Sunday, February 27, 2011

Kaziah Hancock paints portraits of our fallen soldiers

ELCA Confiscates Grace Lutheran Church



Just how many churches of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) await the fate of Grace Lutheran Church, North Branch, NY? The membership of the church had been dwindling for several years and finances had been a challenge, but members of Grace Lutheran Church were shocked when they received a letter from their ELCA synod that began “In the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and continued “the Synod will take control of the real and personal property of Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church.”

Grace Lutheran members were shocked even more when the ELCA changed the locks on the church doors to keep out the very people whose ancestors had built the church and who until the locks were changed paid for the church’s daily operations.

Such takeovers and closures have not been uncommon in the ELCA, but they will likely increase as more and more members walk out of their churches because of the unbiblical teachings and practices being imposed on local congregations by the national church. Congregations that are voting to leave the ELCA should ponder carefully what will happen if their vote fails and vast numbers of the congregation’s membership departs. It may be only a matter of time until they too will get a letter “In the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Synod will take control of the real and personal property of your church."

The closure of Grace Lutheran Church in North Branch followed the closure this past summer of their sister congregation, First Lutheran Church of Jeffersonville, with whom they had been yoked as a parish.

How refreshing that nearly all of the congregations that have voted to leave the ELCA have joined Lutheran fellowships where the property resides totally in the hands of the local congregation and cannot be taken from them, namely the AFLC, AALC, LCMC and NALC.


Israel and Arizona comparison from the Mad Jewess


End The UNJUST Jewish Occupation Of A-rab Land! Arizona Comparison
Insane people (This EXCLUDES left-wing Jews that who drive nations INSANE) call most Jews “Israel-firsters”, but they never tell you the truth about many of us. Most right-minded Jewish folks know what the Israeli-government puts its own people through; Gush Katif: throwing their own people out of their homes, negotiating ‘land for peace.’ Phoney lies about how American Jews are ALL ‘dual citizens’. Well, I am not, nor is anyone I know. I have been loyal to my nation, America, but I see what is happening in Israel-the same case scenerio that is happening on American borders, with illegal invaders. Only WE will NOT give up our land in America as you Hebrew-haters expect Israel to do…

There is NO other country or state that suffers constant land grabs as is Israel, they have given UP over 70% of their land- WHO DOES THAT? The A-rabs that have been in Israel since its birth, have more rights than any ‘people’ in this planet. The Israelis are not allowed to live in peace, so, it is hogwash to assume that any amount of appeasement will ever work. In my personal opinion… The PEOPLE of Israel face what AZ is facing; BOGUS accusations of ‘apartheid’. These people that call Israel, “apartheid” are the same idiots that said that South Africa was apartheid, and now S. Africa faces 90 people a month murdered by African savages.

You morons that are Palestinian-firsters for death; know one thing, right-minded Jews, Christians, Messianics, etc-frankly, don’t give a *&%$ what you say anymore. This blog supports the PEOPLE of Israel, and we just dont give a damn what you all think.

Hows that for a little blog-apartheid.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Imagine This...


Imagine This...

Washington: Today, President Sarah Palin, declaring that the 1973 Roe Vs Wade Court Decision was "constitutionally indefensible" declared she will no longer authorize the Attorney General's office to oppose court challenges to the law that protects a women's right to an abortion. The Attorney General said today - “I will instruct department attorneys to advise courts in other pending litigation in defense of abortion, of the president’s and my conclusions that the law’s determination that a women has a right to an abortion is indefensible and to not pursue those cases."

Imagine folks if that were the headline in major newspapers across the United States today? The liberals of this country would demand the impeachment of the President. Were that to happen, I would agree with them.

However, when
something exactly like this happened today, there was barely a peep from the left -

The Obama administration said it will no longer oppose court challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages for purposes of taxes, social security and other programs.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder wrote yesterday to House Speaker John A. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, to announce the executive branch’s new position on the 15-year-old law.

When I saw that today, I had to reread it several times. I just couldn't believe it.

President Obama, you are not a one man Supreme Court, you swore an oath to uphold the laws of this country. You are now derelict in that duty. As to my abortion analogy, you dear readers (and perhaps even you Democrats) can quickly see how this frightening precedent can be used and where it can go. There is no telling the ways an out of control Presidency can damage our country. I don't like Roe Vs Wade any more than liberals likely support DOMA... but it's the law of the land. Presidents have to support that, as we are a nation of laws. This is our President taking the law into his own hands. That cannot be tolerated. I hope our new House leadership votes to impeach this President should he continue this course, and immediately resolve to defund entirely both the office of the President of the United States and the Attorney General's office until he complies with his Oath of Office. This cannot be tolerated.

