Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

In a grand bow to the "forces of Democracy,"  the people have spoken in Egypt.  President Mubarak, after the hurried gleaning of  a wealth totaling anywhere from $ 40 to $ 70 Billion dollars, eased out of his Presidential palace and embarked to his home on the Red Sea. Thus an Egyptian authoritarian rule that has been in place for generations has ended; good riddance being the operative sentiment here, right?  Well, perhaps, perhaps not.  You see, the only problem with all of this becomes:  What type of "Democracy"  might we witness coming to fruition and at what cost to the Middle East, even the world?  Remains to be seen is the best that anyone can come up with according to even the most knowledgeable of Mideast experts, except for one.

Enter President Barack Obama, who weighed into the Revolution with a number of confused messages both to the leadership of Egypt and also to the people of Egypt.

The President's initial account of the protesters went this way:

"A loose amalgam of forces"

"Some of which doubt the legitimacy of the Presidency"

"There are strains that are troubled by what they saw as as a series of instances in which the middle-class and working class people have been abused or hurt by special interests but their anger is misdirected"

"So I have been amused in recent days by these people having rallies,  I think they should be saying thank you"

The President thinks the Egyptian protesters should be thanking Mubarak? Oops!  Actually, those quotes were the President's descriptions of the millions of Tea Party protesters here in America.  As Americans listened to the President's words concerning the people of Egypt, many could not help but notice the irony at play.  The overall reaction to the protests that were occurring in Egypt as compared to both the President's and Democrats' reaction to another powerful throng of protesters, here at home in the form of the Tea Party and others, were both stark and bordering on the absurd.

Message Impossible

The Obama Administration, over the course of the 18 days of Egyptian protests, began with the President stating on January 25th that the US:

"Supports the Democratic aspirations of all people everywhere."

On the 26th, Robert Gibbs stated:

"Egypt is a strong ally."

On January 27th, Vice President Joe Biden, completely in clown- suit character, stated this:

"I would not refer to Mubarak as a dictator."

On January the 28th, Obama urged Mubarak to:

"Meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people."

Robert Gibbs, also on January 28th, urged non-violence from both sides and threatened ending US aid to Egypt in general.  The Administration was seemingly waiting to ascertain which way the wind was blowing.  As the situation grew worse, on February 1st, the President stated the following to Mubarak after indicating that he would exit power:

"Relinquishing power was the right decision, but the transition to a new government must begin now."

At a news conference, later that day, the President firmly began supporting the Egyptian uprising by stating the following:

"An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin right away."

Further, Obama, in praise of the protesters of Egypt, stated the following:

"An inspiration to the people of the world."

At this point, the White House messages over a number of days became garbled with Clinton, Obama and other advisers uttering seemingly conflicting things in a diversity of times.  But on Mubarak's day of departure, which was February 11th, the President's speech set a number of American eyes to rolling around uncontrollably.

The President spoke of elections that are fair and free while many in America must have thought of the election antics by ACORN, SEIU and other groups linked both closely in one sense and yet loosely in another to Obama's campaign.

Obama spoke of bringing all voices to the table in Egypt while here at home the President had mocked members of the Tea Party as "folks waving tea-bags around."  Even now, many interpret the President's meaning on "all voices" as a reference to those of the militant Muslim brotherhood.

The President spoke of the "power of peaceful protest and perseverance" in glowing terms while having totally ignored an equal number of protesters in Washington concerning healthcare and other disagreeable items on the President's economically withering agenda.

Obama spoke to the Egyptian's demand of universal rights even while speaking against the negative rights of governance here at home.

When Ignorance Is Bliss

While the Democrats and even a goodly number of Republicans and Conservatives uncontrollably shiver in excitement at what Liberty has seemingly wrought, there are those few pragmatists among us who are not so terribly sure.  There are, astoundingly, some various  individuals among us who even view these foreign events as "nothing of great concern, we all should be envious of these events," they will say--and indeed we were at first--however, geo-politics must be reckoned into the mix at some point (more on that later). The media, meanwhile, continues its mission of transforming into an over-excited toy poodle troupe of jittery bounciness at the faintest of positive sounding echoes when it comes to protests in foreign lands, but heaven help us all should that same protest occur here at home, and therein lies the rub.

Unfortunately, the time for ringing the liberty bell has not quite arrived just yet. In fact, there may be more riding on these presaging events than at any other time since the rise of the Third Reich.  The question that becomes a burning concern is whether or not a secular Democracy will emerge, or might it become another Islamist Totalitarian Regime? We would all do well to remember the familiarities that definitely exists between another revolution that ran an eerily similar course back in 1979--interestingly, the leader of the Iranian revolution in 1979 was Iran's current President, Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian Revolution also consisted of a fabulously wealthy, mostly disliked dictator with strong allegiances to the United States.  The main comparative difference, in Iran's case, was the battle that ensued between military forces, which were loyal to the Shah, against guerrilla and defected troops, which were loyal to Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini. The Rebel troops eventually overcame the Shah's forces and the Shah beat a hasty trail of retreat only to leave a dark void of power in its wake.  That leadership vacuum, within thirty days, was to be filled by the Western-despising Islamic authoritarian Ayatollah Khomeini.  Khomeini was to then install a Theocracy of Islamic governance that would serve the same sort of brutal dictatorial ends as the Shah's but through the power of Islam's God rather than through the former authoritarian cronyism.  Either way, the end result became the same as even now pockets of often violent protests flame up throughout Iran on a regular basis by those who yearn for true freedom.

