May 18, 2010 The Manchurian President Host: Brannon Howse Guest: Brenda Elliot Listen: RealAudio | Windows Media | MP3 | Order Tape or CD
To listen we recommend Windows Media, RealAudio, Winamp, or QuickTime players.
Brenda Elliot is an author, historian and investigative researcher who has been responsible for a number of historical projects. She won an award by Project Censored for her work and has been named "One of the Intriguing People" in 1990 by Central Florida Magazine. Her latest effort is the New York Times bestseller called: The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists, and Other Anti-American Extremists.
The name of Brenda’s book takes its inspiration from two movies, but the underlying theme refers to someone who is not who they appear to be; someone that hides an agenda that is different from the one people are seeing.
Join Brannon and Brenda as they discuss Barack Obama’s birth certificate controversy, his church and theological background, the influence of communist party member Frank Marshall Davis, his possible Muslim influences, and much more.
What lies? for you the most important of him is him being a "Muslim" right *JlW? He is no muslim and really if he was then what?
Dude, this is part of an article I found about your precious Obama.
BARACK OBAMA-THE MUSLIM CHRISTIAN?
Posted: 07/08/08
Barack Obama-the Muslim Christian?
by Jill Martin Rische
In the crazy world of American politics, it should come as no surprise when a fast-talking presidential candidate attempts, yet again, to redefine Christianity.
This time around, we have Barack Obama and his cohort of political reformationists nailing their 95 Theses smack dab in the middle of our foreheads. "I am a Christian!" Obama proclaims from rooftops all over America as swooning women breathe his name like a prayer. The junior Senator from Illinois has become the messiah of millions: Obama will cure what ails American society and-yes-the world. Change We Can Believe In is his mantra, ringing like a funeral dirge to the few who remember that change is not always good.
Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro (his name throughout his Muslim youth) claims to be a "committed Christian" and yet the emerging truth about him is a study in contradiction and frankly, alarming: I am a Christian (but I was a devout Muslim); I am a Christian (but I never renounced Islam); I am a Christian (but there is more than one way to God). Add to this the fact that Barack Obama flatly denies his Muslim roots, even labeling the word Muslim a "smear," and suddenly the question of integrity pops into the picture. Who is telling the truth: Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro or his relatives, teachers, and childhood friends?
Eyewitness testimony, reported on credible websites, reveals that Barack Obama was raised Muslim and was, in fact, quite devout throughout his youth. Today, Senator Obama states that his "Christian" faith is not the only way to God, and he rejects Christian positions on key moral issues. Finally, he never formally renounced the Islamic faith he followed until he met his wife, Michelle.
So who, exactly, is Barack Obama? It's only fair to let the man speak for himself:
that day Egypt will be like women, and will be afraid and fear because of the waving of the hand of the LORD of hosts, which He waves over it. And the land of Judah will be a terror to Egypt; everyone who makes mention of it will be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the LORD of hosts which He has determined against it. In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear by the LORD of hosts; one will be called the City of Destruction. (Isaiah 19:16-18, nkjv)
Will the civil strife developing in Egypt cause the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak, who supposedly has cancer and turns 83 on May 4, 2011? Many expected his son Gamal Mubarak to be his replacement; however, Gamal and his family have reportedly fled to the U.K. for safety. If the Mubarak government is overthrown will the Muslim Brotherhood fill his office with one of its own fulfilling Isaiah 19:4? The Muslim Brotherhood, presently banned in Egypt, hates Israel and supports Jihad against the Jewish State. Hamas, also participating against Israel in Psalm 83, is their political arm inside of the Gaza. Hamas, like the Muslim Brotherhood, calls for the destruction of Israel.
Will the present protests inside Egypt metastasize into the fulfillment of Isaiah 19? If so will the coming cruel leader be the one who leads Egypt into the Psalm 83:6-8 confederacy? All of this is unknown but entirely possible. One thing is for certain; the Middle East appears to be on the verge of going apocalyptic.
