1a) Editorial: What Egyptians Really Want
Islamofascism: Romantics in Western media expect "democracy" to flower from the anti-Mubarak rioting in Cairo. But polling shows Egyptians actually seek strict Islamic rule.
According to a major survey conducted last year by the Pew Research Center, adults in Egypt don't crave Western-style democracy, as pundits have blithely trumpeted throughout coverage of the unrest.
Far from it, the vast majority of them want a larger role for Islam in government. This includes making barbaric punishments, such as stoning adulterers and executing apostates, the law of their country. With the ouster of their secular, pro-American leader, they may get their wish.
Among highlights from the Pew poll:
• 49% of Egyptians say Islam plays only a "small role" in public affairs under President Hosni Mubarak, while 95% prefer the religion play a "large role in politics."
• 84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith.
• 82% support stoning adulterers.
• 77% think thieves should have their hands cut off.
• 54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace.
• 54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified.
• Nearly half support the terrorist group Hamas.
1b) Israel watches Mubarak ouster with trepidation
JERUSALEM – Israel watched Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's resignation with trepidation Friday, concerned the ouster of its staunchest Arab ally might endanger a peace treaty between the two countries and help boost Islamists already on the rise in the region.
No kidding!
…However, former Israeli officials expressed concern that regime change in Egypt, as part of a wider transformation of the Arab world, could leave Israel even more isolated. Last year, regional powerhouse Turkey shifted away from its alliance with Israel.
"We have a tough period ahead of us," Zvi Mazel, a former Israeli ambassador in Egypt, told Israel TV. "Iran and Turkey will consolidate positions against us. Forget about the former Egypt. Now it's a completely new reality, and it won't be easy."
Some in Israel feared the unrest could spread to neighboring Jordan, the only other Arab country that has a peace deal with Israel, or to the Palestinian territories. Only last month, an uprising in Tunisia ended with the ouster of a longtime dictator there.
…A strengthened Muslim Brotherhood could also affect the power struggle between the two Palestinian political camps — the Islamic militant Hamas in Gaza and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank.
Abbas is backed by the West, while Hamas draws its support from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. Hamas is the Gaza branch of the Muslim brotherhood and could gain strength if their Egyptian brethren win a greater say.
In Gaza, thousands rushed into the streets in jubilation. Expectations were rising in Gaza that regime change in Egypt will help end a crushing border blockade of the territory, imposed by Egypt and Israel after a violent Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007.
"Egypt wrote today a new chapter in the history of the Arab nations and I can see the blockade on Gaza shaking right now," said Gaza's Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.
Hamas has smuggled weapons into Gaza through smuggling tunnels that bypass the blockade, and Israel fears the influx of arms could now increase.
1c) Hal Lindsey Report: excerpt with commentary on Egypt
…Have you been watching President Obama's performances during the Egyptian crisis and wondering why he wasn't this active and vocal during the June, 2009, student/citizen uprising in Iran? The situations are eerily similar, yet in one he wouldn't open his mouth and in the other, he won't close it. What's the difference?
This week, I'm going to take a look back at the speech Mr. Obama gave in Cairo, Egypt, in June of 2009. In it, he apologized for President Bush's push for democracy in the Middle East. In fact, he said that no nation should press its own political ideology on another - especially democracy. He actually said that from the platform of Cairo University. Apparently he doesn't think that now. Is it utter incompetence or political naivete on his part? Maybe there's something more sinister at work. Either way, it's a bit unnerving.
Unbelievably, the Obama administration is pushing to involve the notorious Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt's new political landscape. Remember that the Muslim Brotherhood claimed responsibility for Anwar Sadat's assassination. It also gave birth to Hamas and al-Qaeda. It's the most organized of the "opposition" groups in Egypt. Its front man is the former Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei. You remember him. He's the stooge who stonewalled the world as long as he could to cover for Iran's maniacal drive for a nuclear weapon. Fortunately, even he couldn't keep Stuxnet out.
However, since Egypt had outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood and President Mubarak had kept them under his thumb (but wouldn't you if they had tried to kill you and were probably complicit in another five assassination attempts?), they have no official representation in the government. That's not to say that they're not organized and eager to jump in. In fact, they're the most organized and connected of the opposition groups, so it stands to reason that in any political void left by Mubarak's departure, the Muslim Brotherhood will be the most likely to assume the greatest power.
