Egyptian Government: Moderate Muslims vs. Obama Brothers a.k.a Muslim Brotherhood

[H/T WND>>Jerome Corsi] — NEW YORK – The Egyptian Air Force officer currently residing in the United States who has pressed terrorist charges in Egypt against President Obama’s half-brother Malik has characterized the decision of the Egyptian government to prosecute the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a conflict of “moderate Muslims vs. the Obama brothers.”

As Jan. 8, 2014, approaches and Egypt prepares for the next appearance in court of former president Mohamed Morsi and the 14 Muslim Brotherhood leaders facing charges of incitement to murder, Sadek Raouf Ebeid believes the Obama brothers will be implicated because of their support for the Brotherhood in Egypt.

Ebeid was the man who last August filed Complaint No. 1761 with the office of Egyptian Attorney General Hisham Barakat, accusing Malik Obama of managing investment funds for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

In a letter addressed to WND, translated and published on the website of Arab-language researcher Walid Shoebat, Ebeid noted the promptness with which Barakat responded to the filing of his complaint.

He said the quick response to his request that Malik be placed on the Egyptian terrorist watch list reflected not just the efficiency of Ebeid’s lawyer in Egypt, Ahmed el-Ganzory, but also the degree to which this case “resonated with the feelings of the majority of moderate Muslims in the Arab world.”

WND reported in September that Ebeid’s complaint cited Malik for managing funds for both the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Islamic Dawa Organization, or IDO, in Sudan.

Earlier this month, WND reported Egyptian lawyers have filed criminal terrorism charges in the International Criminal Court against President Obama, in addition to the criminal terrorism charges previously filed in Egyptian courts against Malik.

The charges filed in the ICC assert President Obama coordinated, incited and assisted the armed elements of the Muslim Brotherhood in the commission of crimes against humanity, including the torching, destruction and plundering of some 85 Christian churches from March 7 through Aug. 18 in Egypt.

‘Two distinct understandings of Islam’

Ebeid says moderate Muslims in Egypt are working to criminalize the radical activities of the Muslim Brotherhood that controlled the Morsi government to enable Egypt to return to a more tolerant situation in which Christians and Jews are not persecuted.

Ebeid wrote:

One has to admit that there are two distinct understandings of Islam.

A moderate, peaceful understanding of Islam that is lead by the Egyptian Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar, Dr. Ahmed el-Tayeb, an Egyptian Sheikh, who has studied philosophy in Paris and is currently the head of Al Azhar Mosque. I am proud to be the first to nominate el-Tayeb for the Nobel peace prize, for his role in spreading the moderate understanding of Islam, referred to in Arabic as “Al Islam Al Wasati.”

The majority of the thirty-three million Egyptians who flooded the streets of Egypt in June 2013 were predominantly moderate Muslims.

While some political commentators may continue to argue whether this event was a coup or a revolution, any objective historian will admit that it was a human earthquake. It was a human earthquake that shook the ground of the Middle East, taking the Arab world out of the dark ages and into the Arab renaissance.

More than ever, Egyptians adhered to the moderate version of Islam, (“Al Islam Al Wasati”). This version is symbolized by the Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb. He was the man whom the military Generals in Egypt consulted with and whose blessings were obtained, while etching into stone, the post-revolution road map.

In contrast to the earlier teachings of Egypt’s deposed president Morsi, who was recorded in 2010, saying that Arabs need to nurse their children on hatred of the Jews, Egypt’s pending constitution has a third amendment guaranteeing the right of Jews to practice their faith in Egypt.

Ebeid was asked how this relates to President Obama and his brother Malik:

Recently, Egypt’s only lady to ever sit on the Supreme court bench in the Arab world, Judge Tahani el-Gibally (al-Jebali) has made a declaration that has shaken all Egyptians & International observers worldwide. Per her testimony that we included in Case 1761 that I filed on August, 24th 2013, she confirmed what prominent investigative reporters in the US have published earlier.

The Shoebat Foundation has published photos and indisputable evidence that a gentleman by the name of Malik Obama, is serving as the right arm of General al-Bashir.

Photos of Malik Obama participating in an al-Bashir-sponsored organization are now on the desk of Egypt’s A.G., Hisham Barakat, which seeks to question Malik.

Soon after the case was filed, El Ganzory was permitted to serve Malik Obama with papers. He did so at the Kenyan embassy. Recently, after being called back to the embassy, the papers were returned to El Ganzory with a message that Malik is not in Kenya at this time and could not be served. El Ganzory was told Malik is in the U.S. I expect the next course of action to be that papers will be presented to the American embassy so that Malik can be properly served.