January 2011 has seen the governments of Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt become severely challenged. The government of Jordan is expected to be next. Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan are involved in Psalm 83 and Tunisia appears to take part in the Ezekiel 38 & 39 prophecy. It appears high time Christians familiarize themselves with the prophecies of Isaiah 19, Isaiah 17, Jeremiah 49, Psalm 83, and Ezekiel 38 & 39. These are a few of the world changing prophecies stage setting on the prophetic horizon.
These are the days when the Bible is its own best commentary. Imagine Isaiah the prophet standing on the streets of Cairo today speaking in front of a mainstream news camera declaring:
The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, And will come into Egypt; The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, And the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst. "I will set Egyptians against Egyptians; Everyone will fight against his brother, And everyone against his neighbor, City against city, kingdom against kingdom. The spirit of Egypt will fail in its midst; I will destroy their counsel, And they will consult the idols and the charmers, The mediums and the sorcerers. And the Egyptians I will give Into the hand of a cruel master, And a fierce king will rule over them," Says the Lord, the LORD of hosts. (Isaiah 19:1-4, nkjv)
Like a swift moving cloud, Isaiah predicts the rapid deterioration of events in Egypt. Civil unrest causes Egyptians to fight against each other. This fighting spreads from household to household and grows into a kingdom war. Probably quoting Isaiah 19:2, Christ warned kingdoms would rise against each other in Matthew 24:7. Unlike nation coming against nation, which alludes to world wars, "kingdom against kingdom" refers to regional conflicts. Christ taught these prophecies would come upon the world like birth pains. Like a woman about to deliver her newborn, these events are foretold to come with increased frequency and intensity each building upon the other.
Rumors of regional kingdom wars presently abound in the Middle East. Egypt and Saudi Arabia reportedly conducted joint military exercises in 2010 preparing for a possible confrontation with Iran. Iran represents the Persian kingdom and Egypt and Saudi Arabia the Arab kingdom. Additionally, the apocalyptically minded president Ahmadinejad of Iran has threatened on several occasions to wipe Israel, representing the Jewish kingdom, off of the map.
Psalm 83 predicts the Arab kingdom will someday rise against the Jewish kingdom to banish the name of Israel forever. Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia along with eight other Arab populations join the Arab kingdom in this pending prophetic war.
Isaiah's prognosis for Egypt worsens as you read the rest of his chapter nineteen. Isaiah 19:5-12 tells us unprecedented religious and economic strife plagues the nation according to the purposes of the Lord. Apparently, this disastrous condition befalls Egypt because of its future involvement in Psalm 83 since we read in Isaiah 19:16-18 that Israel will take over five cities in Egypt and cause Hebrew to be the spoken language inside their city limits. One of these cities will be called "the City of Destruction," implying the I.D.F. destroys this city.
In that day Egypt will be like women, and will be afraid and fear because of the waving of the hand of the LORD of hosts, which He waves over it. And the land of Judah will be a terror to Egypt; everyone who makes mention of it will be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the LORD of hosts which He has determined against it. In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear by the LORD of hosts; one will be called the City of Destruction. (Isaiah 19:16-18, nkjv)
Will the civil strife developing in Egypt cause the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak, who supposedly has cancer and turns 83 on May 4, 2011? Many expected his son Gamal Mubarak to be his replacement; however, Gamal and his family have reportedly fled to the U.K. for safety. If the Mubarak government is overthrown will the Muslim Brotherhood fill his office with one of its own fulfilling Isaiah 19:4? The Muslim Brotherhood, presently banned in Egypt, hates Israel and supports Jihad against the Jewish State. Hamas, also participating against Israel in Psalm 83, is their political arm inside of the Gaza. Hamas, like the Muslim Brotherhood, calls for the destruction of Israel.
