Did Obama ‘prompt’ first Muslim Brotherhood ‘dictator’ from ‘Arab Spring?’

By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner

It is suddenly very disturbing that U.S. President Barack Obama is a well known, official “BFF” [Best Friend Forever] of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Not only because they are the ‘parent’ organization of both Hamas (Gaza) and Hezbollah (Lebanon)–both of which have been ‘open’ proxy ‘beneficiaries’ of Iran–all certified as ‘terrorist organizations’ by the U.S. State Department.

But, because newly elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi declared over Egyptian state run TV yesterday that his decrees were now ‘above the law,’ igniting violent protests across the country against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, leaving the Obama-described ‘disgusting and vile’ anti-Islam video seriously paling in comparison.

Tens of thousands of pro-democracy activists converged on Cairo’s Tahrir Square, angered by newly elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s decree that he be exempt from judicial review, according to an Associated Press article today.

Morsi also proclaimed the same protection for the panel writing the new [Egyptian] constitution, along with the upper house of parliament, literally granting him the power to enact any other measure he deemed necessary to address any “threat” to Egypt’s “revolution.”

Mohamed El Baradei, former head of the U.N.’s nuclear agency, called Morsi a “new pharaoh;” no doubt referring to “The Pharaoh” from the Old Testament of the Bible, who was the most powerful ruler in the land at that time, and from whom God led Moses and the Israelites to freedom and the ‘Promised Land.’

The “April 6 Movement,” a one-time ally of Morsi–warned that the polarization could bring about a “civil war.”

One of Morsi’s aides, Coptic Christian thinker Samer Marqous–resigned to protest the “undemocratic” decree.

Ibrahim Eissa, chief editor of daily [newspaper] Al-Tahrir, proclaimed…

This is a crime against Egypt and a declaration of the end of [The] January revolution, to serve the interest of the Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship. The revolution is over and the new dictator has killed her. His next step is to throw Egypt in prison.

Eissa was not alone, as chants of “Leave, leave” rang across Tahrir Square, echoing the calls from when it was the epicenter of last year’s uprising, with others chanting “Morsi is Mubarak … Revolution everywhere.”

Isn’t it ironic that Mohamed Morsi would single-handedly ‘steal’ legislative integrity from his own people–the day after he accepted the solemn, gravity-laden responsibility for the ‘integrity’ of the new ‘cease-fire’ between Hamas-run Gaza and Israel, from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who brokered the deal with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

Or was it a planned tactical move in a much larger strategy?

At the same time yesterday, on the ‘other side of town,’ Mohammed Badie, the top leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, denounced peace efforts with Israel and urged holy war to liberate Palestinian territories, according to a separate Associated Press article today.

Badie posted a statement on the group’s website that was emailed to reporters:

The enemy knows nothing but the language of force. Be aware of the game of grand deception with which they depict peace accords.

The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t recognize Israel and its members refuse to hold direct talks with Israeli officials. But Morsi has said that he will abide by the terms of Egypt’s 1979 treaty with Israel, and many members say they are in little hurry to enter into armed conflict with the Jewish state.

Although Badie declared that “jihad [against Israel] is obligatory” for Muslims, taking up arms would be the “last stage,” only after Muslims achieved unity.

The use of force and arms while the group is fragmented and disconnected, unorganized, weak in conviction, [and] with faint faith—this will be destined for death.

Until then, he called on Muslims to … “back your brothers in Palestine … supply them with what they need, seek victory for them in all international arenas,” which is exactly why Israel will not allow Gaza to have ‘open borders’ with Egypt or drop its’ long-standing naval blockade.

Also telling is Mohamed Badie’s [official] title — “General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood,” which implies a leadership role in the Islamist group’s sister movements across the world.

As Congress swiftly closes in on their obviously primary roles in the “Benghazi-gate” matter, how possible is it that President Obama and Secretary Clinton devised, then ‘implemented’ the Egypt-Hamas/Gaza side of this gambit, as a media diversion and to ‘buy time,’ while on their extended soiree throughout the Muslim world of Southeast Asia?