The Egyptian judicial system will not be intimidated by who Malik Obama’s brother is. While the writer of this article is proud to be a U.S. physician who deeply respects the USA, he cannot change history. Egypt had a high court in place when Christopher Columbus was still lost on the high seas.

While the US is definitely a major power politically, financially & militarily, Egypt’s deep-rooted judicial system is a lethal weapon of its own. It has already brought two of its own presidents to trial.

Bringing the brother of another country’s sitting president will not be an uphill battle!

In August, WND reported that Tehani al-Gebali, the vice president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, gave a speech and participated in an interview broadcast on Egyptian television, identifying Malik Obama as “a major architect” managing investments for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

WND also reported in August the Egyptian government planned to introduce evidence the Obama administration paid bribes as large as $850,000 to individually named Muslim Brotherhood leaders, through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

Attacks on Coptic Christians

The Muslim Brotherhood’s seizing of power in Egypt and its subsequent government led to attacks on the country’s Coptic Christians.

Middle East expert Raymond Ibrahim said in a paper published Nov. 12 on the website of the Gatestone Institute that the attacks began with the June 30 Revolution that “saw the ousting of President Morsi and prompted the Muslim Brotherhood to scapegoat and incite violence against the Copts.”

Ibrahim reported the attacks became “even more brutal in mid-August after security forces cleared out Muslim Brotherhood ‘sit in’ camps, where people were being tortured, raped, and murdered.”

He noted the attacks were especially devastating in Minya in Upper Egypt, where the large Christian community was hit especially hard, with at least 20 attacks on churches, Christian schools and orphanages.

According to Ibrahim, the goal of the radical Muslims in their attack on the Copts in Egypt was “to erase all the traces of a Christian presence,” such that even the orphanages were looted and destroyed.

Earlier, in an article titled “Attacks on Christians Escalate in Egypt, Nigeria” published by the Gatestone Institute Sept. 19, Ibrahim wrote:

On July 4th, the day after the Egyptian military liberated its nation from Muslim Brotherhood rule, Christian Copts were immediately scapegoated and targeted. All Islamist leaders—from Brotherhood supreme leader Muhammad Badi, to Egyptian-born al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, to top Sunni cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi—made a point to single out Egypt’s Copts as especially instrumental in the ousting of former Islamist president Morsi, a claim that ushered in a month of slaughter against the nation’s Christian minority.

Although religious violence by Muslims against Christians remains largely unreported in the mainstream media in the United States, Ibrahim warned that persecution of Christians in the Islamic world is on the way “to reaching pandemic proportions.”

Ex-U.N. Inspector: Deal Leaves Iran 2 Months from Bomb

[H/T WND>>Aaron Klein] — TEL AVIV – The deal between Iran and Western powers leaves Tehran just two months away from enriching enough uranium to assemble one nuclear weapon, according to an analysis by Olli Heinonen, the former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector.

Heinonen was the IAEA’s deputy director-general for safeguards until 2010.

In an email to WND, he explained that the deal that requires Iran to cap its uranium enrichment at 5 percent instead of its current 20 percent constantly would leave the country two months away from the technical ability to build a nuke.

Wrote Heinonen:

“Let us look at the current the facts on the ground. With Iran’s inventory of 20% enriched uranium, it would take about 2 weeks using 6000 IR-1 centrifuges, operating in tandem cascades, to produce enough weapons grade material for one nuclear device. If Iran uses 3-5 % enriched uranium as feed material at all its currently installed 18,000 IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, the same result would be achieved in two months.

“The current agreement retains Iran’s fleet of more than 18000 IR-1 centrifuges. Operational restrictions are placed that allow 10000 centrifuges to continue to enrich at up to 5% at any given point of time. These measures, together with a cessation of 20% enriched uranium production and conversion of the 20%-level stockpiles to oxides, extend the current breakout times to about two months.”

The former IAEA inspector dubbed the agreement “important” and a “first step” that “slows down Iran’s nuclear program.” However, he warned against interpreting the agreement as a “rollback” of Iran’s nuclear program.

Heinonen said he fears Iran could retain some undeclared nuclear sites not covered in the deal.

“The enrichment and inspection measures in this agreement cover Iran’s declared facilities,” he wrote. “The presence of any undeclared facilities however changes the picture.”

Heinonen said the IAEA “remains unable to provide credible assurances on the absence of undeclared nuclear facilities and activities.”

Further, he warned of a loophole in the agreement regarding Iran’s centrifuges.