Will the present protests inside Egypt metastasize into the fulfillment of Isaiah 19? If so will the coming cruel leader be the one who leads Egypt into the Psalm 83:6-8 confederacy? All of this is unknown but entirely possible. One thing is for certain; the Middle East appears to be on the verge of going apocalyptic.
January 2011 has seen the governments of Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt become severely challenged. The government of Jordan is expected to be next. Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan are involved in Psalm 83 and Tunisia appears to take part in the Ezekiel 38 & 39 prophecy. It appears high time Christians familiarize themselves with the prophecies of Isaiah 19, Isaiah 17, Jeremiah 49, Psalm 83, and Ezekiel 38 & 39. These are a few of the world changing prophecies stage setting on the prophetic horizon.
Calliopesgirl: I believe it is a sign..on what you base your idea ? Faithfulness:
The Bible speaks of the endtimes: wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, etc. All this before Nostradamus and others were even born.
right and leaving aside the eternal disputes, you see these end times are now....?
I WILL SET EGYPTIANS AGAINST EGYPTIANS"
Posted: 02/03/11
"I Will Set Egyptians Against Egyptians"
By Bill Salus
These are the days when the Bible is its own best commentary. Imagine Isaiah the prophet standing on the streets of Cairo today speaking in front of a mainstream news camera declaring:
The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, And will come into Egypt; The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, And the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst. "I will set Egyptians against Egyptians; Everyone will fight against his brother, And everyone against his neighbor, City against city, kingdom against kingdom. The spirit of Egypt will fail in its midst; I will destroy their counsel, And they will consult the idols and the charmers, The mediums and the sorcerers. And the Egyptians I will give Into the hand of a cruel master, And a fierce king will rule over them," Says the Lord, the LORD of hosts. (Isaiah 19:1-4, nkjv)
Like a swift moving cloud, Isaiah predicts the rapid deterioration of events in Egypt. Civil unrest causes Egyptians to fight against each other. This fighting spreads from household to household and grows into a kingdom war. Probably quoting Isaiah 19:2, Christ warned kingdoms would rise against each other in Matthew 24:7. Unlike nation coming against nation, which alludes to world wars, "kingdom against kingdom" refers to regional conflicts. Christ taught these prophecies would come upon the world like birth pains. Like a woman about to deliver her newborn, these events are foretold to come with increased frequency and intensity each building upon the other.
Rumors of regional kingdom wars presently abound in the Middle East. Egypt and Saudi Arabia reportedly conducted joint military exercises in 2010 preparing for a possible confrontation with Iran. Iran represents the Persian kingdom and Egypt and Saudi Arabia the Arab kingdom. Additionally, the apocalyptically minded president Ahmadinejad of Iran has threatened on several occasions to wipe Israel, representing the Jewish kingdom, off of the map.
Psalm 83 predicts the Arab kingdom will someday rise against the Jewish kingdom to banish the name of Israel forever. Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia along with eight other Arab populations join the Arab kingdom in this pending prophetic war.
Isaiah's prognosis for Egypt worsens as you read the rest of his chapter nineteen. Isaiah 19:5-12 tells us unprecedented religious and economic strife plagues the nation according to the purposes of the Lord. Apparently, this disastrous condition befalls Egypt because of its future involvement in Psalm 83 since we read in Isaiah 19:16-18 that Israel will take over five cities in Egypt and cause Hebrew to be the spoken language inside their city limits. One of these cities will be called "the City of Destruction," implying the I.D.F. destroys this city.
I am so sorry to hear of your father's passing away. May God guide you and keep you in this time of sorrow. May God grant you and your family the peace and strength to get through this sad time of mourning.
No, I am definitely not wasting my life. I have a wonderful life: children, grandchildren and a job I love (I take care of special needs people). I also take many classes at my church, attend Sunday School and Church services.
When the repeal of ObamaCare is final, you won't lose your job because your employer struggles to comply with this expensive mandate. Your children and grandchildren won't be hit with $1 trillion of new debt to burden their future.