That does not bode well for Egypt or Israel. The Brotherhood, including ElBaradei, has publicly stated that Egypt will continue to honor all its treaties with foreign nations. Fly in the ointment: the Brotherhood does not recognize Israel's right to exist. So if Israel has no right to exist, then it cannot be a legitimate state. If it's not a nation, then there's no need for Egypt to honor its 30-year old treaty. Case solved! Here's a hint about the Muslim Brotherhood's attitude toward the peace treaty with Israel: they killed Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for signing it (emphasis mine)! Please pick up a history book once in a while, Mr. President. It's becoming increasingly obvious that history was not his strong suit in college. Of course, we'll never know because those records are sealed, too.
1d) No Matter What Their U.S. Name, They're the Muslim Brotherhood
Guess who said the following?
"The earliest defenders of Islam would defend their more numerous and better-equipped oppressors because the early Muslims loved death -- dying for the sake of almighty Allah -- more than the oppressors of Muslims loved life. This must be the case when we are fighting life's other battles."
I know I haven't asked a fair question. As Andrew McCarthy put it recently, "that leitmotif -- We love death more than you love life -- has been a staple of every jihadist from bin Laden through Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer."
He isn't kidding. In 2008, as McCarthy notes, the "Supreme Guide" of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Mahdi Akef, while praising Osama bin Laden, urged teaching young people "the principles of jihad so as to create mujahidin who love to die as much as others love to live." In 2004, the 3/11 bombers in Madrid left behind a tape saying, "We choose death, while you choose life." MEMRI's Steven Stalinsky has noted the origins of this necro-parable in the Battle of Qadisiyya, 636, when the Muslim commander called for the conversion to Islam of his Persian enemies "for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life."
2) Geithner tries to bamboozle Congress into raising debt ceiling (headline mine)
…The current debt limit is $14.294 trillion. The Treasury Department predicts that we will reach that limit sometime this spring. Somewhere between 62 percent and 71 percent of the American people oppose raising it. Will Washington listen to the American people? Or will they heed the Obama Administration and just continue their reckless spending ways?
…In defense of never-ending reckless spending, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been trying to bamboozle Congress into raising the debt ceiling so that the Obama Administration can continue their free-spending ways unchecked. Geithner claims that unless the debt ceiling is raised by “the end of the first quarter of 2011,” the “full faith and credit of the United States” would be “called into question” and there would be “catastrophic damage to the economy.” As we have detailed before, this is simply false. In the fall of 1995, the federal government reached its $4.9 trillion debt ceiling. Congress refused to raise it. The world did not end. Instead, Treasury took several measures during the period to raise funds to meet federal obligations without exceeding the debt ceiling. Was, as Geithner warns, the “full faith and credit of the United States … called into question”? No. Was there “catastrophic damage to the economy”? No (emphases mine).
3) GOP Seeks to Block Funding for Health Law
House Republicans will use a stopgap spending bill coming to the floor next week as a vehicle to block money for the new health-care law, a top lawmaker said Tuesday.
The latest push to neutralize the legislation, confirmed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, (R., Va.), comes on the heels of an earlier effort to repeal the law. That passed the House but fell short in the Senate.
The spending bill, needed to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, is being drafted by the House Appropriations Committee, which is seeking deep spending cuts. The current stopgap bill expires March 4.
While the initial version isn't expected to include the health-law funding ban, Republicans plan to introduce it as an amendment to the bill, Mr. Cantor said. It is expected to block the use of money in the bill to carry out the law, for example by preventing the Department of Health and Human Services from hiring more workers to oversee the new benefits.
The House Republicans' strategy means President Barack Obama's health-care initiative will be a major hurdle to passing the government-wide spending bill. Democratic leaders in the Senate are unlikely to back any move to defund the new law.
With repeal of the health law dead for now, Republicans have also called for rolling back specific parts of the legislation, such as the requirement that most Americans carry health insurance or pay a fine.
That requirement has become politically sensitive for Democrats in swing states after two federal judges ruled it was unconstitutional. Lawmakers from both parties are calling for Congress to look into replacing the requirement.