Further, the roots of the Iranian Revolution were sown within the fertile ground of an anti-western movement instigated by both populists and nationalists yearning for social justice and economic parity.  Their movement was later to be hijacked by adherents of Shia Islam or Shariah law.  In this way, it is believed that the rapid rise of Islamic extremism, along with the popularity of Shariah law, can be, in large part, traced to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. When similar events are seen now, which eventually culminated in the successful  Egyptian Revolution, we can see many of the same seeds of discontent being nourished.  The one horrifying thing to remember is simply that back in 1979, the infrastructure for a radical Islamic surge was in its infancy.  Now, the Islamic movement has matured and has spread throughout many western nations to the ultimate chagrin of foolish yet well-meaning western populations and governments.

An Egyptian Ground Hog Day

Make no mistake, these movements, both in Iran and Egypt, each have been powered in large part by populists and nationalists yearning for social justice and economic improvement or parity.  As in Iran, the Egyptian population is largely made up of those who advocate adherence to Shariah law with all of the customary trappings that go along with that particular mindset.  Also, in each case, adherents to the tenets of Islam seem to find the idea of Government rooted in ideology to be a holy jihad worthy of pursuit until such time as their goals are starkly realized.  Once dominated by the Mullahs, the next generation of subjects will predictably rail against the strictures of authoritarian regimes as dictatorial and unfair, while older adherents blame the west for compromising and tempting their youth in reprehensible deflection.

Then, in a generational cycle of dismay, these same upstarts will likely occur over and over again in a "ground hog day cycle" of power continually overturning the consent of the governed until a different paradigm of effort is finally realized by the people.  While many have touted the movement as being grassroots, others in Egypt have indicated something else altogether.  In a NY Times article, the Egyptian youth movement is quoted as being made up of Liberals, Socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  So why is it that the Muslim Brotherhood keeps popping up when discussions of concern erupt with regard to the Egyptian revolt?  In answer, one Egyptian protester stated that she knew that the Muslim Brotherhood "always has a hidden agenda."  The woman then went on to explain that "you never know when power comes how they will behave but they are good with organizing."  Indeed, they are quite well-trained at it, we would agree.

But the other points regarding concern over the revolt and who will net power seem to focus on a deluge of naive denial both from many members of the liberal media and even those in positions of high governance here in the states.  National Director of Intelligence James Clapper recently appeared before a US committee and iterated to everyone in attendance that one of the primary players in the Egyptian Revolution, being the Muslim Brotherhood as alluded to earlier, was a secular group dedicated to non-violence. This utterance would, rather remarkably, be akin to our ridiculously stating that America's 700 Club is an atheist organization dedicated to abortion.

The Muslim Brotherhood Is Secular, Obamacare is Cheaper, Stimulus Worked

The simple fact is that the Muslim Brotherhood has been proven time and time again to be the root organization of factions such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and myriad other radical organizations.  The Muslim Brotherhood is also the entity that Obama seems to mean as he constantly insists that all voices be included.  This was made crystal clear during the Bill O' Reilly interview.

The main point here being that the Brotherhood is dedicated to the wiping out of one of our closest allies in Israel.  The Egyptians have maintained the peace with the Israelis for the past 30 years.  If Egypt were to turn away from a secular Democracy and towards an Islamic Theocracy, all bets are off as to maintaining the peace in the Mideast.  If then the extremists gain a foothold in Egypt and back away from peace with Israel, we could be seeing the beginnings of an Armageddon type of scenario, eventually playing out with multiple anti-Jewish countries sparking offensives with a nuclear powered juggernaut in the Israeli military.  As these fact are looked at through a prism of abject horror, we then hearken back to Clapper's words of either winsome ignorance or calculated misdirection.

With Clapper's now stunning cameo appearances of astoundingly uninformed responses, we have to wonder if it is Clapper who has the President's ear or is it the President who has Clapper's ear as to the true impetus of the Muslim Brotherhood and what the Administration seems to be trying to achieve avowed possible inclusion.

Does the President actually desire the inclusion of Islamic extremism at the freshly set Egyptian table of Democracy? The thing to remember is that these cunning radicals  will most likely not seize at a leadership stake in Egypt until and unless they are in a position to win and do so convincingly.  Camouflage will most likely be the order of the day for now.

Maybe terrorist-affiliated organizations with a long history of radical extremism do belong at that same table of "Democratic governance"...perhaps we should consult both Iran and Al Quaeda in order to ascertain functionality in that regard.