If you are young, you won't be forced to pay higher premiums for mandatory health insurance to subsidize people who are older and sicker. If you are a senior, you won't suffer a half a trillion dollars taken out of Medicare to pay for new health entitlements.
You won't be standing in long lines as you try to see a doctor. You won't be put on a two-year waiting list for surgery you need.
The Center for Health Transformation just issued 1,968 reasons to repeal ObamaCare. A chart reveals the ways in which the 2,700-page law grants 1,968 powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, along with control over 18% of our entire economy.
For example, the regulators will decide what clinical drugs seniors will be allowed to get. The regulators will instruct doctors whether or not to give a drug to patients in long-term care.
The regulators are empowered to use "comparative effectiveness research" to determine whether seniors get care. That's code for the authority of bureaucrats to decide whether (based on your age and condition) you are worth spending any money on, a.k.a. death panels that will decide whether you live or die.
House Members should remember that some promised repeal AND replace. Their task is to detach health care from bureaucrats and appropriators because that's the only way to get health care costs under control.
We should also detach health care from the unfortunate link between jobs and health insurance that created the present system of third-party payers. That process began as a tax loophole during World War II wage and price control, and now traps millions of Americans in a tough compromise between an unproductive job and unsuitable high-cost health insurance.
This can be done by allowing us to make our own decisions by paying for smaller, routine expenses from our own tax-deductible health savings account, instead of relying on third-party payers whose rates constantly escalate. Employee group health insurance plans, with higher deductibles, should pay the major costs.
The House should hold weekly hearings in order to dispel the misinformation we are fed by the liberals, such as the foolish notion that government health care in other countries is more efficient and less costly. Tens of thousands of foreigners come to the U.S. every year for medical treatment because they know they have a better survival rate here.
Compare these statistics between the U.S. and U.K. released by the United Nations International Health Organization. The percentage of people who survived cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65%, U.K. 46%; diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within 6 months: U.S. 93%, U.K. 15%; seniors needing hip replacement who received it within 6 months: U.S. 90%, U.K. 15%; getting to see a medical specialist within one month: U.S. 77%, U.K. 40%.
The U.S. House did what its candidates had promised and the voters expected: the House passed 245 to 189 a repeal of ObamaCare, the centerpiece of Socialism. Three Democrats joined every single Republican, with Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve King (R-IA) spearheading the charge.
According to public opinion polls, support for repeal remains strong among the American people despite Obama's prediction that once his favorite bill was enacted into law we would like it. In addition, 200 distinguished economics experts, mostly professors of economics, signed a letter predicting that an implementation of ObamaCare will be a barrier to job growth, inflict us with a crushing debt burden, and is not real health care reform.
The House should keep up its momentum by specifically repealing the most obnoxious section, which 26 states are now trying to get the courts to rule unconstitutional: the mandate on individuals to buy insurance. How can President Obama veto that repeal? When he campaigned against Hillary Clinton, he accused her of supporting such a mandate and promised to oppose it.
The Congressmen who voted for repeal should keep reminding the public why it is a bad, dictatorial, and offensively expensive law. They should taunt the Senate into having a vote so we will know who is on which side of this issue.
When repeal is finally achieved, either through a change of U.S. President in 2012 or a Supreme Court ruling that ObamaCare's crucial provision is unconstitutional, Americans will enjoy some rights that ObamaCare will otherwise take away.
For example, you won't be hit with a big fine by the government for not buying the insurance the government orders you to buy. You will retain your right to buy health insurance that includes the benefits you need instead of a more costly policy mandated by the bureaucrats.
The president mentioned a government loan to a company that became successful. Fine. But private loans are just as capable of starting businesses and creating jobs, and they do it without dipping into the taxpayers’ pockets. Government doesn’t need to be “encouraging investment,” as Obama said; rather, government should stop discouraging investment and job creation, which it does when it siphons precious resources from the productive private sector.