4) Conservative groups back bill to defund remaining stimulus
A coalition of conservative groups has launched a campaign to defund what it calls wasteful stimulus projects that have yet to be implemented.
The coalition, led by the group Let Freedom Ring, has launched a website with an online petition and is getting behind defunding legislation to be introduced Thursday by Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.).
The “Defund the Stimulus” campaign comes after some Republicans have called for withholding funding for implementation of Wall Street reform legislation and the Obama administration's healthcare-reform law.
5) START endangers our relationship with Britain (headline mine)
Last Friday, British newspapers reported that the U.S. had agreed to supply Russia with sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent in order to win Russian agreement to New START. Over the weekend, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley described this claim as “bunk” and asserted that New START simply “carried forward and updated this notification procedure to the new treaty” from the 1991 START.
The WikiLeaks document on which the original story was based—and the treaties of 1991 and 2011—tell a different story. The 1991 treaty requires notification of the transfer of items (such as the U.S.-made Trident II missiles on which Britain’s nuclear force relies). This notification must include “the number and type of items transferred; the date of transfer; and the location of transfer.”
New START, on the other hand, requires that the “number, type, date, unique identifier, and location of the transferred [missiles] must be provided.” In short, New START goes further than the original START in at least two ways.
First, the U.S. must now provide the Russians with a “unique identifier” for each transferred missile. As the U.S. negotiator states in the WikiLeaks cable, “this was more information than was disclosed under START.” Over time, this information will allow the Russians to build up a more complete picture of the size of the U.K.’s active nuclear force, information that Britain has deliberately kept secret (emphasis mine).
6) EPA administrator faces down GOP critics
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson faced down her Republican critics on Wednesday, defending her agency’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as critical to the public’s health.
Jackson’s appearance before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee marked the first time the administrator has testified at a hearing on climate change since the GOP took power. House Republicans have proposed legislation that would block the agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
One by one, Republicans on the committee railed against the pending regulations, arguing that climate rules would hurt the economy and kill jobs.
“Like cap-and-trade, these regulations would boost the cost of energy, not just for homeowners and car owners, but for businesses both large and small,” committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in his opening statement. “EPA may be starting by regulating only the largest power plants and factories, but we will all feel the impact of higher prices and fewer jobs.”
6a) House Republicans Take E.P.A. Chief to Task
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans on Wednesday opened a formal assault on the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases, raising doubts about the legal, scientific and economic basis of rules proposed by the agency.
The forum was a hearing convened by the energy and power subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to review the economic impact of pending limits on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. But much of the discussion focused instead on whether climate science supports the agency’s finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to health and the environment; that finding is what makes the gases subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.
Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, was subjected to more than two hours of questioning, some of it hostile, about proposed limits on emissions from factories, refineries, power plants and vehicles.
Republican lawmakers asserted that the science underpinning the regulatory effort was a hoax, questioned the agency’s interpretation of a Supreme Court decision giving it power to regulate carbon dioxide, and accused the Obama administration of sacrificing American jobs in its misplaced zeal to address climate change.
Excellent job, House Republicans!
6b) EPA chief faces hostile House GOP
The showdown between House Republicans and the White House over climate change and environmental policies kicks off Wednesday with EPA chief Lisa Jackson as the star witness.
The Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on legislation floated last week by Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
7) Arizona sues feds over immigration issues
PHOENIX — Arizona is suing the U.S. government, claiming the feds have failed to secure the border and protect the state from "an invasion" of illegal immigrants.
Gov. Jan Brewer said the intent of the lawsuit is to force the federal government to protect Arizonans.
"The first and foremost issue we're facing right now is the security, safety and welfare of our citizens," Brewer said. "The federal government needs to step up and do their job."
The lawsuit was filed Thursday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Phoenix as a countersuit to one filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Arizona challenging the constitutionality of its tough new immigration law.
"Arizona did not want this fight, we did not start this fight," Brewer said. "But now that we are in it, Arizona will not rest until our borders are secure."
8) Guess Which Major TV Host Thinks Obama Is Not Really a Christian
Mediaite:
When someone says they don’t think President Barack Obama is actually a Christian, the expectation would be that they think he’s secretly a Muslim. Not Bill Maher. On tonight’s Real Time, in the process of arguing that Obama’s not really a centrist politically, Maher also revealed that he doesn’t think Obama’s actually Christian, either, but rather a secular humanist.
