Egyptian Revolution – “The Hidden Hand”

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Some excerpts from a great column by Jeff NyquistRevolution in Egypt and the Hidden Hand.

Egypt is in the grip of revolutionary violence. The longstanding regime of Hosni Mubarak may be overthrown. If this happens, the consequences will be far-reaching. Egypt has the largest population and the strongest military in the Arab world. If a revolutionary Jihadist regime takes power in Egypt, then Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates will probably not survive. In that event, the oil-rich Persian Gulf will fall into the hands of radicals who are likely to use oil as a weapon against Europe, Japan and America. Following the pattern of other revolutionary regimes, the radicals will realign their respective countries with Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

Some of the most famous terrorists of recent history have been Egyptians. The PLO’s longtime terrorist leader, Yasser Arafat, was an Egyptian; and so was 9/11 mastermind and ringleader Mohammed Atta, as well as bin Laden’s lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri. We also have testimony from former East Bloc intelligence officials that these Egyptian luminaries worked for Moscow, for the KGB and/or its sister agencies. It is no accident that radical Islam’s concern for the oppressed underclass resembles liberation theology …as it seeks to unify the various sects of Islam by focusing popular rage against the Great Satan (America) and the Little Satan (Israel)…

The rise of terrorism, together with the rise of massive street demonstrations, was integral to the Soviet Bloc pattern of accelerating the “national liberation” struggles of the Third World. According to Finnish historian and researcher Antero Leitzinger, by 1968 Moscow had designated Egypt as its principal base for subverting the entire Arab world. Despite the fact that President Anwar Sadat broke with the Soviet Union and wiped out many KGB agents in Egypt, Sadat was nonetheless assassinated and a new subversive movement was developed. The KGB turned to political Islam “as the most promising basis for winning Arab hearts” in Egypt.

Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolution served as a guidepost. “Among the closest associates of Khomeini there were many Communists who had conveniently grown beards,” noted Leitzinger. “Mustafa Ali Chamran had studied in California and Egypt before he founded a Red Shi’ite secret society. His pupils included later foreign minister Ibrahim Yazdi, oil minister Mohammed Gharazi, and a Lebanese fellow student [at] Berkeley University, Hussein Shaikh al-Islam, who led the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.”..

But aren’t the Islamists the enemies of Russia? Didn’t they defeat Russia in the Afghan War? Readers should set aside the popular mythology of Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, and take a look at the facts. Afghanistan was a Soviet laboratory for incubating the perfect Manchurian Islamist. The ancient Russian practice of political provocation was here used to great advantage. Throughout much of the Afghan War the Soviets controlled a significant number of Islamic fighters. According to KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin there were many false flag operations within Afghanistan. In fact, by January 1983 the KGB had trained 86 “false bands” under KGB officer V. Kikot of the 8th Department of Directorate S. Much of the factional fighting between Muslim groups was KGB or GRU-inspired. All this was possible, wrote Leitzinger, because the CIA merely threw money and supplies into Afghanistan without developing a core group of Afghan experts. Thus, Russia was able to manipulate the country’s Islamist groups through its agents, preparing Afghanistan as a “base” (al Qaeda) to be used against America in the future…

The events in Egypt are part of a pattern, and they are part of a sequence. As the Russian exile Pavel Stroilov told Jamie Glazov of FrontpageMag.com in January of 2008, “These and other facts of FSB involvement in international terrorism … have tremendous implications. Contrary to the view of many in the U.S., Russia is anything but a reliable ally of yours in the ‘war on terror.’ The Kremlin is playing a treacherous double game: while enjoying the West’s support as an ally, it secretly supports and manipulates al Qaeda through FSB agents of influence.”

The West will never conquer Islamic extremism until it is willing to confront the problem at its source – not in Mecca, but in Moscow.


The Blaze Confirms Marxist/Muslim Cooperation

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

A few U.S. commentators have mocked Glenn Beck for daring to suggest that socialists and communists would work side by side with Islamic extremists – something that has been well documented for years.

So in reply The Blaze posted this video of a Washington DC rally organized by the ultra militant Workers’ World Party and various extremist Muslim organizations.


I.P.S.’s “Former” Maoist on the Egyptian Revolution

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Phyllis Bennis is in Egypt, monitoring the revolution for the far left Washington DC based “think tank,” the Institute for Policy Studies.

Bennis was a leading member of Oakland California-based Line of March, a Maoist turned pro-Soviet Marxist-Leninist organization.

Former Obama “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, worked closely with former L.O.M. cadre during his Bay area activist days.