Let’s have “a government that is more … efficient,” proclaimed President Obama.
Sounds good, but how? Government bureaucracies, insulated from the profit-loss discipline of competition, are inherently inefficient. Why single out the Pentagon for spending cuts? ALL bureaucracies are wasteful. That’s the nature of the beast. If he really wanted a more efficient government, Obama would have recommended the elimination of specific agencies and bureaucracies.
Obama called for more government “investment” in infrastructure. (At least he’s not calling it this kind of spending “stimulus” anymore.)
Yes, infrastructure clearly needs some repairs, but I don’t trust Team Obama to do it right. I’m mindful of the nearby exit ramp that was widened to two lanes as part of Obama’s stimulus package, even though it is so lightly used that mine is usually the only vehicle on it.
Obama promised a new website that would show us where our tax dollars are going. When I recall how inaccurate was his stimulus/jobs website, my response to the president is, “No thanks, save the money.”
The State of the Union address showed an appalling ignorance of basic economics and the lessons of history. Sadly, President Obama still thinks like a central planner, even as he seeks to widen his appeal to the middle. He is decades behind the times. His is the path that leads to stagnation.
Of course not but still he is trying his best bringing America back on track after those scarey years of Bushney,s Evil empire you see?“Investing” in Socialism
Posted on February 2, 2011 by Ben Johnson
by Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
The news from Egypt has thrust President Obama’s State of the Union off the front pages. While that news is critical, so is further analysis of the State of the Union, especially from an economic perspective. My previous column focused on the political dimensions of the State of the Union address, about how Barack Obama has already entered full campaign mode in an attempt to woo the 5 or 10 percent of the swing vote that he needs for re-election. Today, let’s look at the economic aspects of the speech.
One would hope that, after two years of failed policies and economic stagnation, President Obama would have seen the need for a changed economic strategy. Alas, beyond a few cosmetic touches, Obama’s approach to economics remains substantially unchanged.
Here are a few examples:
In the address, Obama stated a self-evident truth: “None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be.”
Agreed. But then, apparently unaware of the incongruity, the president proceeded to advocate increased government funding to three specific industries: biomedical research, information technology, and clean energy. So deeply ingrained is Obama’s love of central planning, so confident is he in his ability to foresee what future generations will need, that he specifically called for 80 percent of electricity to come from renewable energy sources by the year 2035, as if anyone knows what relative costs will be or what new technologies will be available that far ahead.
Indeed, President Obama seemed blithely unaware of the sad history of federal support for alternative energies—wasteful boondoggles, such as Synfuels and ethanol. At least he was consistent, though. He also appealed for federal support of high-speed railroads, another industry in which the federal government already has shown its incompetence. In the 1800s, there was only one railroad connecting the Midwest to the Pacific Coast that did not go bankrupt—James J. Hill’s Great Northern, notable for being the only such railroad not to have received federal subsidies.
Obama stated the obvious truth that Uncle Sam’s deficit spending is “not sustainable.”
How could he say this with a straight face when the current fiscal year’s deficit is projected to be $1.5 trillion—an all-time record? How serious is he, given that he offered only two specific areas for spending cuts: defense spending and subsidies to oil companies?
Well, he did say something about cuts for community action groups, but since ACORN is drowning in criminal charges, cutting spending there was a foregone conclusion. And, for the record, I support withdrawing all subsidies for oil companies. But let’s withdraw taxpayer-funded subsidies from all energy producers. Percentage-wise, the subsidies for wind and solar are many times as great per kilowatt of energy than they are for oil. Amazingly, President Obama wants to increase subsidies to—actually, he uses the words “invest in”—those wretchedly uneconomic forms of energy.
Because I care a bout America and got family and friends and loved ones over there... and beside a rich and safe and prospress America means a rich and safe and prospress world ... reason enough?
