision protects the revolution against former regime figures who have tried to erode elected institutions and were threatening to dissolve the constitutional assembly.
The Brotherhood warned in another statement that there were forces trying to overthrow the elected president in order to return to power. It said Morsi has a mandate to lead, having defeated one of Mubarak's former prime ministers this summer in a closely contested election.
Morsi's edicts also removed Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud, the prosecutor general first appointed by Mubarak, who many Egyptians accused of not prosecuting former regime figures strongly enough.
Speaking to a gathering of judges cheering support for him at the high court building in Cairo, Mahmoud warned of a "vicious campaign" against state institutions. He also said judicial authorities are looking into the legality of the decision to remove him -- setting up a Catch-22 of legitimacy, since under Morsi's decree, the courts cannot overturn any of his decisions.
"I thank you for your support of judicial independence," he told the judges.
"Morsi will have to reverse his decision to avoid the anger of the people," said Ahmed Badrawy, a labor ministry employee protesting at the courthouse. "We do not want to have an Iranian system here," he added, referring to fears that hardcore Islamists may try to turn Egypt into a theocracy.
Several hundred protesters remained in Cairo's Tahrir Square Saturday, where a number of tents have been erected in a sit-in following nearly a week of clashes with riot police.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012...rs-over-new-powers/#ixzz2DBaCjyvA
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With Democracy For All and Freedom for None

November 28, 2012 By Daniel Greenfield

It would be tempting to attribute the disaster spreading across the Middle East to a brief flirtation with democracy snake oil, but for the better part of the last century the political class of the United States could talk of nothing else. Nearly every war was fought to spread democracy, protect democracy or worship at the altar of democracy.

For much of the 20th century it was the working assumption of the sort of men who got up to give speeches in crowded halls that it was democracy that made America special. But it is not so much that democracy made America special, as America made democracy special and workable.

In a poignant historical irony, American democracy went into a prolonged decline just as its political class was busy speechifying about the importance of exporting it abroad. Government authority became centralized and elections began to come down not to ideas, but to divided groups fighting it out in a zero sum struggle for total control of each other’s lives. American democracy has been exported to Iraq. And Iraqi democracy was exported to America.

With unlimited authority vested in the government, we no longer have elections to decide policy, but to determine whether an oppressive social and cultural agenda complete with a loss of civil rights will be forced on the rest of the country. And our last election was as polarized as an Iraqi election and with a similar outcome.

Democracy was never the solution for the Middle East; a region that is properly multicultural in the sense of being a collection of quarreling tribes, religious factions and ethnic groups. And all that democracy accomplished was to give the majority another tool for oppressing the minority. Instead of bloody revolts leading to dictatorships, there were bloody revolts leading to elections which then led to dictatorships. And only a fool or Thomas Friedman would consider the addition of this extra step to be any kind of improvement.

A multicultural society does not invalidate government by popular vote unless that society is also so split along tribal lines that elections are decided based on the rate at which races and religious groups make up that society. When demographics become valid predictors of political outcomes, then democracy becomes theocracy and ethnocracy.

The Muslim world lacked limited government and its democracy experiments were doomed to become one type of horror show or another. The two dominant streams of political ideology in the region are Socialist and Islamist. The difference between the two is that the Socialists are mildly Islamist and the Islamists are mildly Socialist. Both of them however have no tradition of respect for the law and are motivated by utopian programs based on absolute power.

There was never going to be a good outcome. Understanding that democracy would no more solve the region’s problems than shooting a rabid dog full of PCP would improve its mood was as easy as looking at the dominant political movements that were going to compete in such an election.

American leaders were ill-prepared to grasp this because the Republicans were still besotted with an idealistic vision of American democracy propounded by the Democratic Party in the first half of the last century and utterly incapable of understanding that democracy is a tool and it only works in the hands of a people of good character.

No major Republican leader has spoken against the democracy export business because questioning the export of democracy to another country also questions the character of the people there. Republicans talk about American Exceptionalism, but limit it to the country’s political systems. In such a narrow reading, America is superior because its political systems are superior, not because its people are any different or better than anyone else.