Is Barack Hussein Obama using the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi in Egypt as a trial balloon for his own dictatorship?

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

On the second leg of Barack Hussein Obama’s infamous world tour in 2009, following his takeover of the U.S. government in the sweeping Democratic Party, Marxist/Socialist 2008 victory, was to the Middle East where he apologized for America’s influence to promote democracy and for the sins we have committed against humanity. On that tour we witnessed the first American leader ever to bow before a king when Obama met King Abdullah (thank God no relation) in Saudi Arabia. That tour included a visit to Cairo University on June 4, 2009 where he gave a speech filled with so many lies and falsehoods that the purpose could only be seen as giving an uplift to Muslim influence in world politics and an encouragement to revolt. Every statement, every historical fact and and every innuendo was a distortion and a lie aimed at belittling America and emboldening the Islamic inspired revolution that came to be known as the Arab Spring.

An excerpt from that infamous Cairo University speech contained these words from Obama’s mouth:

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Quran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

The Arab Spring was a revolutionary wave of demonstrations, protests, and wars occurring in the Arab world that began on December 18, 2010 and took less than six months to ferment following Obama’s inspiring visit. As detailed in Wikipedia:

“To date, rulers have been forced from power in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen; civil uprisings have erupted in Bahrain and Syria; major protests have broken out in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Sudan; and minor protests have occurred in Lebanon, Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, and Western Sahara. The major oil rich nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman) have been able to keep their ruling families in power.”

Within months following Obama’s speech, our somewhat pro-western ally in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, was ousted by the Muslim Brotherhood backed candidate Mohammed Morsi who, after being elected president in a campaign filled with violence and intimidation, then began to transform Egypt into an Islamic Sharia state. Today, we read in the news that Morsi has taken another step to solidify his dictatorial powers. Morsi has issued a presidential decree, similar to Obama’s Executive Orders, granting himself sweeping new powers and exempting himself from judicial review and the power to enact any other measure he deemed necessary to deal with threats to Egypt’s Islamic revolution. And one can only wonder if our own Muslim-in-chief Barack Hussein Obama is carefully watching the outcome to these developments to see if anything can be learned because it did not take long before the people of Egypt became aware that they had been fooled into electing the Muslim Brotherhood candidate.

Fox News reports:

CAIRO – Opponents and supporters of Mohammed Morsi clashed across Egypt on Friday, the day after the president granted himself sweeping new powers that critics fear can allow him to be a virtual dictator. At least 15 were reported injured.

In a sign of deepening polarization, state TV reported that protesters burned offices of the political arm of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood group in several cities on the Suez Canal east of Cairo and in the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria, while Islamists engaged with fistfights with Morsi opponents in southern Egypt.

Tens of thousands of pro-democracy activists meanwhile converged on Cairo’s Tahrir Square, angered at the decisions by Morsi. The decrees include exempting himself from judicial review, as well as a panel writing the new constitution and the upper house of parliament, and the power to enact any other measure he deemed necessary to deal with a “threat” to Egypt’s “revolution.”

One strategy Obama is following that Egypt could not implement is removing all privately owned guns from the hands of the people. No dictator can fully control a country while the people still have the means to resist tyranny and oppression and Obama is using the United Nations so-called Small Arms Treaty to ban the ownership of guns in America. Or at least he thinks he can. What Barack Hussein Obama should be studying is how quickly the Egyptians realized their mistake and how strongly they rose up to protest.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides


The present crisis, a pattern?

The article “Present crisis, a pattern?” was published in March 2011 in a magazine entitled “Hermes,” for the Flemish Association for Teachers of Science and History and Culture in June 2011 in the journal of economic education of the VECON, Association of Teachers in the economic\social subjects in the Netherlands.

By: Wim Grommen, transition, s curve and stock market-researcher

Every production phase or civilization or other human invention goes through a so-called transformation process. Transitions are social transformation processes that cover at least one generation. In this article, I will use one such transition to demonstrate the position of our present civilization and its possible effect on stock exchange rates.