If the is in deed the case then you wouldn't be so hung up on Obama. Obama is not the one who made America prosperous, rich or safe.
Still not that big victory any way Grumpy... you see your Hero Reagan lost both houses and Clinton lost both houses and Obama lost one of the houses only... you can not really Getting it can you? Two is bigger number than One!
You don't get it either, do you Dude. Looks and sounds like you are outnumbered here also.
You're replying to post made by: Hot_Single_Dude Gud Bless America and the Republican party of America is THE greatest danger against America and against the rest of the entire planet Earth... EVER
Dude, right now the greatest danger to America is Obama himself for trying to turn our country into a socialist country.
On the economic front, the news has been unremittingly grim for the Obama administration over the past few days. The latest jobs data shows that a net 95,000 US jobs were lost in September, significantly higher than the 57,000 jobs lost in August. Unemployment also rose to 10.1 percent, up from 9.3 percent in August and 8.9 percent in July according to Gallup. Among Americans aged 18 to 29, that figure was 15.8 percent.
The influential Investor’s Business Daily is now warning that the United States won’t recover the more than 8 million lost jobs until March 2020:
At this year’s pace, the U.S. won’t recoup all those 8.36 million lost jobs until March 2020 — 147 months after the December 2007 high. That would obliterate the old post-World War II record of 47 months set in the wake of the 2001 recession.
This is extremely bad news for the president, as his party heads towards an election where his Big Government economic agenda will be the leading issue.
4. A quarter of Democrats have turned against the president
Last week’s Washington Post/ABC News poll had an astonishing but barely reported revelation – nearly 25 percent of Democrats now believe “a return to Bush’s policies would be good,” a staggeringly high figure. As The Post reported:
Obama and the Democrats have argued that if Republicans were to gain control of Congress, they would return to the policies of President George W. Bush. Two-thirds of Democrats share that view and say it would be bad for the country. But almost a quarter of Democrats say a GOP-led Congress would take the country in a new and better direction or say a return to Bush’s policies would be good.
5. George W. Bush is now as popular as President Obama
As I noted in an earlier piece, President Bush is making an extraordinary political comeback, even though he is nowhere to be seen on the campaign trail and has kept completely out of the political limelight since leaving office. A new CNN poll reports a surge in popularity for the former president, who is now almost neck and neck with President Obama in terms of approval ratings. As CNN concluded:
By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.
“Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush’s name while campaigning this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
To describe this as a monumental embarrassment for Barack Obama, after relentlessly bashing his predecessor’s leadership and policies for the past 20 months, would be an understatement. As I wrote previously:
The CNN poll is of course deeply humiliating for the White House, especially coming just three and a half weeks before the November mid-terms. George W. Bush’s resurgence is in large part due to mounting opposition to the Obama presidency’s left-wing agenda, but it is also spurred by Obama’s image as an out of touch, aloof and elitist president, divorced from economic and political reality on the ground.
Barack Obama A presidency on the verge of a nervous breakdown: 5 key reasons why Barack Obama’s future looks increasingly bleak
A presidency on the verge of a nervous breakdown: 5 key reasons why Barack Obama’s future looks increasingly bleak Posted by Against Obama on Oct 10th, 2010 // No Comment
Forget the myth of an Obama recovery. The past week has been disastrous for the White House and America’s increasingly disillusioned Left. No wonder the angry and desperate Vice President Joe Biden is talking about “playing hell” if his party suffers defeat in November.
Here are five reasons why the Obama presidency’s outlook is getting significantly worse, not better:
1. A new Gallup poll suggests the November mid-terms could result in the biggest victory for Republicans in the House since 1894
Gallup’s latest poll is absolutely devastating in its analysis of the Democrats’ prospects for November 2, projecting a 13 point lead for the Republicans based on higher overall turnout, and a staggering 18 point lead if turnout is low. In Gallup’s view:
If there is a widely disproportionate skew in turnout toward Republican voters and their national vote lead ends up being in the double digits, the Republican gains would be very substantial.