I don't say that lightly, until now I've never thought Obama should be impeached. This is different, this is totally illegal, and wrong.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Convicted

A Scandalous Judgment

Below is a press release from
B├╝rgerbewegung Pax Europa concerning today’s verdict in the “hate speech” trial against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

Press Release on the Scandalous Judgment Against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Gemmingen, February 15, 2011

On February 15, 2011, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was sentenced to a fine of €480 for “denigration of religious doctrines” by Judge Bettina Neubauer in the Vienna Regional Court. She was acquitted of the original charge of ethnic incitement.

ESW Trial Day 3, #1
The court based “denigration of religious doctrines” on the fact that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff had characterized Mohammed as “pedophiliac” because — according to Islamic legend — he had sex with nine year-old Aisha. In the court’s view, this was “denigrating” because Mohammed did not have sex exclusively with children but also with grown women, and stayed with Aisha until his death when she was eighteen years old. So he was not inclined to pedophilia.

It might be interesting to see whether this scandalous judicial interpretation could persist in regard to convicted child molesters in Austria. It is known that many of these child molesters were fathers of families at the time. This could therefore no longer legally be called “pedophilia.”

Elisabeth’s statement after the trial is clear: “Today is a sad day for my young daughter and for all other young girls.”

Elisabeth will appeal this verdict and so she needs your continuing support. Please help according to your means! She is defending not only herself, but freedom of speech for all of us.

Super Bowl Sunday Welcome

University to Change Policy Defining Religious Discrimination as Oppression by Christians

University to Change Policy Defining Religious Discrimination as Oppression by Christians

By Todd Starnes

Published February 16, 2011 |

The University of California at Davis has backed away from a policy that defined religious discrimination as Christians oppressing non-Christians after more than two dozen Christian students filed a formal complaint.

Campus of Universtity of California at Davis
The definition was listed in a document called, “The Principles of Community.” It defined “Religious/Spiritual Discrimination” as “The loss of power and privilege to those who do not practice the dominant culture’s religion. In the United States, this is institutionalized oppressions toward those who are not Christian.”

“This is radical political correctness run amok,” said David French, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

The conservative advocacy group wrote a letter on behalf of more than 25 students who objected to the policy and wanted it revised.

He said it’s absurd to single out Christians as oppressors and non-Christians as the only oppressed people on campus.

Raheem Reed, an associate executive vice chancellor at UC-Davis, said he received the letter and removed the definition Wednesday afternoon.

“I certainly can see how a Christian student reading that definition might feel and that’s why it was immediately disabled and taken down,” Reed told Fox News Radio. “This is not how we define religious discrimination.”

However, one student said they complained to administrators last November about the policy and nothing was done. “Christians deserve the same protections against religious discrimination as any other students on a public university campus,” French told Fox News Radio. “The idea that a university would discriminate against Christians is a very old story, unfortunately, and one that we see played out every day.”

One student, who asked not to be identified, said university officials asked her to reaffirm “The Principles of Community” last semester. She refused to do so when she realized that Christians were not protected under the policy.

“To have a non-discrimination policy that excludes the Christian faith is a cause for action,” she said. “In higher academia, one would hope that a diversity of ideas and beliefs would be appreciated. But my experience has been that this has not always been the case. There is a real fear of academic bias against the Christian faith.”

Reed said he regrets that Christian students might feel intimidated. “We want everyone to feel safe, welcomed and supportive,” he said.

“Not only are we taking it down, but now we’re going to look at what kind of affirmative steps we can take to reassure those members of our campus community who may have felt somewhat threatened or intimidated by it.”

French said all of the students who complained are fearful of backlash if their identities became known. “This was amazing to actually enshrine in your non-discrimination statement – discrimination against Christians,” he said.

“This is a symbol of the seeming impunity in which universities violate the law to establish a radical, secular-left agenda.” Alan Brownstein, a law professor at UC-Davis, said the campus has a generally open and tolerant view of religion.

“It’s a university campus,” he said. “There is robust debate and people will disagree on just about everything.” Brownstein, who is a nationally known constitutional scholar, said any legal challenges to the policy would depend on whether or not it’s a binding document.