Callinicos on the Egyptian Revolution

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Another British Socialist Workers’ Party leader, Alex Callinicos, on the Egyptian revolution:

This is a revolution that is a dagger in the heart of U.S. imperialism…

82% of the Egyptian people have a negative view of the U.S….the highest in the world, so that gives you an indication of the potential cataclysm that faces the U.S.

A socialist revolution in Egypt can shake the whole world…


British Trotskyite’s Eye Witness Account of Egyptian Revolution

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

British Socialist Workers’ Party leader Judith Orr’s eye witness account of the unfolding Egyptian socialist revolution.

What the people of Egypt… have been doing in these last few days has the potential to change not just Egypt, but the whole region… the whole world, because of the strategic importance of Egypt…

Bad language warning


Code Pink: Obama, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood Ally Raising (Tax Exempt) Money to Overthrow Egypt Gov’t

By: Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King
The Radio Patriot

This latest expose about Code Pink by Kristinn Taylor and me was published this afternoon at Breitbart’s BIG Peace.

Obama fundraiser group Code Pink issued an emergency appeal on Thursday for thousands of dollars to help the group overthrow the Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak.

Code Pink, which has a history of working with enemies of the Egyptian government Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, said in the appeal it wanted to raise $5,000 to fund “the next big uprising” against the Egyptian government on Friday.

As we reported previously, Code Pink has been on the ground in Cairo since the beginning of the uprising. The group has made nine trips to Egypt in the past two years as part of a campaign to undermine the Egyptian government and the blockade against Hamas-controlled Gaza.

The headline for the appeal published at the Web site of Code Pink’s fundraising partner Democracy in Action reads:

“Help us raise $5,000 in emergency funds today to support the Egyptian revolution!”

Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin posted on Twitter from Egypt at 3:19 a.m. Cairo time on Friday that more than $10,000 had already been raised.

In the appeal, Code Pink urges supporters to send cute little puppies and kittens to the demonstrators. Not really. They actually urge Code Pink’s dupes to “Send flowers and supplies to the demonstrators!”

Yes, Code Pink wants to replicate the famous 1967 photo of a propaganda stunt where a protester against the Vietnam war placed flowers in the barrels of rifles held by soldiers at the Pentagon:

“The next major demonstration in Egypt has been called for this Friday after prayers. People are desperate for it to be a peaceful mobilization. The demonstrators have a plan to deliver hundreds of flowers to demonstrators, wounded protesters, and to the gun barrels of the Army’s tanks during the next big uprising on Friday after prayers.”

Of course Code Pink has more in mind than just a propaganda stunt. The group also claims that donations exceeding the five dollars requested for flowers will “buy blankets, food and medicines for the protesters in the streets.” Sure.

Code Pink says it is a 501-c3 tax exempt organization and posts the tax ID number 95-4658841 on the fundraising appeal. Code Pink says on the appeal, “Any donation you make over the $5 is a tax-deductible contribution to CODEPINK.”

That’s right. Who knew funding the overthrow of U.S. allies was a tax exempt charitable act?

One has to wonder, how will Code Pink account to the IRS for the expenditures–not that the Obama administration will investigate a group co-founded by Jodie Evans who is one of President Barack Obama’s top presidential fundraisers.

Being that 501-c3 organizations are prohibited from raising or spending money for candidates or partisan political activity, how can it be lawful to raise and spend tax exempt funds to overthrow a government? Again, Code Pink states upfront the money is to “support the Egyptian revolution!”

There is no guarantee that Code Pink will spend the money solely on “flowers…blankets, food and medicines for the protesters in the streets.” As the group says at the end of the appeal, “Our CODEPINK team is on the ground in Cairo doing everything we can to support the movement.” Will the ‘CODEPINK team’ dip into the donations to cover their expenses? Will they be buying hash, cigarettes and liquor in the Cairo streets or hookah bars? Will some of that money be used by protesters to buy Molotov cocktail supplies or worse?

Code Pink has a history of working with and giving humanitarian aid to terrorist groups like Hamas. It passes itself off as non-violent but supports those who engage in violence against America and her allies–especially Israel. Code Pink knows that humanitarian aid relieves pressure on groups to provide the basics to combatants and their families so that the tools of revolution can be bought and morale maintained.

Sure, Code Pink says the money is for flowers, blankets, food and medicine. But who will get the aid? We already know what they will do with the aid–work to overthrow America’s Egyptian ally and staunch defender against Code Pink’s partners Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.