“The agreement does not require Iran to provide a full inventory of manufactured centrifuges until now, which leaves an uncertainty to the estimates on the true breakout capability of Iran.”

Obama For Third Term Anyone? NY University Professor Wants to End Term Limits

[H/T Washington Compost] — Jonathan Zimmerman is a professor of history and education at New York University. His books include “Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory.”

In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.”

I’ve been thinking about Kilgore’s comments as I watch President Obama, whose approval rating has dipped to 37 percent in CBS News polling — the lowest ever for him — during the troubled rollout of his health-care reform. Many of Obama’s fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from the reform and from the president. Even former president Bill Clinton has said that Americans should be allowed to keep the health insurance they have.

Or consider the reaction to the Iran nuclear deal. Regardless of his political approval ratings, Obama could expect Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to attack the agreement. But if Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)?

Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear.

Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?

That was the argument of our first president, who is often held up as the father of term limits. In fact, George Washington opposed them. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote in a much-quoted letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.

Washington stepped down after two terms, establishing a pattern that would stand for more than a century. But he made clear that he was doing so because the young republic was on solid footing, not because his service should be limited in any way.

The first president to openly challenge the two-term tradition was Theodore Roosevelt, who ran for a third term as president in 1912 on the Bull Moose ticket. When he stepped down in 1908, Roosevelt pledged not to seek a third term; reminded of this promise in 1912, he said that he had meant he would not seek a “third consecutive term.” The New York Times called Roosevelt’s explanation a “pitiful sophistication,” and the voters sent Woodrow Wilson to the White House.

Only in 1940, amid what George Washington might have called a “great emergency,” did a president successfully stand for a third term. Citing the outbreak of war overseas and the Depression at home, Democrats renominated Franklin D. Roosevelt. They pegged him for a fourth time in 1944 despite his health problems, which were serious enough to send him to his grave the following year.

To Republicans, these developments echoed the fascist trends enveloping Europe. “You will be serving under an American totalitarian government before the long third term is finished,” warned Wendell Wilkie, Roosevelt’s opponent in 1940. Once the two-term tradition was broken, Wilkie added, nobody could put it back together. “If this principle dies, it will be dead forever,” he said.

That’s why the GOP moved to codify it in the Constitution in 1947, when a large Republican majority took over Congress. Ratified by the states in 1951, the 22nd Amendment was an “undisguised slap at the memory of Franklin D. Roosevelt,” wrote Clinton Rossiter, one of the era’s leading political scientists. It also reflected “a shocking lack of faith in the common sense and good judgment of the people,” Rossiter said.

He was right. Every Republican in Congress voted for the amendment, while its handful of Democratic supporters were mostly legislators who had broken with FDR and his New Deal. When they succeeded in limiting the presidency to two terms, they limited democracy itself.

“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?”

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for reelection just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.

Read more about this issue: Thomas E. Mann: Want to end partisan politics? Here’s what won’t work, and what will Robert J. Samuelson: Why we no longer trust government Letter: After shutdown debacle, it’s time for term limits Zachary A. Goldfarb: How we misread the numbers that dominate our politics

Saul Alinsky: The Rules for Radicals

Ever wonder why Obama does what he does?  The short answer is Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals, which could easily be titled: Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Atheist Radicals since the foundation is built upon anti-Christ themes.   In fact, if Alinsky would have had a another son, he would act (just) like Barack Hussein Obama.

Advantages of Capitalism are obvious to clear-thinking Americans, but here’s a great explanation by the late-great Milton Friedman. It’s also obvious Obama’s playbook is taken fromSaul Alinsky‘Rules for Radicals,’ which is popular among the radicals promoting change through chaos and class warfare.  Review each rule and you’ll see Obama’s footprint in each one of them.

Overview of the Rules for Radicals:

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

“As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be – it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.”
– Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

“My only fixed truth is a belief in people, a conviction that if people have the opportunity to act freely and the power to control their own destinies, they’ll generally reach the right decisions.”
– Saul Alinsky to Playboy, 1972

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”  It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

RULE 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 12:“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

ObamaCar: ‘The New Standard in Progressive Transportation’

‘You’ll find out what options and accessories you qualify for after you buy, that’s right you have to buy it to find out what’s in it’

You can order your new Obamacar ‘In the space of a few days, at most you’ll have to spend only a week or two, possibly three… or more.’

Obama: ‘We Have Accomplished As Much, If Not More, Than Any Time in Our History’

H/T CNSNews.com) — President Barack Obama told the crowd at a Democratic fundraiser in Beverly Hills on  Tuesday that he has accomplished “as much, if not more” than any other president.