“Clearly, if you had an enforceable regulatory policy that said, ‘we will discipline Christians who oppress non-Christians, but we will not impose the same kind of disciplinary sanctions on non-Christians who engage in the same kind of harassing behavior against Christians,’ that would be unacceptable and subject to legal challenge.”

Reed said “The Principles of Community” is not a policy. “They are, in fact, aspirational principles we have – to try to make sure we are promoting diversity and trying to build a more inclusive campus community,” he said.

Regardless, Brownstein said it might have been more appropriate to use less-specific language in the policy. “It’s always preferable to be as general as you can when you describe these kinds of unacceptable behaviors,” he said.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Monday, February 7, 2011

Geert Wilders' Opening Speech at His New Trial

The Lights Are Going Out All Over Europe

Below is the speech given by Geert Wilders on the opening day of his new trial on “hate speech” charges in Amsterdam. Many thanks to Vlaamse Leeuwin for the translation:

The lights are going out all over Europe. All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization. The foundation of the West is under attack everywhere.

All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us for fourteen centuries. An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom. The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve [a Dutch author], the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity. The ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are backward and impoverished. Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology.

My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe — a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. Freedom-loving citizens who criticize Islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honour killing, must suffer, and are threatened or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger.

The lights are going out allover Europe. Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.

This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.

Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said here last year:

It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people — and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament — to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. Hence it is a right and a duty to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called Islam. I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. I hope not only that I shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Rev. Harrison's vision of the future of American Protestantism

Lutheran leader sees Protestants aligning
Rosa Salter Rodriguez | The Journal Gazette

The Rev. Matthew Harrison has a vision of what the future of American Protestantism might look like – and it includes a potentially big realignment.

Harrison, who was pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Fort Wayne in the 1990s and early 2000s, was elected last year to head the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, a 6,200-congregation denomination with 2.3 million baptized members. The synod is the second-largest and most traditional among the branches of Lutheranism in North America.

In an interview last month during a visit to the Synod’s Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Harrison said he sees opposition to homosexuality and support of traditional marriage as leading to new ties among dissident members of diverse Protestant groups.

“I certainly see it happening,” he said. “It’s a very interesting moment worldwide.”

In recent years, several U.S. denominations including Lutherans, Episcopalians and Presbyterians have seen splinter groups form in reaction to policies that broadened acceptance of homosexuals.

Now, he says the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s recent move to allow some non-celibate gay clergy is affecting the church’s mission in the developing world, where different branches of the faith have traditionally cooperated.

He called the decision “the worst blunder in the history of Lutheran missions,” saying it makes it harder for the church’s message to be heard.

In Africa it’s because of homosexuality’s connection to the AIDS epidemic, he said. In countries such as Indonesia where Islam is prevalent, he added, Islamic radicals seize on the issue as proof that the Western Christian church is decadent and should be rejected.

Harrison said the issue may present an opportunity for his denomination in some countries.

In the past several years, Lutheran groups in Madagascar, where the population is 25 percent Lutheran, have made informal overtures to the Missouri Synod. Lutherans in the country have historically aligned with the ELCA, he said.

Another sign of the realignment, he added, is that his denomination and the Anglican Church in North America have begun formal dialogue seeking common ground.

The Anglican body formed in 2008 in a split from the U.S. Episcopal Church largely over the issue of allowing homosexual bishops and priests. It has ties to Anglican churches in Africa that opposed homosexuality, including Uganda, Nigeria and Rwanda.

Anglicans and the Missouri Synod are talking “to be able to affirm each other in significant ways as fellow Christians, stand together against certain societal and ecclesial trends and cooperate together in works of mercy,” according to the synod’s description of the dialogues. They began in November and will continue this year.

Still another sign of movement is a declaration signed by Harrison in December on marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The declaration was endorsed by leaders of about 20 Protestant Christian groups as well as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church.

Harrison said for Missouri Synod Lutherans, the issue of homosexuality strikes at the root of the authority of Scripture.

“The difficulty we have runs to the very heart of the Gospel – is there salvation outside of Christ? The Bible says no,” he says, adding that those who claim acceptance of homosexuality are imposing their interpretation of the texts.

Harrison last year also wrote a letter to U.S. lawmakers saying that the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the U.S. military “will sorely inhibit our chaplains’ ability to call all sinners to repentance.”

