GOP Leaders Weigh In On Obama’s Handling Of Egyptian Protests

GOP leaders weigh in on Obama's handling of Egyptian protestsProtests in Egypt prompted a historical transfer of power last week that resonated throughout the world. In the days following the resignation of former President Hosni Mubarak, politicians in the United States graded their leader on his handling of the unrest in Egypt.

According to media reports, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) have praised President Barack Obama for his diplomacy in the past several weeks. The GOP lawmakers said that Obama managed the situation well considering the conflict was between Mubarak, a longtime ally of the U.S., and democracy-driven protesters demanding accountability from their government.

However, both Boehner and McCain questioned why the Federal government did not see these protests coming months ago. On CBS’ Face the Nation, McCain added that Obama’s administration should have spoken up for the protesters in Iran — who revolted against the presidential elections in 2009 — in much the same way it stuck up for the Egyptian opposition.

Several potential GOP candidates for the 2012 Presidential election have slammed Obama for his cautious approach to the protests. On ABC’s This Week, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said that the President was “nearly incoherent” in his public statements regarding the events in Egypt. He added that Obama should have taken a stronger public stand against a possible government takeover by the influential Muslim Brotherhood.

On the same television program, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich criticized Obama for his lack of diplomacy, claiming that other foreign leaders may be apprehensive to trust U.S. leadership if “they see you publicly abandon somebody who’s been with you for 30 years.”

Is Barack Obama The Manchurian Candidate For The Muslim Brotherhood?

 “The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death.”– Maulana Inyadullah, al-Qaida leader, September 2001.

The extremists may soon hold the reins in Egypt. Islam marches forward while former President Hosni Mubarak is in hiding. Thirty years ago Iran was toppled. Then fell Afghanistan. And just last week it was Egypt, the jewel of the Nile, the Arab gateway to the world.

Never mind what former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara proclaimed about Vietnam. The real threat to freedom both in America and abroad is much more dangerous today than any domino theory manufactured by Pentagon think tanks in the 1960s. It turned out Communism was soulless. Islam has a soul; a very dark one that wants to engulf the world. It may have just swallowed Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) demanded and got the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak. Today the military controls power in Egypt but soon the MB may institute its own brazen rule. After all they helped force Mubarak’s full and unconditional surrender. This has created a huge vacuum in Egypt, the outcome that the MB was gunning for.

Before fleeing, Mubarak slammed Egypt’s MB as a "dangerous" and “duplicitous” movement. Egypt’s president feared MB because of its close relationship with Hamas and radical groups in Jordan, Kuwait and farther afield.

Before Mubarak’s departure, Egypt’s Director of Intelligence Omar Soliman stated that the MB is:"Neither a religious organization, nor a social organization, nor a political party, but a combination of all three."

The principal danger Soliman warned, is the group’s exploitation of religion to influence and mobilize the public. Soliman asserts that the MB has spawned, "Eleven different Islamic extremist organizations," most notably the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya.

Soliman termed the MB’s recent success in the parliamentary elections as "unfortunate," adding his view that although the group was technically illegal, existing Egyptian laws were insufficient to keep the MB in check.

What Are Obama’s Real Ambitions?
The real question is why President Barack Obama wasn’t willing to keep MB at check, to help see Mubarak’s government into a peaceful transition. Certainly history called out for this course of action from the White House.

Consider the writings of Edmund Burke, one of the fathers of Conservatism who lived in the 18th Century. Burke wrote extensively about the French Revolution and proclaimed that it was a massive social experiment doomed to fail because it presumed to start a society over from scratch.

“Good order is the foundation of all things,” Burke wrote. The terror that followed the revolution saw the execution of 40,000 French citizens.

In my lifetime something similar happened in Iran. Yet Obama doesn’t seem to have learned anything from history going so far as to ignore pleas by U.S. allies to use Mubarak to help with a peaceful transition towards democracy in Egypt.

Obama, it seems, is either ignorant of the problems posed by an Islamist Egypt or worse, he embraces them.

The MB threatens not just Egypt and the Suez but puts a noose around the most important oil producer in the world, Saudi Arabia. Could it be that for either personal or pragmatic reasons, Obama wants to see the price of oil soar? A death grip around Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a perfect prescription for $150 per barrel oil. Those prices suddenly make green energy a viable alternative.

The American Thinker believes that Obama is not like President Jimmy Carter, a deer caught in the headlights. Instead it says, Obama understands exactly what he is doing in muckraking radical Islam:

“From his notorious Cairo speech to the present, President Obama speaks, and disaster follows.

“Some commentators believe that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are so utterly naïve as to make themselves unable to understand what will happen in Egypt as a result of their undermining of the Mubarak regime. The question is justifiably asked: Do they truly believe that the next regime that comes to power will have the interests of the U.S. and the West at heart?

“My fear is that Obama is not naïve at all, but he instead knows only too well what he is doing, for he is eagerly promoting Islamic power in the world while diminishing the West and Israel, however much innocent blood will flow as a result. 

“Inevitably, sooner or later, the Muslim Brotherhood will take power, usher in a barbaric Islamist power in Egypt that will control the Suez Canal, and show no mercy to its own people or its perceived foes.

“So now we see what the present incumbent in the White House has wrought.”

Fact #1: If MB gains control of Egypt, it will dictate the use of the world’s most important water transits. Nearly 2 million barrels of oil per day, most of it destined for Europe, could be cut off without notice even as that continent is in the midst of its worst economic crisis in 70 years.

Fact #2: If the MB wrestles control of Egypt, that sets up Saudi Arabia as Islam’s next target. The House of Saud pumps 8 million barrels of crude per day. If they collapse, a petro-based world collapses. There is not enough oil in the world to compensate for the current petroleum production coming from Saudi Arabia. (Before you write me about the pie-in-the-sky project in the Dakotas, do a bit of research — the U.S. is currently pumping less than 5 million barrels of oil per day, or about what we produced when Truman was in office while oil production for North Dakota will take well over a decade to develop.)

Fact #3: New green technologies only work if oil prices are well above $100 per barrel. If MB rules Egypt radical Islam will set its sights on Saudi Arabia.

That would give Obama’s Green Revolution a lot of traction. In fact, the President’s view of the world as it “should be” can only happen if he instigates a price contagion upon petroleum. Only then can he sit back and say: “Green energy. Mission accomplished!”

I don’t know what is going through the President’s mind, but I do know we have a President very different from George W. Bush. Bush wanted to protect America from Arab oil shocks. Obama seems to be inviting them.

Is it out of Muslim loyalty or Green ambitions? In the end, does it even matter? What matters is that America has a President that is putting his personal goals ahead of the nation. First and foremost for this man is his re-election, with all of his grandiose ambitions that will follow.

Yours in good times and bad,
John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

GOP Leaders Say Obama’s Budget Proposal Threatens Economy

GOP leaders say Obama's budget proposal threatens economyPresident Barack Obama unveiled his $3.7 trillion budget for fiscal year 2012 earlier this week, and GOP leaders have called the proposal weak and inadequate in tackling the national deficit.

According to NPR, Obama's budget includes a five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending that is projected to save approximately $400 billion over the next decade. The freeze applies to about 12 percent of the total Federal budget and does not impact entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The President has called for an indefinite extension of tax breaks for middle-class Americans and an end to tax cuts for wealthier individuals starting in 2014. In addition, Obama has requested that 12 tax breaks for oil and gas companies should be eliminated.

Most Republicans have slammed Obama's plan, claiming that it spends, taxes and borrows too much.

“By continuing the spending binge and imposing massive tax hikes on families and small businesses, it will fuel more economic uncertainty and make it harder to create new jobs,” Boehner said in a statement on Feb. 14.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that the budget's length, which he said was almost 1,000 pages, symbolizes the President's indulgence in a time when he should be limiting government overreach.

According to media reports, McConnell spoke out against Obama's proposal on the Senate floor on Feb. 14, saying that "this President clearly does not get it yet." 

The Origins Of The Teddy Bear

One of the most popular toys in history made its first appearance 107 years ago this week. On a hunting trip a few months earlier, then-President Theodore Roosevelt refused to shoot a bear cub, saying it would be unsportsmanlike.

Toy maker Morris Michtom saw a cartoon of the incident and was inspired to create a stuffed bear cub. He sent the first one to the President with a note asking for permission to call it “Teddy’s bear.” The President agreed. The animal became an immediate success, leading Michtom to found the Ideal Novelty and Toy Co. to keep up with demand.

At the same time, a German company produced a stuffed bear based on a design by Richard Steiff, which also became a hit. Other manufacturers joined in and soon “Roosevelt Bears” were a national craze. Ladies carried them everywhere; children begged for one for Christmas; the President himself even used one as a mascot in his bid for re-election.

Their popularity continues to this day, with millions of Teddy Bears being sold every year. All this because a political cartoonist at The Washington Post tried to make fun of the President.

–Chip Wood

Obama’s Fiscal Plan Leaves Low-Income Americans Out In The Cold

Obama's fiscal plan leaves low-income Americans out in the coldAlthough many critics have accused President Barack Obama of targeting the pockets of wealthy Americans, his budget proposal for 2012 could also strip poor Americans of billions of dollars worth of aid.

According to media reports, the President's plan includes cutting the Community Services Block Grants — which fund ant-poverty initiatives throughout the United States — in half, saving approximately $350 million. In addition, Obama has called on lawmakers to slash the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program from $5 billion to $2.6 billion. The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association reports that, if approved, the President's budget would exclude about 3 million households from the program.

Although Obama has stated that some of the money saved will go toward the most effective anti-poverty efforts in America, many organization leaders are concerned that low-income Americans will be harmed by these cuts. Ralph Markus, director of the Office of Home Energy Programs, said that a lot of low-income homes would be heating-deprived if the budget is enacted.

Reverend Larry Snyder, the president of Catholic Charities USA, said that he understands the tough choices facing Federal lawmakers, but he believes the wrong group of Americans will suffer from proposed cuts.

"We reject the notion that those most vulnerable among us should feel the greatest impact of future reductions," said Snyder.

Mini-Strokes May Be More Serious Than Previously Thought

Mini-strokes may be more serious than previously thoughtCanadian researchers have concluded a study that suggests transient ischemic attack (TIA) — or a brief period of blood loss to the brain, often referred to as a mini-stroke — has lasting, maybe even permanent, effects on neurons in the brain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests maintaining a healthy diet of foods low in cholesterol and fat and high in fiber to reduce risk of stroke. It also recommends keeping weight at a reasonable level through exercise and avoiding alcohol and tobacco.

As its name suggests, medical professionals have thought that TIA episodes caused little to no permanent brain damage, but recent test results from a specific mapping procedure suggest otherwise.

Researchers studied 13 TIA patients and compared their test results to those of individuals who have not suffered from a mini-stroke. Clinical evaluation and standard imaging procedures like a CT scan or MRI showed no difference between the brain function of stroke victims and healthy participants. However, when scientists looked at a mapping procedure that used transcranial magnetic stimulation, they saw damage to the affected side of the brain in TIA patients.

Cells on the TIA-affected portion of the brain showed impaired excitatory and inhibitory neurons, making it hard for them to respond to stimuli.

While doctors have known that TIA often precedes a more serious stroke, mild warning signs have often gone ignored by those who experience them. By seeking immediate treatment at the first signals of a stroke — which include numbness or tingling, temporarily impaired vision or inability to speak — individuals may be better able to prevent or minimize serious effects. 

Obama’s Latest Joke

For President Barack Obama, the traveling public’s concerns over the Transportation Security Administration’s 4th Amendment-violating policies are a big joke.

At his Jan. 25 State of the Union Address, Obama chuckled after his pronouncement that he wanted to “invest” (code for print more money and throw it at another boondoggle) billions of dollars in high speed rail.  “For some trips, it will be faster than flying… without the pat downs,” Obama joked.

Of course, Obama’s cute joke falls flat in the face of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s statements that radiation scanners and pat downs are being implemented at bus and train stations and sporting events. So, Mr. and Mrs. Traveler, the real joke’s on you because, get this, Obama’s latest budget increases Federal Spending on the DHS by $37 billion, earmarking the funds to place more naked body scanners in airports across the country. (And that’s on top of the other billions he wants to waste on his pet projects as he seeks to accelerate the crash of the dollar, but that’s a topic for another day.)

That’s $37 billion to select companies with government ties designed to force travelers to submit to being irradiated by machines that have shown dubious effectiveness at spotting explosives and have not been adequately tested as to the hazard they pose to travelers or operators.

Government’s false flag terror operations — more evidence of them surfaced yesterday when it was revealed the “terrorist” behind England’s 7/7 terror attacks was a United States informant and was released from prison after serving only four and a half years of a 70-year sentence because of his “cooperation” — have succeeded in duping the general public into believing the government is acting in their best interests.

But government is interested in one thing only: Creating a totalitarian police state that controls every move of the masses. And for Obama and the other elites in our government thugocracy, that’s very funny.

Angle, Palin Support GOProud’s Participation At CPAC

Angle, Palin support GOProud's participation at CPACAlthough several groups boycotted the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) because of the participation of gay conservative group GOProud, two prominent Tea Party-backed politicians publicly supported the organization's presence.

Sharron Angle, a Republican from Nevada, told The Huffington Post that she supports freedom of speech and GOProud has the right to participate in an open forum of discussion. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who did not attend CPAC because of scheduling conflicts, told FOX News that she has no problem with "diverse groups that are involved with political discourse."

"People are losing their jobs. They're losing homes. We're still engaged in a war," Palin told the media outlet. "There are so many life-changing, life-and-death issues out there in front of us. You know, we'd better be concentrating on what is really important here and not going kind of tit-for-tat as people are positioning themselves for 2012."

Conservative groups such as the Family Research Council (FRC) and the Heritage Foundation have boycotted the three-day event because CPAC organizers allowed GOProud to participate. Tony Perkins, head of FRC, told CNN that the presence of the gay-rights group represents a shift to libertarian causes, which he said is "very dangerous to the conservative movement." 