“Over the last five years, thanks to the leadership of Nancy (Pelosi) and Harry (Reid) and legislators who are here, we have accomplished as much, if not more, than any time in our history,” Obama said.

Steve Martin and Obama

The president then listed among the accomplishments of his administration:”saving an economy from a Great Depression; revitalizing an auto industry that is producing better cars and has come roaring back like nobody believed; doubling our exports; drastically reducing our dependence on foreign oil; doubling fuel efficiency standards; doubling our production of clean energy; reducing the pace of our carbon emissions; ending the war in Iraq; about to end the war in Afghanistan; re-centering our fight against terrorism in a way that respects our values and our ideals; expanding access to college for children all across this country; ending “don’t ask, don’t tell”; making sure that we are vindicating the notion that everybody should have a fair shot regardless of their sexual orientation, as well as their race and their gender; pushing for equal pay for women; reinstituting research for stem cells.”

Notice that Obamacare, the president’s signature achievement, was not mentioned at the top of the list. But Obama did get around to it in the next paragraph, as follows, saying he’s “as proud as he’s ever been” of the law that informally bears his name:

“Across the board, we’ve made changes that will be lasting, some of which aren’t noticed, don’t get a lot of headlines, but make a meaningful difference in people’s lives every single day. But I will tell you, of all those things, I am as proud as I’ve ever been by the work we did to make sure that in this country, if you get sick you don’t go bankrupt and that you can get the health care that you need.

“And I think it’s fair to say I’m not happy about the fact that we didn’t have a website that worked on the day it was supposed to work — although it’s actually starting to work pretty well now and it’s going to be working even better in the coming weeks.”

The president said Obamacare is making an “immeasurable” different in people’s lives:

“And the reason I wanted to make that point is that so much of what we do is measured through the prism of politics, and on any given day the notion is that who is up and who is down and what’s on cable television should drive and determine our sense of direction and sometimes even our sense of what’s right and what’s wrong. But when you meet a family who tells you that their kid is alive today because they got an early diagnosis because they could finally go to a doctor where they couldn’t before — I don’t need a poll to tell me that’s the right thing to do. I don’t need a headline to tell me that that vindicates a core value that I believe in and that we, as Americans, should believe in. That’s a fight worth fighting. I’m proud that we fought it. And we’re going to keep on fighting it.”

Obama also touted his foreign policy achievements, saying there was a “lot of bluster” about Iran when he came into office — “but what was needed was a plan.”

He gave himself credit for imposing tough sanctions on Iran: “And as a consequence of the strength of those sanctions and the painstaking diplomacy that we engaged in, Iran ultimately came to the table and said, we are prepared in a serious way to negotiate around our nuclear program — for the first time in over a decade.”

He said the negotiations led to the “first halt in the Iranian nuclear program in a decade,” and he called it “the right thing to do” for the U.S. “It’s good for Israel,”  he added, although Israel certainly doesn’t see it that way.

Obama said he will do all in his power to “try to resolve these issue without resorting to  military conflict.”

Report: U.S. and Hezbollah In Secret Talks, To ‘Warm Up to a Direct Relationship’

The Obama administration has entered secret talks with the Hezbollah terrorist group, we are now making ‘deals with the devil’ himself.

[H/T Jerusalem Post] — The US and Hezbollah are in secret indirect talks managed by London dealing with the fight against Al-Qaida, regional stability and other Lebanese political issues.

Senior British diplomatic sources, quoted in a report in Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai on Wednesday, said British diplomats are holding discussions with leaders of the Lebanese organization and transferring the information to the Americans.

The discussions “are aimed at keeping tabs on the changes in the region and the world, and prepare for the upcoming return of Iran to the international community,” according to diplomatic sources in Washington.

Because the US, unlike the UK, recognizes both the political and military wings of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and refuses to distinguish between them, US officials cannot legally meet with any member of the party. But according to the sources, the US is willing to hear the views of the party and “warm up to a direct relationship in the future.”

Al-Rai noted that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke to British Prime Minister David Cameron last week, and placed the talks with Iranian-backed Hezbollah in the context of the ongoing negotiations between the West and Tehran, which show Washington’s willingness for diplomacy with the Islamic Republic.

Relations between Britain and Iran deteriorated after Iranians stormed the British embassy in Tehran in November 2011. But in October, Britain and Iran decided to renew diplomatic relations, and Britain named a new chargé d’affaires to Iran.