When we consider the characteristics of the phases of a social transformation, we may find ourselves at the end of what might be called the third industrial revolution. Transitions are social transformation processes that cover at least one generation (= 25 years). A transition has the following characteristics:

– it involves a structural change of civilization or a complex subsystem of our civilization
– it shows technological, economical, ecological, socio cultural and institutional changes at different levels that influence and enhance each other
– it is the result of slow changes (changes in supplies) and fast dynamics (flows)

Examples of historical transitions are the demographical transition and the transition from coal to natural gas which caused transition in the use of energy. A transition process is not fixed from the start because during the transition, processes will adapt to the new situation. A transition is not dogmatic.

Four transition phases

In general, transitions can be seen to go through the S curve and we can distinguish four phases (see fig. 1):

1. a pre-development phase of a dynamic balance in which the present status does not visibly change
2. a take off phase in which the process of change starts because of changes in the system
3. an acceleration phase in which visible structural changes take place through an accumulation of socio cultural, economical, ecological and institutional changes influencing each other; in this phase we see collective learning processes, diffusion and processes of embedding
4. a stabilization phase in which the speed of sociological change slows down and a new dynamic balance is achieved through learning

A product life cycle also goes through an S curve.

In that case there is a fifth phase:

5. the degeneration phase in which cost rises because of over capacity and the producer will finally withdraw from the market.

The S curve of a transition

Indications of system transitions:

– pre-development
– take off
– acceleration
– stabilization

Figure 1: Four phases in a transition best visualized by means of an S curve.

Continue reading


The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Winners – 11/23/12

The Watcher’s Council

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up.

I and my Council comrades hope all of you had a simply wonderful Thanksgiving. But beware of the Turkey’s revenge!!

Democrats and the Left like to call themselves ‘pro-choice,’ something that’s always fascinated me. Being statists and fairly totalitarian in outlook, the only thing they really are pro-choice about is abortion on demand. They’re rabidly anti-choice about pretty much everything else… whom you may hire to work for you, what constitutes a marriage, whether you may own firearms, what you may eat, drink or smoke, where you may send your children to school… in fact, pretty much everything else but terminating a pregnancy.

They are especially anti-choice when it comes to money you’ve earned and where it gets spent, as this week’s winner, The Razor shows us in this week’s winner, Freedom of Choice: Why Liberals Should Exercise Their Freedom to Pay Higher Taxes.

Here’s a slice:

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. – Charles Krauthammer

It’s interesting to be hated. I’m a white male, married to the same woman for over two decades. We love rescuing animals in the US and working on conservation and health projects in Africa. Together we don’t make enough to qualify for the top 2% of wage earners, but we are uncomfortably close. She works 50+ hours a week in health care, has had her life threatened twice for failing to prescribe narcotics, and daily faces patients who act like their ordering off the ala cart menu at a Chinese Restaurant, “I’ll have the MRI with antibiotics I don’t really need, oh and a side of Vicodin.” I work at a job that I enjoy for similar hours but as a contractor don’t know where I’ll be working from one month to the next. The only job security I have comes from the combination of my skills, wits and luck.

Aside from being white and conservative (libertarian actually) we are hated because we obviously don’t our fair share. Now granted, technically we’re excused from this requirement because we are not part of the minority being mugged, currently set at the top 2% of taxpayers, but I don’t trust technicalities to protect my family. For example the targets of liberal ire initially were the billionaires and millionaires; then it was 1% for awhile before some of the brighter liberals realized that you can’t soak the top 1% and get all the free healthcare and cell phones you need, so it became 2%. How long before it’s 5%? 10%? Anyone with more than anyone else except those who are more equal than me?

Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman argues that we should bring back the 91% tax rate. Krugman’s argument in essence is that the American economy grew in the 1950s under the tax rate, workers were safely empowered by unions and as a result of both company executives enjoyed modest remuneration. Of course Krugman doesn’t mention other aspects of the 1950s that may have had something to do with prosperity, such as Republican control of Congress and the White House, and its darker side segregation although the treatment of Col. Allen West by the liberal establishment serves as a reminder of that last item. He does mention that the 91% number is a sham though, writing, “The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today.”