He said the new policy will likely lead to openly homosexual chaplains and added that Missouri Synod members may be counseled not to partake of their services.

“But the challenge for the Missouri Synod on this whole issue is simply not to be the denomination of ‘no.’ ” he said.

“It is my deep desire to refrain from statements against homosexuality, at the same time affirming the biblical stance and that the church has a role in assisting people who struggle with this issue,” Harrison said.

In Fort Wayne, Harrison was known for spearheading a project with neighboring St. Peter Catholic Church that rejuvenated the Hanna-Creighton neighborhood.

Dilapidated homes were cleared from a 10-block area around the churches and replaced with new development, such as the Pontiac branch of the Allen County Public Library and the headquarters of the Urban League.

After leaving Fort Wayne, Harrison served as executive director of LCMS World Relief and Human Care.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Luton

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Luton

Saturday, February 05, 2011


ESW Luton Feb. 2011

“We must stand up and reclaim our ancient liberties.”

Below is the text of the speech given today in Luton by
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:
Ladies and gentlemen,

I am delighted to be here in Luton, the birthplace of the English Defence League.

Native Lutonians are living at Ground Zero of the attempted Islamic takeover of England. Your resistance is an inspiration to everyone in the European Counterjihad. It is a privilege to have been invited to this historic event.

As most of you know, I have been charged with hate speech in Austria, and my trial is currently underway.

What were the charges against me?

The original charge was “incitement to hatred”. On the second day of my trial, the judge at her own discretion added a second charge, “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.”

Guess which religion that was?

The second charge is a more serious one, and makes it more likely that I will be convicted.

Those were the charges. Now, what was my crime?

My “crime”, ladies and gentlemen, was to tell the truth about Islam. To quote the Koran and the hadith. To cite the official texts of sharia. To explain that Islam tells men to beat their wives, and that sharia requires the amputation of limbs for theft.

In my seminars I explained that Islamic law sanctions the mutilation of the genitals of little girls. It demands that anyone who leaves Islam be killed.

In short, my “crime” was to educate my fellow Austrians about what Islam really means, as prescribed by Islam itself.

Telling the plain truth about Islam in its own words insults Muslims. How bizarre is that?

The EDL’s mission statement describes it as a “human rights organisation”. Its primary goal is to restore the civil rights of ordinary English citizens. In recent years these rights have been systematically eroded by the tyrannical multicultural ideology of the state. Islam would not have been able to establish its oppressive presence in England if the civil rights of Englishmen had not already been taken away.

I share your concern with human rights. If we do not reclaim our basic rights — including the most important right of all, the right to speak freely — our civilization will be destroyed. All of our great institutions, including democracy and the rule of law, are made possible by the fundamental human rights that we all used to take for granted.

These rights are now being deliberately destroyed. The legal case against me is evidence of that fact, and so are the cases against Tommy Robinson, Guramit Singh, Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, and all the other brave people who have spoken out against Islam and then been prosecuted for it.

The rights which are being taken away from us are our God-given rights. They were not granted to us by our governments.

People here in England are very fortunate, because their rights were firmly established long ago. For many centuries Englishmen have claimed — and successfully fought for — the rights of free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, and all the other rights that were eventually identified as universal.

It is not the same in my country. We Viennese have a proud history, first as the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, and later as the capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But, sad to say, universal human rights came late to Austria, and their roots are shallow. Not only that, the Austrian Empire was the prototype for the modern multicultural state, with its patchwork of ethnicities and official languages.

To make matters worse, in 1912, when Bosnia was incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian empire, my country recognized Islam as an official state religion. The law establishing Islam in Austria is the very same law under which I am being prosecuted.

So the right to free speech in Austria is neither deeply rooted nor greatly respected. But this is not the case in England.

Any Englishman who asserts his right to free speech is not breaking new ground. He is reclaiming what has already been his for centuries. The rights of free speech, free assembly, and self-government are among the “ancient liberties” of Englishmen. Any government that interferes with those liberties is tyrannical and illegitimate.

It’s worth remembering that your cousins in the American colonies rebelled against King George III because he usurped those very same rights. The colonists who formed the United States of America began by demanding their ancient liberties as Englishmen.

This is what we all must do. In these degraded and perilous times, we must stand up and reclaim our ancient liberties.

This is why I support the EDL. I stand behind any group that resists Islamization by peacefully invoking its right to speak freely about the evils of Islam.