As leading election analyst Michael Barone noted, the Gallup numbers “suggest it looks like 1894, when Republicans gained more than 100 seats in a House of approximately 350 seats.” If the Gallup poll proves accurate, we could be looking at a GOP victory in the House of Representatives of absolutely historic proportions, a scenario frightening enough to give even the most seasoned Obama White House adviser nightmares.
2. The Senate now hangs in the balance
Rasmussen’s latest projection has both the Democrats and Republicans with 48 seats in the Senate, with Florida moving into the solid GOP camp, and West Virginia moving from toss up to leans GOP. Four states (all Democrat) are now in the toss-up category: California, Illinois, Nevada and Washington. This is a highly significant development, as this is one of the first polls to show the Republicans and Democrats neck and neck in the Senate race. Over at RealClear Politics, the current projection with no toss-ups, has the GOP and Democrats at a dead heat of 50 seats each, with a projected Republican gain of nine seats.
[Today, the United States] is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance. Its wealth will not avail it once Allah has had his say, as happened with nations in the past. The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise.
Barry Rubin, one of the most astute observers of the Middle East, warned within days that this speech represented a "declaration of war" by the Brotherhood, with it "adopting a view almost identical to al Qaeda's" but coming from "a group with 100 times more activists than al Qaeda."
At first blush, it seems incredible that the sort of clarity about the Brotherhood's intentions that the foregoing provide seems to be eluding many in official Washington and the policy elite. On closer inspection, however, the muddle-headedness that has many describing the Ikhwan as "non-violent," "democratic" and desirable candidates for a coalition to replace Mubarak's dictatorship is, to use an old Soviet expression, "no accident, comrade."
In fact, the aforementioned MB "Explanatory Memorandum" provides a list of "Our Organizations and the Organizations of Our Friends" that includes virtually every prominent Muslim-American organization in business at that time. What is incredible, therefore, is that many of these same Muslim Brotherhood fronts are used by the U.S. government for "outreach" to the Muslim community and policy advice. The nation's top intelligence official, James Clapper, has actually characterized the resulting "dialogue with the Muslim community" as "a source of advice, counsel, and wisdom."
As a result, one other thing should be frighteningly clear: We are having our policies towards Egypt's succession - and the tsunami it is accelerating elsewhere in the region influenced, shaped and probably subverted by the Muslim Brotherhood's American operatives. If we let our enemies call the shots, there is no doubt who will wind up taking the bullet.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.
The Muslim Brotherhood: the enemy in its own words
Center for Security Policy | Jan 31, 2011 By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
As Egypt lurches towards the end of Hosni Mubarak's regime, one way or another - by "an orderly transition to democratic rule" (as Hillary Clinton delicately puts it), through violent overthrow or simply through the demise of the ailing 82-year-old president - much is unclear. One thing that should not be is that the Muslim Brotherhood is our enemy, and whatever role it plays in Egypt's future will be to our detriment.
Such clarity is readily available since the Brotherhood (MB or in Arabic, Ikhwan) has told us as much. Consider, for example, the mission statement for the MB found in one of its secret documents entitled "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America":
The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.
As a blue-ribbon group of national security experts convened by the Center for Security Policy, "Team B II" noted in their new best-seller Shariah: The Threat to America, the incompatability of the Ikhwan's agenda with our interests has been evident from its inception:
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its express purpose was two-fold: (1) to implement shariah worldwide, and (2) to re-establish the global Islamic State (caliphate). Therefore, al Qaeda and the MB have the same objectives. They differ only in the timing and tactics involved in realizing them.
We also know how the Brotherhood plans to pull off our destruction. Another MB document, this one undated, is called "Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan." It describes a five-installment program for achieving the triumph of shariah - together with a status report on the realization of several of the phases' goals:
Phase One: Discreet and secret establishment of leadership.