Wait, top .01%? Didn’t he mean 1% or 2%? No, but today we are talking about a minority 200x larger? And no one paid 91% even though it was on the books. Why? For the same reason we’re in a mess today: the tax code is riddled with loopholes and taxbreaks that the average 2%er isn’t privy to or can’t use.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Walter Russel Mead at Via Meadia with America, Israel, Gaza, the World submitted by Joshuapundit. In it, Mead has an interesting take on why most Americans differ so much from the average European when it comes to their views on Israel.

Okay, here are this week’s full results. Gay Patriot, The Right Planet and Simply Jews were unable to vote this week, but none was affected by the 2/3 vote penalty.

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! Don’t forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week’s Watcher’s Forum, as the Council and their invited guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day and weigh in… don’t you dare miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!



Arlene from Israel

I know that many who will be receiving this are celebrating Thanksgiving today and I do not wish to impose unduly on that celebration. And yet… and yet…

I entitled this posting “grim,” because this is very much the mood of the nation here. From the right and from the left there is criticism of the ceasefire agreement concluded yesterday. Somewhere in this country there must be someone who thinks this was a good move, but I have yet to encounter that person. Unless there is a huge shift in the situation, it seems that Netanyahu and his Likud party may suffer in the coming election for what has happened.


After all the talk of Cast Lead — the last operation inside of Gaza — having been terminated too soon, the sense is that this is precisely what happened again here. Yes, we did damage to Hamas — took out some military leaders and many rockets and missiles as well as infrastructure. But in the end there was no definitive resolution.

As I understand it, while many, if not most, long range missiles and rockets were destroyed, Hamas is still in possession of some 6,000 medium range rockets.


Far more seriously, author Mike Evans, writing in the JPost today says:

“Also of great concern to the Israelis is a report that a freighter is enroute from Bandar Abbas [Iran] to Gaza with a payload of 220 short-range and 50 Fajr 5 missiles with larger warheads and greater range than those Hamas possessed at the beginning of Operation Pillar of Defense.

“The cargo on the freighter would replace the dwindling stockpile of missiles fired into Israel since November 10. To cover its tracks, the ship has changed names and ownership several times since its launch….

“On the South Pacific Island of Tuvala, its name was changed to the Cargo Star and hoisted a Tuvalu flag.

“According to sources, four Sudanese cargo ships departed the Port of Sudan recently for an assignation with the Cargo Star. The missiles would then be transferred to the other vessels at sea. It is believed that the ships will either put into port in Sudan or rendezvous with a fleet of Egyptian fishing boats. From there, the arms would be transported to Egypt, and then to Gaza by way of the tunnel system between the two countries. While at sea, the Cargo Star has been shadowed by two Iranian warships.”



Evans’ point in writing this piece is reflected in its title: “It’s About Tehran, not Gaza.” And the fact that the world is ignoring this is part of what’s very wrong with the current situation.

Hamas attacked Israel at the behest of Iran. Israel is at the front line in the battle with Iran. We are fighting the fight on behalf of the Western world, which gladly ties our hands as we do so.


Of course, there’s a great deal more wrong with the situation, as well. Galling, actually:

There is lip service to Israel’s right to self defense, but in the end there was a sort of equity established between Israel and Hamas in the way the ceasefire agreement was worded. It’s not a question of eliminating a terror entity and all that it represents — a terror entity that challenges the only democracy in the Middle East. It’s, rather, a situation in which both, equally, have to stop attacks against the other. And both have the same option to complain to Egypt about infractions of the other.

No mention of the smuggling of weapons, which have absolutely no purpose other than eventual attacks on Israel.

And no recourse, within the agreement, for Israel to defend herself if there are (which there certainly will be) Hamas violations. Although, as it is worded, smuggling is NOT a violation.