I was prosecuted for informing ordinary people about the reality of Islam. Educating our own people is our most effective strategy to use against sharia.

For that reason, I advise you not to burn the Koran, but to read it. Only by studying what Islam stands for will we learn how to face it down.

Know your enemy. We do not fight him with knives or guns, but with the pen, the microphone, the video camera, and the printing press. Understanding what Islam means is our greatest weapon in the struggle against it. We do not need any intimidation or bullying, because the truth is on our side.

Samuel Johnson once said, “Courage is the greatest of all virtues, because if you haven’t courage, you may not have an opportunity to use any of the others.”

In the deadly times that lie ahead, courage will be required of ordinary men and women who refuse to submit to the tyranny of Islamization. Hate-speech prosecutions and shotgun attacks are only a mild foretaste of what is in store for us.

Col. Allen West, one of the most stalwart soldiers of the Counterjihad, always signs his emails with the words “steadfast and loyal”. We too must remain steadfast and loyal to one another in the coming struggle.

Never give up. Never give in.

We will never surrender!

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Obama, Soros and Brzezinski behind fall of Egypt and Islamic Revolution

By Michael Savage and Greg Lewis MICHAEL SAVAGE

© 2011 by Savage Productions, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Barack Obama has been playing a critical role in making sure that Egypt, one of our staunchest allies in the Middle East, is positioned to become the next member of the Union of Iranian Radical Islamist Republics headed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Every single word out of the president’s mouth, every single move he’s made has had the effect of stabbing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in the back, of opening the door to Islamist radicals taking another step on their way to restoring an unholy caliphate in that region.

The historical precedent for Obama’s actions can be found in those of another weak liberal Democratic president, Jimmy Carter. In the late 1970s, the Shah of Iran ruled that country in much the same way Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt, through maintaining tight control over the population with a strong military and the support of the United States. When Carter withdrew his support of the Shah in the name of “human rights,” he enabled the Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran from his exile in Paris and assume leadership of the country.


It looks very much like Obama is following directly in Carter’s footsteps. The problem is that the situation is much more serious today than it was 30 years ago. Blame that on Jimmy Carter. Carter’s turning over Iran to the mullahs has allowed Islamist radicalism to establish a soon-to-be-nuclear outpost in the region.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is set to expand his influence and power by abetting the overthrow of nations such as Egypt that retain ties with and receive support from the west. There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad sees himself as the leader of an Islamist union that wields power over the entire Middle East and threatens western civilization as well.

Since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the left in America has come out on the side of Islamist radicals. They cheered as the Twin Towers fell and American lives were lost. With the election of one of their own as president of the United States, the left moved even closer to realizing its aim of bringing down our country.

It is not out of the question that Barack Obama is actually working to insure that our allies in the Middle East, including Egypt and Jordan, follow in the footsteps of Iran in installing a radical Islamist government. It is not out of the question that Obama seeks the demise of our staunchest ally, Israel.


What is becoming clear is that, like Jimmy Carter, Obama is on the side of Islamist radicals. When Iranian students staged an uprising after the rigged elections in that country insured that the totalitarian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would remain in power, Obama was on vacation in Hawaii and treated the Iranian insurrection as nothing more than a nuisance.

Instead of intervening and speaking out strongly in favor of the students and the overthrow of a truly heinous enemy regime, Obama declined to take sides, saying “it is up to Iranians to decide who Iran’s leaders will be.” By not speaking out and taking the lead in denouncing the Iranian regime, Obama revealed where his sympathies lay.

Only a few weeks earlier, Obama had delivered one of his more insipid speeches. Speaking in Cairo, he had called for America to end torture and close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in order to reclaim its “moral authority.” His insistence that “the people of Iran” should decide who their leaders are simply ignored the fact that the Ahmadinejad regime had rigged the election. The point was that there was no way the Iranian people could decide who their leaders would be. By saying what he did, Obama came down solidly on the side of the Muslim dictatorship and rigging elections in order to achieve it.


Less than two years later, the Cairo insurrection against one of America’s staunchest allies, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, provided Obama with another chance to speak out against Islamist radicalism. Instead he’s again waffled and backtracked and stabbed Mubarak in the back by demanding that the Egyptian president step down immediately.