Unwrapping Government Mandates

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

This past week, the Wall Street Journal had an article by Ashby Jones which explained why Federal Judge Roger Vinson struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional, citing abuse of the Commerce Clause as well as the Necessary and Proper Clause. Judge Vinson’s remarks unwrapped basic flaws in legislation which overstep the bounds placed on our federal government by the Constitution as envisioned by our Founders. However, these same basic concepts also apply to each level of government to include state, city or even local school boards. Judge Vinson’s words:

“At issue here, as in the other cases decided so far, is the assertion that the Commerce Clause can only reach individuals and entities engaged in an “activity”; and because the plaintiffs maintain that an individual’s failure to purchase health insurance is, almost by definition, “inactivity,” the individual mandate goes beyond the Commerce Clause and is unconstitutional. The defendants contend that activity that is not required before Congress can exercise its Commerce Clause power, but that, even if it is required, not having insurance constitutes activity.”

Do individuals living in the United States of America have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to purchase health insurance or has our government the power to make that decision for the individual? Isn’t that the heart of the matter? But isn’t that same concept applicable to most other issues: what kind of car to purchase, toothpaste or even the type of light bulb each individual prefers rather than the collective opinion of society?

“[A]s Congress’ attorneys in the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) and Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) advised long before the Act was passed into law, the notion of Congress having the power under the Commerce Clause to directly impose an individual mandate to purchase health care insurance is “novel” and “unprecedented.”

. . .

“Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States.”

Many statements were made in striking down mandated health insurance; but I’ll include only this one by Judge Vinson before moving on:

“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.”

Judge Vinson’s Tea Party comparison was pertinent and timely in view of a marked undercurrent in America to restore a sense of balance to an otherwise out of control government hell bent on destroying individual rights. If our government can force us to purchase health insurance, then there are no limits on whatever else may be imposed by an “act of congress.” It doesn’t matter which level of government decides to usurp their intended powers; impositions on an individual’s choice within a free society is repulsive. We must remind those temporarily placed in positions of power that each individual, regardless of stature, is heir to God-given inalienable rights for which freemen have fought and died for. We are not subjects government.

Judge Vinson also quoted Madison’s Federalist Paper 51:

“In establishing our government, the Founders endeavored to resolve Madison’s identified “great difficulty” by creating a system of dual sovereignty under which “[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

While agreeing, at least in part, with Madison’s summary of a limited federal government through the Constitution, State governments powers while numerous are not indefinite; being limited by the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. States may not legislate away inalienable rights any more than the federal government can. Tyranny at any level of government is still tyranny.

Judge Vinson apparently agrees with my exception as he continued to quote:

“The Framers believed that limiting federal power and allowing the “residual” power to remain in the hands of the states (and of the people), would help “ensure protection of our fundamental liberties” and “reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse.” (emphasis added)

I’ve had various forms of medical insurance since I was old enough to be in the work force. The levels of coverage increased as did my ability to pay for the additional benefits. There was no need for a government mandate to explain the importance of being responsible. Ah; but there’s that word, responsible.

In my locksmith business, for years I’ve purchased a huge liability insurance policy in order to do business with large automobile dealerships; not because some bureaucratic pencil pusher mandated it; but because the free market system and the rules of nature mandated it. Years later when locksmiths in Texas were forced into being licensed, some bureaucratic pencil pusher had the mind numbing idea to mandate a hefty liability insurance policy as part of the required elements for that locksmith license (a discussion for another day).

If you missed that last paragraph there isn’t much sense in going further. Individuals, not government, decide how to navigate the free market. If the logic used by Judge Vinson applies to federally mandated health insurance then it applies to all levels of government and other mandated purchases; activity or the lack thereof are at the discretion of individuals.

“If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.”

Do not misinterpret my meaning. Locksmiths, as with individuals in every aspect of the human condition, should be responsible in their dealings with the public. Being responsible would include proper training in their area of expertise as well as providing reasonable levels of insurance in the event of catastrophic failure resulting in damages to the public or specific individuals. If and when damages are claimed and a gentleman’s agreement cannot be reached, at that time the courts are the proper place to resolve such conflicts. It is not the purpose of government to guarantee a life free of pitfalls.

The difference between State mandated policy and individual responsibility is considerable in a free society; one is repressive while the other is free. If government can mandate how individuals interact in the market place, there are no limits to what liberties can be dissolved in the name of security and safety.

Benjamin Franklin has been credited for having said, “Those who give up their liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.” (There are various forms of this quote listed.)

Tyranny under the façade of a representative government, is a poor substitute for government by the people. Thank God for individual inalienable rights and the Constitution which limits government’s never ending attempt to destroy them. Thank goodness for a clearly worded ruling like the one Judge Roger Vinson provided, a ruling which unwrapped government mandated health insurance to expose nothing more than tyranny in the name of security.

This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”