This is the first time that there has been a written ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. Previously, it was simply a matter of informal quiet — when they stopped, we stopped. The idea then was to let them know that if they started again, we would as well.

We haven’t always followed through on this option when we should have. But it WAS an option. We had sovereignty, in terms of right to act. Now, with this agreement, as least on paper, we no longer have that option. If we respond to a violation — launching of rockets or the attempt to do so — with our own attack, then we have violated the agreement.


Of course, ultimately, that’s precisely what we will have to do.

Last night on his FaceBook page, Netanyahu put this up: “…it may be necessary for us to conduct a major and harsh military campaign [against Hamas].” And if it became necessary, he said, Israel would follow through.

It may become necessary?


Today I picked up some news comments that bewildered and unsettled me: If there is quiet for a while, the reports indicated, then there will be negotiations to work out further details. This is apparently a reference to item (d) in the agreement, which reads: “Other matters as may be requested shall be addressed.”

Uh oh! Have we left ourselves open to further pressure and demands?

It’s very clear that Hamas wants Israel to abandon or loosen the sea blockade on Gaza.


In line with this, it’s possible that there will be talk about Egypt working to stop the smuggling. I can only reiterate yet again that this should not be taken seriously — for Egypt will not take it seriously. There will be some announcements, some photo-ops, and that will be the end of it.

One way that Egypt has handled this issue in the past is by denying that there is any smuggling. You might want to see some examples of this, here: http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=59160

What is more, statements — in at least one instance made privately — have come from a key member of the government that makes it clear that there is no genuine government expectation that the smuggling of rockets and missiles will be stopped.

Nor do I, from what I’ve heard, have any serious expectation that the government will respond to the presence of new rockets in Gaza, as long as they are not being launched.


Item (c) of the agreement, which talks about opening of passages, also includes this phrase: “and refraining from restricting residents free movement, and targeting residents in border areas.” Haggai Huberman, of Arutz Sheva points out today that Israel had been maintaining a security strip of up to 300 meters in width inside Gaza along the border — preventing Gazans from freely moving in that area so as to prevent harm to IDF soldiers on the other side of the border.

This practice has now been relinquished.


We may have some answers as to why Prime Minister Netanyahu made the decision he did regarding the ground invasion of Gaza:

According to Channel 2 today, as reported by Arutz Sheva, “Mossad Head Tamir Pardo, who went to Cairo as Israel’s representative in the contacts that preceded the ceasefire, was told in messages from Cairo and from Washington that the peaceful relations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt were at risk [if there were to be a ground invasion].”

Absorb the full import of this, please. It’s not just that Egypt made the threat, it’s that Washington also carried it.

Subsequently, Obama, via Clinton, leaned on Morsi to play the role of negotiator and mediator — to assume a part in the ceasefire process. This was accomplished, almost certainly, according to my very best information, because of Morsi’s need for the billions he seeks from Obama. And after Morsi agreed, both Obama and Clinton praised him as being a key figure in the area, as a new time begins, blah blah blah.

We hear that Obama defended Israel’s right to defend herself. At any rate, gave lip service to this. But if he were truly concerned with Israel’s security, he would have told Morsi that if he attempted to cancel Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, there would be no money. That is, he could have used the promise of money as the carrot to help Israel rather than simply using it to get Morsi on board in a ceasefire process that actually inhibited Israel.

Obama, who played along, is just as responsible as Morsi.

Truly, I hope everyone reading this absorbs the enormous import of what we’re seeing here. And I hope that every American who sees this is furious, and understands precisely who the president of the US is.


Absorb the import, please, of Obama selecting as the man to arbitrate — when there are violations of the ceasefire agreement by Hamas — someone who has already threatened Israel with possible war. It’s so incredible, it’s difficult to absorb. But absorb it we all must.


I do note here that while Morsi’s threat may have caused Netanyahu to blink with regard to a ground operation, that still doesn’t explain why he signed on to the ceasefire agreement. There is still more to the story, I am certain.