Nobody is saying that Mubarak’s government is a paragon of democratic rule. What Mubarack has done, though, is to provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. He’s the closest thing to a friend that Israel has in the region. He’s helped Israel secure its borders, and he’s kept the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood from gaining power in Egypt by outlawing them. He’s accepted U.S. foreign aid, primarily in the form of military equipment, and used it to maintain his country’s strength.

Our foreign aid, which Obama has publicly considered withdrawing to punish Mubarack, represents money well spent. We get back much more in increased Middle East security through the sale of military equipment to our ally than can be measured simply in dollars. After watching silently for several days as demonstrators overran the streets of Cairo, Obama did what he would not do in the Iranian situation: He said that Mubarak must step down immediately in order to pave the way for “free” elections.


But as it turns out, it’s not quite as simple as that. Obama’s words to the contrary, it’s highly likely that our president had a strong hand in bringing about the riots in Egypt. Beyond that, he was aided and abetted by the very man who engineered the financial meltdown that enabled Obama to get elected in the first place: George Soros.

The U.S. knew as early as December, 2008, that groups opposed to the Mubarak regime were already developing a plan to overthrow the Egyptian government. They received the information from a young dissident who the U.S. had sponsored to attend a meeting for international political activists that took place in New York City.

In addition, according to documents exposed by WikiLeaks, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey was aware of the plans of the Mubarak opposition group. Leaked documents also show that while the United States publicly supported the Mubarak government, U.S. Embassy officials continued to communicate with the activist in question throughout 2008 and 2009.

The problem is that in order for a country to hold “free” elections, it must have a democratic infrastructure, a democratic culture. In the most important sense, there is no Middle Eastern country that has this, except for Israel. Even our attempts to establish democracy in Iraq have done little to combat the influence of Iran or to insure that democracy will survive after we leave.


When you try to establish a democracy in the Middle East, Islamist radicals move in and take over. It’s exactly what happened in Gaza. In the elections of 2005, the terrorist group Hamas was the big winner over Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah Party. By 2007, Hamas had drive the Fatah Party out of Gaza. And when Abbas, still the nominal president of Gaza, called for elections in January of 2009, Hamas said that anyone who participated in the election would be “dealt with by the [Hamas] ministry or by other means.” In other words, if you vote you die.

That’s what the term “free elections” means in the Middle East. It means that a radical terrorist organization will move in, intimidate the population, and make sure that its candidates are elected. It’s exactly what is likely to happen in Egypt, even if an “orderly” transition to free elections takes place.

First, it’s very likely that even if the uprising against Mubarak in Egypt began spontaneously, it’s no longer spontaneous. Ahmadinejad applauded the insurrection loudly when it began, and there is no doubt that his agents are involved on the street and in the backrooms where strategies against Mubarak are being plotted.


To this point: One of the key figures in opposition to Mubarak is Mohamed ElBaradei. He’s the former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director. In that capacity, he whitewashed Iran’s nuclear energy program, essentially saying that Ahmadinehad was not pursuing nuclear weapons when it’s clear to everyone that he is. On January 18, before the uprising in Egypt had begun, AlBaradei, in what was a veiled call to action for Islamists, warned that a “Tunisia-style explosion” could occur in Egypt.

AlBaradei has emerged as a key figure in a “shadow parliament” that has formed in Egypt.2 The shadow parliament consists of opposition leaders who are trying to develop plans for a transition to a new regime through “free and democratic” elections. Included in the group are representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical terrorist group responsible for the assassination of Egyptian Premier Anwar Sadat in 1981 and the seed group for other Islamist terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood seeks nothing less than a government based on Islamist principles, including the implementation of Shariah Law and waging jihad against the west. AlBaradei, given the fact that he looked the other way when inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities, is very likely a puppet of the Iranian regime. In April, 2009, AlBaradei told the press that “more U.S. engagement with Tehran’s leaders would increase regional security.” Although many say he’s unlikely to play a key role in the upcoming elections, he’s nonetheless one of the agents seeking to give Islamist radicals a voice in the Egyptian government.


It’s no coincidence that AlBaradei showed up in Cairo only two days after the uprising began and was immediately named a negotiator by the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, he had been waiting in the wings for quite a while. He’s on the board of an organization headed by George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski called International Crisis Group. Brzezinski is the same man who supervised the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979.

Another board member of the ICC is one Javier Solana. Solana is oneof the most powerful figures in the European Union. Because of his Marxist sympathies and his support for the regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Solana was once on the USA’s subversive list. Former U.S. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who once smuggled incriminating documents out ofthe Clinton White House by hiding them in his clothing is another Board Member, as is General Wesley Clark, once fired from his NATO command. Monamed ElBaradei also sits on the ICC’s Board.