Phase Two: Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities. It [the MB] greatly succeeded in implementing this stage. It also succeeded in achieving a great deal of its important goals, such as infiltrating various sectors of the Government.
Phase Three: Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. Currently in progress.
Phase Four: Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach. Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. It has noticeable activities in this regard.
Phase Five: Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.
If any further evidence were needed of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood, consider the comments on October 6, 2010 by Mohamed Badie, the Ikwan's virulent promoter of shariah who was installed as its leader ("Supreme Guide") last year. According to a translation provided by the indispensable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Badie declared:
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and MATTHEW LEE Associated Press The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 2, 2011 1:07 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States criticized the government of President Hosni Mubarak and condemned violence in Egypt's capital as clashes between protesters and pro-government supporters demonstrated there would be no easy resolution to the unrest destabilizing America's closest ally in the Arab world.
A day after President Barack Obama pressed Mubarak to loosen his grip on power immediately, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the U.S. "deplores and condemns the violence that is taking place in Egypt."
"We are deeply concerned about attacks on the media and peaceful demonstrators," he added in a statement. "We repeat our strong call for restraint."
State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley called the attacks "a direct threat to the aspirations of the Egyptian people."
"The use of violence to intimidate the Egyptian people must stop," Crowley said.
Their comments came after the protests in Egypt's capital took a dangerous turn when several thousand Mubarak supporters, including some riding horses and camels and wielding whips, attacked anti-government protesters. In scenes of uncontrolled violence, some of the assailants were dragged to the ground by demonstrators and beaten bloody while the two sides rained stones and bottles down on each other.
The strife in Egypt was occurring a day after Obama prodded Mubarak to quickly loosen his grip on power, sternly telling the world that the longtime leader's transition from the presidency "must begin now."
Mubarak said Tuesday he would not seek re-election in balloting set for September. Yet he seemed determined to the person shepherding the political changeover from his authoritarian 30-year reign to an uncertain future.
The half-concession was angrily rejected by throngs of protesters in Cairo who say they are fed up with poverty and corruption and want him to step down immediately.
It also did not appear to satisfy Obama. After days of scrambling in the White House over how to react to the enormous and unanticipated protest movement, the president unmistakably sided with the demonstrators, even if he stopped short of demanding Mubarak's immediate resignation.
Behind the scenes, the White House had attempted to nudge Mubarak to the exits over the past 48 hours, dispatching former U.S. ambassador to Egypt Frank Wisner as a special envoy to deliver a message to him: The U.S. saw Mubarak's tenure at an end, didn't want him to seek re-election and wanted him to prepare an orderly transition to real democracy.
Keeping abreast of the situation, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen spoke by phone Wednesday morning with his Egyptian counterpart, Lt. Gen. Sami Anan — their second conversation since Anan cut short a U.S. visit Friday to return to Egypt.
The general gave Mullen an update on developments, a statement said. Mullen expressed confidence in the Egyptian military's ability to ensure security in the country and around the Suez Canal.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Faithfulness Forum Posts (1,056)
RE: Most promisses of Obama are kept WHEN and IF possible! Support him keeping all of his promisses!
You're replying to post made by: Hot_Single_DudeWhat lies? for you the most important of him is him being a "Muslim" right *JlW? He is no muslim and really if he was then what?
A MUST READ FOR ALL FREEDOM LOVING, AMERICAN, CHRISTIANS AND JEWS: THE BEST ARTICLE CWN HAS READ YET WHY OBAMA'S MUSLIM ROOTS MATTER
Posted: 01/09/08
A MUST READ for All Freedom Loving, American, Christians and Jews: The Best Article CWN Has Read Yet Why Obama's Muslim Roots Matter.
Click here to read this article and then return to our site to post your feedback:
Obama, the Muslim Thing, And Why It Matters
by Pamela Geller
Distributed by