But people define systems more than systems define people. Democracy works differently in Phoenix than it does in Detroit and democracy in Cairo works differently than it does in Tokyo. The ballot box is a Rorschach inkblot, an open space that people interpret and make use of in their own way. For some people the ballot box is a means of controlling one’s masters. For others it’s a way of appointing masters who will control and steal from other people on their behalf.

The Democratic Party could understand the expected outcome, but could not be expected to see anything wrong with it. The Muslim Brotherhood was just doing what they were trying to do; take power and then exploit the election to rewrite the laws, destroy any existing checks and balances and use an economic crisis and temporary rule to ram an entire cultural agenda down the throats of the country in order to transform it into a place more to their liking.

A fanatical ideology that disguises its intentions well enough to make it past the polling places and into the government is democracy’s silver bullet; whether it’s fired from a gun wielded by the left or by the Muslim Brotherhood. And if there is a large enough electorate cheering it on, then democracy becomes populist tyranny. It becomes what all unlimited power does, regardless of whether it’s wielded by men who seized power with bloody axes or after a vote count, it becomes unlimited repression.

Limited government is the missing ingredient in such democracies, but limited government is also the first up against the wall after the democratic revolution has been completed. Fanatics don’t believe in limiting their own power. They believe that the only way to make things right is with unlimited power. They cannot be trusted because they do not put any principle or value above getting their own way. The law means nothing to them, truth and honor even less, ethics is a dead letter and as radicals they have no long term investment in the republic and don’t mind if it perishes while they tear its values and institutions down.

Limited government embodies respect for the individual, for the values of one’s neighbors and their right to keep living their lives the way that they always have. If you believe in the essential decency of people, then you are also willing to leave them alone. If however you do not believe that people will make the right decisions on their own, then you invariably reject limited government.

The individual as a moral entity is at the heart of limited government. The left, which denies the individual, viewing him only as a representative of a race or a class, of a brainwashed polity in thrall to movements and false beliefs that must be crushed, has no room for limited government. Neither does Islam, which rejects human free will, for the moral imperative of the Jihad and the forced conversion of infidels.

Democracy without the individual means as much as a million monkeys composing Shakespeare. Without the individual, the ballot box is only a tool for collectivist impulses and identities, for a makeshift insecure majority imposing its will on a minority or a coalition of insecure minorities doing the same thing to a majority. There is nothing special or exceptional about such behavior.

Limited government deriving from individual freedom is the only thing that lifts democracy above the violence of the mob. The Muslim world never had that and so its experiments with democracy were doomed to be nothing more than a baton being passed from one form of tyranny to another. More tragically, the United States which once had it is losing both the limited government and the individual freedom. And that means that democracy in America is bound to follow the same path as in the Muslim world, where democracy becomes only another way of taking over a country.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgre...acy-for-all-and-freedom-for-none/
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Washington Post “Obama is Morsi’s Main Enabler”

December 8, 2012 Daniel Greenfield

Remember that distant time so long ago when Obama promised that he would end our old backward policy of supporting tyrants in order to win over the Arab Street. And here we are, four years later, and Obama is supporting a tyrant in Cairo, a problem that has even broken into the normally supportive pages of the Washington Post.

How did Washington become the best friend of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, even as President Mohamed Morsi was asserting dictatorial powers and his followers were beating up secular liberals in the streets of Cairo? It’s a question many Arabs ask these days, and it deserves an answer.

Morsi and his Brotherhood followers are on a power trip after decades of isolation and persecution… And let’s be honest: The Obama administration has been Morsi’s main enabler. U.S. officials have worked closely with him on economic development and regional diplomacy. Visiting Washington last week, Morsi’s top aides were touting their boss’s close contacts with President Obama and describing phone calls between the two leaders that led to the Gaza cease-fire.

Probably thinking he had America’s backing, Morsi overreached on Nov. 22 by declaring that his presidential decrees were not subject to judicial review. His followers claim that he was trying to protect Egypt’s revolution from judges appointed by Hosni Mubarak. But that rationale has worn thin as members of Morsi’s government resigned in protest, thousands of demonstrators took the streets and, ominously, Muslim Brotherhood supporters began counterattacking with rocks, clubs and metal pipes.