The organization’s stated aim is “working to prevent conflict worldwide.” The group promotes itself as “the world’s leading independent, non-partisan, source of analysis and advice to governments, and intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations, European Union and World Bank, on the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict.”

The true purpose of the ICC is exactly the opposite of its stated purpose. It seeks nothing less than the political downfall of moderate regimes in Muslim countries which maintain friendly relations with the United States, with the ultimate purpose of destroying our country and promoting Islamist regimes.

Soros continues to exert a strong influence on the policies and pronouncements of Barak Obama and his administration. His influence includes promoting the Muslim Brotherhood to a position of power in Egypt. To that end, Frank Wisner, a former U.S. ambassador to Egypt, met secretly with Issam El-Erian, a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, at the Obama administration’s request.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the fate of Egypt after Mubarak was deposed. It is also reported that Obama himself met with members of the Muslim brotherhood in 2009.6 While the situation in Egypt is still fluid, with Mubarak proposing to remain in power through the elections scheduled for September, the fact is that Egypt is the key player in what is almost certainly a larger movement to unseat current governments in the region and replace them with Islamist- friendly regimes.


This week, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said that President Obama’s call for an immediate transition from the government of President Hosni Mubarak has incited violence. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki said “What foreign parties are saying about ‘a period of transition beginning immediately’ in Egypt is rejected. He added that such calls “inflame the internal situation in Egypt.”

Tunisia’s government was dissolved and its president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, fled the country after protests against joblessness and corruption overwhelmed Tunisia’s security forces in a situation that foreshadowed what is happening in Egypt.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II has also dissolved the parliament in his country in response to protests similar, although not as violent and widespread, to those in Egypt and Tunisia. Abdullah has also promised free elections within six months.

The situation is ripe for Islamist terrorist organizations to move in and take control of the Middle East. And Obama is their enabler. He is the epitome of a weak liberal president. He mouths utopian leftist platitudes while the governments of our allies in the Middle East are challenged.


Obama actually said the Muslim Brotherhood “must reject violence and recognize democratic goals” in one interview. His lack of understanding of the consequences of this type of rhetoric and of the positions he holds is unfathomable. It may well be that at heart he is true to his Muslim upbringing and is bound to cede the power of the Judaeo-Christian west to Islamic tyrants.

He supports the demonstrators when there is a chance that his support will lead to the overthrow of our allies, but he keeps his mouth shut when truly dictatorial Islamist regimes are threatened by popular uprising. His weakness is having the effect of enabling a new caliphate to be formed in the Middle East. We’re very likely witnessing the formation of a new Islamist alliance led by Iran.

Reaction from people who understand the true urgency of the situation has universally condemned Obama’s positions. One article about Obama’s “betrayal” of Mubarak was titled “A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam.” That piece went on to describe “the politically correct diplomacy of American presidents throughout the generations” as “na├»ve.

”Israeli lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said, “I don’t think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into.”


The United States, upon realizing the seriousness of the situation in Egypt, should have immediately come to the aid of President Mubarack and the maintenance of stability in Egypt and the region. We should have deployed naval assets to the Suez Canal in order to protect that channel through which nearly 10 percent of the world’s goods pass on their way to their destinations.

We should also have made it clear that we support our allies, Egypt and Israel, and we will do everything in our power to maintain the status quo, even as Egypt moves toward liberalizing its government. We should also have made it clear that intervention by other countries, especially Iran, will not be tolerated. Obama needed to come down on the side of maintaining our allies in the region. Instead, he sided with Islamists.

The invitation to hold “free elections” in Middle Eastern countries with no history of democracy and no democratic infrastructure or culture in place is nothing less than a naive invitation to Islamist radicals to step in and take control. Such a transition, if it can be made at all, must be very gradual.

People with no history of establishing and maintaining democratic institutions must be led into their formation. As Murabak supporters clash with anti-Mubarak forces in the streets of Cairo, the country’s fate rests more and more with the Egyptian military and with Omar Suleiman, Egyptian Intelligence Chief who is now Vice President. It is just possible that, if the military is able to retain power and if Suleiman is able to take over from Mubarak, that the Middle East can retainits precarious balance. But don’t look to Barak Obama for help.