God’s Little Acre

As 2010 became 2011, the people of Tunisia, spurred on by a random incident of police brutality, awoke from the slumber of oppression and took to the streets. Within days their government was high-tailing it for quieter climes.

Then the 30-year old regime of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was beset by thundering masses. Despots in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Algeria warily eye similar rumblings. Even the quietude of Amman, Jordan, ruled with a reasonably light touch by benevolent monarch King Abdullah II, has been interrupted by ominous rumblings of late.

Meanwhile, the United States, tied to the region through multi-billion dollar aid to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and regional pariah Israel, has responded with… well… Leon Panetta is still watching CNN.

Now, the governance of Egypt has fallen to the military; meaning the new boss may be no better than the old boss. The takeover, seen by many as a coup, has spawned not only a new round of concerns about the direction of the most-populous nation in the Arab world, but a veritable tsunami of cheap jokes based on Who lyrics.

Egypt’s military have issued opaque “communiqués” promising their ultimate goal is to:

"…discuss what measures and arrangements could be taken to safeguard the homeland… and the aspirations of the great Egyptian people."

That would presume that the Egyptian military, which until recently held out Mubarak as an icon (Mubarak is a former Air Force commander and is considered a hero from Egypt’s second place finish in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war), has the same idea about the aspirations for “the great Egyptian people” as do “the great Egyptian people.”

Behind this whole tableau is the shadowy hand of an increasingly important group named the Muslim Brotherhood. Though the Obama administration’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has described them as a “"largely secular" group that has "eschewed violence," the reality is that an influential Muslim Brotherhood is nothing approaching good news for Western interests, or even Egyptian interests which don’t share the same aspirations as the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a worldwide organization, the oldest active Islamist group in the world. Though there is some debate about their goals, there is no ignoring the mountain of evidence suggesting that those goals are nefarious by non-nefarious standards. There are reputable reports of ties to terrorist groups like HAMAS and Hezbollah. In the words of former White House counterterrorism Chief Juan Zarate:

"The Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians."

The Brotherhood’s key figures also have ties to Osama bin Laden through Youssef Nada and the Al Taqwa group, which is alleged to have served in a financial advisory capacity to al-Qaida for some time.

With the Brotherhood taking the potential foray in upheaval in the Middle East, the question turns to the role the United States might play in the unfolding drama. Although some might immediately suggest that the United States should stay the hell out of internal affairs in the region, I would counter that that camel has already strolled. Moreover, an isolationist U.S. leaves an influence/intelligence gap wider than the Suez Canal.

With recent polling indicating that the majority of respondents would appreciate a more stringent type of Islamist system. A recent Pew poll showed that 95 percent of Egyptians would prefer Islam play a “large role in politics.” Read: No separation of mosque and state. The same poll also revealed “84 percent favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith.” Get thee to a mosque, Mr. President, and make it snappy.

President Barack Obama, like Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter before him, is operating under the misapprehension that freedom and democracy mean the same thing to Akbar, Haji and Muhammad as they do to Tom, Dick and Harry. The Islamist beliefs of many in the Middle East color their worldview to include Sharia, stoning and the subjugation of women; all anathematic to Americans (except perhaps that last one — relative to ex-wives).

Somewhere between George W. Bush’s “shoot first, ask about a transitional government later” style of diplomacy and Obama’s “WHAT happened in ‘Tunafish-ea’?” obliviousness is the likely proper path. Obama and his minions “diplomacy via television” has trapped America in God’s little acre:

East of the rock, west of the hard place.

Paul Lands Support Of Young Voters At CPAC

Paul lands support of young voters at CPACLibertarian lawmaker Ron Paul (R-Texas) won the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the second straight year.

Paul, who is popular among young voters, gained considerable notoriety during his Presidential bid in 2008, which ultimately fell short. Although many pundits doubt that he can win a general election in 2012, Paul emerged as potential favorite at the recent CPAC in Washington, D.C. He won 30 percent of the vote, while former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney notched 23 percent.

According to The Christian Science Monitor, approximately 51 percent of the voters were 25 years old and under, while 72 percent were no older than 40. Furthermore, about 43 percent of voters said that they "wished the GOP had a better field of potential candidates."

During his address at CPAC on Feb. 10, real estate tycoon Donald Trump, who is considering a bid for President, said that while he likes Paul as a person, the 75-year-old has "zero chance of getting elected." In response, Paul admitted that it would be very difficult to win the Republican nomination, although he thinks a "new generation" of voters would support him over Obama, whom he called a "warmonger."

“If you look at the polls — there aren't that many — my appeal is to a lot of independents and a lot of progressive Democrats who are sick and tired of Obama for opting out of cutting back on some of his militarism,” Paul said, quoted by Politico.com.