Through this upheaval, the Obama administration has been oddly restrained. After the power grab, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said: “We call for calm and encourage all parties to work together and call for all Egyptians to resolve their differences over these important issues peacefully and through democratic dialogue.” Not exactly a thundering denunciation.

And no thundering denunciations will be coming. There’s a reason why Obama has backed Islamist governments and ignored Anti-Islamist protesters and the two sets of Tahrir Square protests and the contrasting administration responses provide for an excellent control group study.

It’s crazy for Washington to appear to take sides against those who want a liberal, tolerant Egypt and for those who favor sharia. Somehow, that’s where the administration has ended up.

That’s where the administration ended up in Turkey. It’s where it ended up in Iran. Why should anyone be surprised that it ended up in the same expected place in Egypt?

Liberals fashionably take the side of Sharia in the West. They ally with the Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups in the US and Europe. Why be surprised at the practical implications of such alliances?

CAIR is out there defending Morsi. Why be surprised that CAIR’s liberal allies also have Morsi’s back?

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgre...ain-enabler/#.UMQoZ2gZMSU.twitter
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phares: Egypt on Verge of Becoming a ‘Totalitarian Islamist State’

By Paul Scicchitano
Middle East expert Walid Phares says this weekend’s vote on a new Egyptian constitution is part of a broader strategy by President Mohammed Morsi to transform the country into a “totalitarian Islamist state” like Iran.

“They forced the referendum on Egyptians without judges, monitors, and under the pressure of their street militias,” explained Phares, an advisor to the anti-Terrorism Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives, said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.

“That's what the forces of civil society are seeing today. Egypt is divided between the Islamists and the rest of the country.”

Following the first round of a two-stage referendum, Egyptians narrowly voted in favor of a constitution shaped by Islamists but opposed by other groups who fear it will divide the Arab world's biggest nation, according to officials in rival camps speaking to the Associated Press.

As of late Sunday afternoon, Phares said that the results showed an approval margin of nearly 60 percent for the referendum, which he said may be even higher when all the votes are counted.

“The opposition, including 80 percent of Egypt's judges and elections bureaucracies have accused the Muslim Brotherhood of rigging the process,” asserted Phares, who served as a senior advisor on foreign policy to the Romney campaign.

The decades-old Brotherhood is the region's largest and best-known fundamentalist Islamic organization, one that gave rise over the years to such terrerorist organizations as al-Qaida and Islamic Jihad.

“For example large areas known to be liberals saw their ballot boxes being removed, their votes canceled,” said Phares. And he said that Egypt’s separate voting centers for women were staffed primarily by Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

“The bottom line is that the results of the referendum in Alexandria, Cairo, and major cities has been in favor of Morsi and his constitution,” said Phares, who authored "The Coming Revolution." “Technically, the measure is passing, despite the fierce opposition by seculars and liberals.”

He added that while the opposition to the measure is significant, the Muslim Brotherhood has government resources at its disposal.

He said that the Brotherhood “outmaneuvered” the opposition by dividing them and then weakening the military before seizing the parliament and presidency during the country’s recent elections.

“Aside from the Brotherhood and their Salafi allies, most Egyptian political and social forces opposed the referendum including liberals, socialists, conservative Wafd supporters, secular women, liberal youth, Copts,” said Phares, who is also a Newsmax contributor. “Socially most labor, peasantry, and middle class also opposed the Islamist constitution.”

He said that the second phase of the referendum to be held next week will likely be dominated by the brotherhood since the opposition has fewer resources to canvass in remote towns and villages

“Because of years of activism within the mosques, the brotherhood can rely on a well-structured system of mobilization that begins in the pulpits,” Phares said.

“The penetration of mosques by the Islamists over decades, at the disadvantage of moderate Muslims, is paying off now. It was known that the Islamists would win the referendum, because of the control by Morsi of the institutions, the division of the opposition — and one must note — the passive role of the U.S. administration in criticizing the brotherhood's takeover. Egyptian democracy forces today openly accuse the Obama Administration of helping the Brotherhood take over the country.”


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/...012/12/16/id/467960#ixzz2FIlyHBQ3
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Egyptian Activist Tells Allen West Why the Arab Spring Revolution Was Not A Success

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&load=8014&mpid=517



_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> In the News National and International All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 9 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum