SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: puborectalis who wrote (668679)8/22/2012 11:03:16 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1579241
 
Death of Democracy in Egypt — and Silence in Washington

by Arnold Ahlert Bio ? on Aug 21st, 2012
frontpagemag.com



Just over a week ago, Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi effectively precipitated a palace coup. He sacked his top intelligence chief, the country’s military leadership, and other key members of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) in the space of five days. A constitutional document limiting his powers was largely scrapped. Meanwhile, the Obama administration deliberately ignores the unfolding debacle, a monster of its own creation, and forges ahead with a policy completely contrary to American security interests. “We had expected President Morsi at some point to co-ordinate changes in the military leadership, to name a new team,” said George Little, the Pentagon press secretary. “The United States…look[s] forward to continuing a very close relationship with the SCAF.”

The ostensible basis of that very close relationship was initially illuminated by the Washington’s Post’s David Igantius, who contended that one of the reasons Obama administration officials “appear to have confidence” in what has occurred is because Egypt’s newly appointed defense minister, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, had “extensive contact with United States in his previous post as head of military intelligence,” and because “he spent a year of professional training in the United States.”


National Review’s Andrew McCarthy reveals the nonsense behind such an assessment, noting that even the Wall Street Journal, which he describes as “stuck on the democracy project dogma,” was forced to admit that al-Sissi “has a broad reputation within military circles as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer.” The same WSJ article encapsulates the administration’s dogmatic thinking as well, noting that “U.S. officials expressed confidence that Gen. Sissi will maintain close ties with the U.S., which provides Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid, and uphold Egypt’s peace deal with Israel.”

Al-Sissi is hardly an anomaly. As the New York Times discovered (no doubt, much to their chagrin), the Egyptian military’s new chief of staff, Gen. Sedky Sobhi, wrote a paper seven years ago, while attending the United States Army War College in Pennsylvania as a student. In it he argued that the United States’s presence in the Middle East, along with its “one sided” support of Israel, was fueling hatred and miring the U.S. in an “unwinnable global war” with Islamist militants. Sobhi further contended that it was wrong to characterize Al Qaeda and other militant groups as merely “irrational terrorist organizations.” “I recommend that the permanent withdrawal of United States military forces from the Middle East and the Gulf should be a goal of U.S. strategy in this region,” he wrote, adding that the United States should pursue its objectives through “socioeconomic means and the impartial application of international law.”

An unnamed Obama administration official, speaking anonymously so as not to upset American/Egyptian relations, blithely dismissed Sobhi’s writings. “A lot of academic theses offer up interesting ideas that don’t go very far, and often end up as shelf ware,” he said. “This isn’t exactly causing concern. We believe we will work well with the new Egyptian military leaders.”

The Times reiterated the administration’s contention that “American officials said their confidence in Egypt was unshaken”–even as they noted that Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University, considers it “naive” for American officials to think that positions held by Mr. Morsi and the Brotherhood represent “fringe thinking.” Shehata further insisted that the Brotherhood’s ideology is tantamount to “the Egyptian Kansas,” in that its foreign policy positions “reflect rather than oppose what the Egyptian center is thinking.”

The cold reality of that so-called centrist thinking was revealed late last week by Jewish newspaper Algemeiner, which reported that Muslim Brotherhood supporters terrorized secular media members, including several Arabic websites, such as Arab News, Al Khabar News, Dostor Watany, and Egypt Now, because they all reported that people opposed to the Morsi regime were being “crucified.” A translated excerpt of the violence reads as follows:

A Sky News Arabic correspondent in Cairo confirmed that protestors belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others. Likewise, Muslim Brotherhood supporters locked the doors of the media production facilities of 6-October [a major media region in Cairo], where they proceeded to attack several popular journalists.

Muslim cleric Hashem Islam Ali Islam, one of Egypt’s top religious leaders, not only refused to apologize for these atrocities, he endorsed them. Characterizing a protest against the regime scheduled to take place on August 24th as an “apostasy against democracy and freedom,” he issued a fatwa urging the Egyptian people to confront these people, and “if they fight you fight them.” He continued: “If some of you are killed by them, you will go to Paradise, and if you kill them, no ‘blood money’ will be warranted, because their killing is permissible.” Hashem Islam’s advocation of violence is nothing new. In a statement virtually ignored by Western media, he also called Islamic martyrdom against Jews “a religious duty.”



Page: 1 2 »








To: puborectalis who wrote (668679)8/22/2012 11:08:55 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1579241
 
Unprecedented Sharia Enforcement by City Governments

by Jamie Glazov Aug 21st, 2012
frontpagemag.com



Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, the founder, editor, and publisher of AtlasShrugs.com. She is the executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), and is a regular columnist for World Net Daily, the American Thinker, and other publications. She is the author of Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

FP: Pamela Geller, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Geller: Thank you, Jamie.

FP: I would like to talk about your new ad campaign and all the controversy it is causing. Tell us what is going on.

Geller: Jamie, two counter-jihad ads that my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), began running last week in New York and San Francisco are causing quite a stir – not among the public, but among the mainstream media and craven politicians. Dhimmi public officials and the media are falling all over themselves in furious efforts to enforce the restrictions on free speech that the Sharia prescribes.

FP: What do the ads say?

Geller: In New York, the ads are running in Metro-North stations just north of New York City, as well as in the Bronx. They say, “*19,250 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11/01. *And counting. It’s not Islamophobia, it’s Islamorealism.” In San Francisco, our ads say, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”

FP: And what has been the reaction?

Geller: Greenburgh, New York Town Supervisor Paul Feiner announced that he wanted Metro-North to warn passengers that the ads could be upsetting and don’t represent Metro-North’s views or that of the community. Feiner said, “[Muslims] should not be discriminated against. The posters encourage hatred, discrimination and do not help the efforts to fight hate crimes.”

Feiner implies that all Muslims support jihad. Sounds as if he is painting all Muslims with the same brush. How “Islamophobic.” It is “Islamophobic” and a real attempt to paint all Muslims as jihadists to suggest that all Muslims would oppose attempts to rein in the jihadists. Our ads are statements of fact. There have been, as of this writing, over 19,460 deadly Islamic attacks since 911. How is it “Islamophobic” to point that out?

And Peter Swiderski, the mayor of Hastings-on-Hudson, emailed me about the ads, saying: “I wanted to share with you what our Board of Trustees sent to the entire village tonight.”

FP: What did he want to “share”?

Geller: He wanted to “share” the letter that the village Board sent out.

FP: What did the letter say?

Geller: They wrote: “While the Board respects everyone’s right to free speech, we categorically condemn the bigotry and innuendo expressed by this billboard message. To tar a faith and its followers because of the actions of a few is deplorable, hateful and morally repugnant.”

FP: Right, and nothing in your ad condemns Islam and all Muslims because of jihad attacks.

Geller: That’s right, Jamie. The Board is reading the idea that “all Muslims” support jihad terror attacks into my ad. That is nowhere in my message. They are the Islamophobes and racists, not I. Do these politicians really believe that all Muslims support jihad? And if they believe it, why surrender so swiftly?

FP: Good point. What else did the letter say?

Geller: The Board also asked residents of Hastings-on-Hudson to write to the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) expressing their “dismay” that our ads were not deemed “hate speech.” Yet the Mayor and this Board of spineless wonders maintained their neutrality about the anti-Semitic ads that the MTA previously ran; they were silent about them. Notice how these clowns at one government entity have “complained” to another about private citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

FP: Did you respond to Swiderski?

Geller: Yes. I wrote to him, asking “why no such mailing went out concerning the vicious anti-Semitic ads. The anti-Israel ads were twice the buy (100 kiosks.) This speaks to a systemic, institutionalized anti-Semitism prevalent in your administration and among the Board. Care to comment?” Why didn’t he react as viscerally when the same kiosks had vicious blood libels posted about Israel? He is apparently OK with anti-Jewish ads. His bias is showing.



Page: 1 2 »





To: puborectalis who wrote (668679)8/23/2012 6:16:13 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1579241
 
I think the R's are going to have to waste a political lifetime by living thru the tea bagger revolution and regaining their footing......the pendulum will swing back as it always does but in the meantime the nation will suffer through it..