The belief Maher apparently holds – that Obama isn’t actually a Christian, but merely pretends to be one to keep up appearances for the sake of his political career – strikes us as one of the most cynical things anyone could possibly believe about Obama.
See: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/guess-which-major-tv-host-thinks-obama-is-not-really-a-christian/
9) AOL/HuffPo Meet Corporate Greed
In one of her many iterations, Arianna Huffington targeted "corporate greed" as a force undermining America. That was during one of her populist phases, which frequently are followed by Huffington morphing into what she once scorned.
Score another transformation for La Huff. On Sunday, AOL announced it would pay $315 million, mostly in cash, to buy the left-wing website she co-founded, Huffington Post. The merger and acquisition also will place Huffington at the helm of AOL's new Huffington Post Media Group division.
AOL CEO Tim Armstrong announced that the deal will create a "digital ecosystem" -- which may be more prescient than he intended it to be.
Whatever happens, you have to admire Huffington's chutzpah. Having played the left-wing card to attract like-minded readers, Huffington and her venture capitalist pals will have made millions off a website that doesn't pay most of its writers.
10) Michael Moore: Show me the money!
Looks like Michael Moore only hates on capitalism when it doesn’t affect him. As soon as you try and mess with his money, Mike seems to channel a righteous, litigious, capitalist tone. Apparently, Michel Moore thinks he’s owed some money for Fahrenheit 9/11 (is he profiting off a tragedy, too?), and he’s suing Harvey Weinstein to get what he feels he’s owed.
“Now, there’s something that makes me very, very happy and that is the multimillionaire Michael Moore is suing Harvey and Bob Weinstein,” Glenn said on radio this morning.
“And [The Weinstein’s] already paid him 19.8 million? So I’m sure, I’m absolutely positive, there’s no doubt in my mind that the only reason he’s doing this lawsuit is so that he can send that extra money directly to the government to be redistributed to the poor,” Pat said of Moore’s lawsuit.
“He hates capitalism. So obviously,” Stu added.
11) U.S. still leads world in manufacturing productivity
WASHINGTON - U.S. factories are closing. American manufacturing jobs are reappearing overseas. China's industrial might is growing each year.
It also might seem as if the United States doesn't make world-class goods as well as some other nations.
"There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products," President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union address last week.
Yet America remains by far the No. 1 manufacturing country. It out-produces No. 2 China by more than 40 percent (emphasis mine). U.S. manufacturers cranked out nearly $1.7 trillion in goods in 2009, according to the United Nations.
The story of American factories essentially boils down to this: They've managed to make more goods with fewer workers.
The United States has lost nearly 8 million factory jobs since manufacturing employment peaked at 19.6 million in mid-1979. U.S. manufacturers have ranked near the top of world rankings in productivity gains over the past three decades.
12) State Senator Edward Maloney’s Proposed Bill (SB 136) Requires Homeschooled Children to be Registered with the State of Illinois: TAKE ACTION.
State Senator Edward Maloney's SB 136 has been scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday, February 15th at 10:45 in the morning. It will be held in the Capitol Building, in room 212.
As you know, this bill will mandate parents of non-public school students to register their children with the State Board of Education. This bill would affect students who are privately or home educated. Yet it is interesting to note that the official Hearing Notice for the Education Committee has listed "Registration of Home Schooled Students in Illinois" as the subject matter for this hearing. Senator Maloney may move to amend SB 136, removing the reference to "private schools" and only require "home school" parents to register their children with the local Regional Office of Education instead of the State Board of Education. This would make the bill even more problematic. Public school administrators and bureaucrats should have NO jurisdiction over homeschooling families.
TAKE ACTION: JOIN US! If you are able to attend this hearing meeting, I want to encourage you to join me and dozens of other small-government, freedom loving, school choice citizens and families in a show of strength. It would great if we could pack the hearing room with concerned citizens and homeschooling families.
MORE ACTION: If you have not yet called the members of the Senate Education Committee -- please do so before Tuesday. Ask them to oppose this bill and encourage Sen. Maloney to table it (withdraw it). You can also click HERE to send Sen. Maloney and each of the committee members a fax or an email. (You may want to do both!)
No comments:
Post a Comment