Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Mubarak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mubarak. Show all posts

Friday, April 6, 2018

Dems Have Been Meddling In Foreign Elections For Years

Bill Clinton admits he meddled in Israeli elections

April 5, 2018
Bill Clinton admits he meddled in Israeli electionsphoto_master2000 / Shutterstock.com
Democrats have been up in arms since election day, claiming the Russians influenced the election.
Clinton, however, made them all look like hypocrites by outright admitting he meddled in the 1996 Israel election “in a way that didn’t overtly involve me.”

Why Clinton Got Involved

You see, old Bill really didn’t like Benjamin Netanyahu because they apparently did not see eye to eye.
In 1996, Clinton wanted Peres to win the Prime Minister election.
Bill Clinton thought Peres “was more supportive of the peace process.”
That election actually very much mimicked the 2016 presidential election.
Peres held convincing leads in the polls but come election day, it was Netanyahu that came away victorious.

From Day One

If anyone ever wanted to know why relationships with Israel have seemed strained with Netanyahu in charge, look no further than Bill Clinton.
From the elections to Netanyahu taking over, Clinton was never one to hide how he felt about him, and it was not exactly good.
After taking office, Netanyahu made sure Clinton was aware that he was not the PM’s favorite person either.
Clinton described one of their first interactions…
“I realized that he was now the leader of the country and if I wanted to support the peace, I had to find a way to work with him. I wasn’t so much angry as I was bemused by the brashness with which he played his hand. But that’s who he is. He did a very good job of it.”
Remind you of another political candidate that was not supposed to win, but did?!

Obama Did It Too!

Meddling in foreign elections is apparently a hobby of Democrats.
Obama has been suspected of sticking his head into at least a half dozen foreign elections.
Here are just a few tidbits from some of the more notable ones…
In 2015, the Obama administration funneled cash to groups opposing Benjamin Netanyahu through State Department Grants.
Obama’s administration is suspected of sending millions of dollars, in collusion with George Soros, to unseat the more conservative (and democratically elected) leadership in Macedonia.
In 2011, the Obama administration used both funding and our military to have Muammar Gaddafi removed from power.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was removed from office largely due to the Obama administration backing of a radical Muslim, Mohammed Morsi.

Do You Think Clinton and Obama are Guilty of Meddling in Foreign Government Elections?

Mubarak was ousted from office in February 2011 and replaced by Mohamed Hussein Tantawi until Morsi’s inauguration in June 2012.
So, if Mueller is investigating Russian collusion with the Trump administration, why hasn’t our Justice Department or Congress called for an investigation into the illegal activities of both Clinton and Obama for meddling in foreign elections?

Monday, April 10, 2017

el-Sisi Takes On Islamic Terrorism


Egypt’s al-Sisi Declares Three-Month State of Emergency

3

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

(AFP) CAIRO, Egypt — President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi declared a three-month state of emergency in Egypt following twin church bombings that killed dozens of people in two cities on Sunday.

Sisi announced the “state of emergency for three months” in a defiant speech at the presidential palace after a meeting of the national defence council.
VIDEO Trump welcomes Egypt's president to White House


Mute
Current Time0:20
/
Duration Time0:35
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
The Islamic State group had claimed responsibility for the church bombings in the Nile Delta cities of Alexandria and Tanta in which at least 44 people were killed.
The emergency law expands police powers of arrest, surveillance and seizures and can limit freedom of movement.
Egypt had been ruled for decades under a state of emergency, which was cancelled a month before Islamist president Mohamed Morsi took power in 2012.
Rescinding it had been a main demand of Egyptian rights activists during the 2011 revolt that overthrew veteran strongman Hosni Mubarak.
Following Morsi’s overthrow by Sisi, then an army chief, in 2013, a state of emergency was declared for a month after deadly clashes between police and Islamist protesters killed hundreds and Islamist mobs attacked Christian properties.
Part of North Sinai where the Islamic State group’s Egyptian affiliate is based has remained under a state of emergency.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

The Western World Must Understand The Threat Of ISIS And Other Muslim Refugees



  • A dangerous message is being sent to the Muslim world by the West:
  •  There is nothing that moderate Muslims or anyone else should fear 
  • from radical Islamic terrorism! Look at us Western governments! We 
  • are bringing in refugees who cannot be vetted even if they are ISIS
  •  infiltrators. In fact, we in the West are so goodhearted that we are
  •  encouraging many organizations to operate legally in the West under
  •  the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood -- even organizations that are 
  • sympathetic to the terrorist group Hamas and that are pledging to 
  • overthrow us!
  • The West, by taking all the Syrian refugees, is emptying Syria of any 
  • kind of resistance to the Caliphate (ISIS). The West's compassion, 
  • by taking in the refugees escaping ISIS, will end up leaving only the 
  • radicals to rule unopposed in Syria and Iraq. This, in US foreign policy
  • , is not compassion; it is gross negligence and reckless endangerment.
  • "Tough love" is badly needed when dealing with the Muslim world. We 
  • must say: No, we cannot accept your jihadist aspirations. We cannot
  •  accept you forcing your way of life on the world; your way of life is 
  • unacceptable to us. Before you send your refugees, you must end
  •  your "us against them" jihadist culture. The civilized world no 
  • longer finds your aspirations for an Islamic Caliphate tolerable.
The first reaction of the U.S. after 9/11 should have been to stop visas from all
 majority-Muslim countries, except for those of utmost importance. But our
politicians' hands were tied -- not by fear of a backlash from Islamic countries,
which probably expected a U.S. boycott, but by fear of a backlash from the
Western media and Western progressives.
The decision to keep Muslims, refugees and others pouring into the US after
 9/11 was wrong and has not done Islam and Muslim reformers a favor. Here
 is why:
The chaos and bloodshed in the Muslim world, even in the most moderate of
Muslim nations, such as Turkey, is between Muslims who want to enforce
 Islamic sharia law, totally and upon everyone by a theocratic government,
and those who want less sharia by installing military rule. The West does
not understand that the only form of government that can stand up to a totalitarian
 Islamic theocracy is a military one and no other. Who could imagine that a
military junta could be considered the only savior from Islamic tyrannies that
require everyone to live totally, 100%, under the laws of sharia?
When former U.S. President Barack Obama honored the Muslim Brotherhood
with his first major speech as president, who were his guests of honor in the first
 rows? Leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The less-radical Islamist military form
 of governments in the Middle East were left out and thus weakened. Then
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had a murky relationship with the Muslim
 Brotherhood, got the message. He did not attend. With Obama's move, the balance
 of power between the two combative forces over control of government immediately
 favored the Muslim Brotherhood. It officially, for the first time since its founding in
1928, took control of the Egyptian government after the 2011 chaos of the "Arab
 Spring." A year later, 22 million Egyptians had to undergo a bloody counter-
revolution to bring back the type of government Egyptians have always favored
over an Islamic theocracy.


When former U.S. President Barack Obama gave his first major Presidential speech in Cairo, in 2009, his guests of honor in the first rows were leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The less-radical Islamist military form of governments in the Middle East were left out and thus weakened. (Image source: White House)

Now, another, dangerous, message is being sent to the ordinary citizens of the
 Muslim world by the liberal West: There is nothing that moderate Muslims or
anyone else should fear from the possible infiltration of radical Islam! Look at us,
 Western governments! We are bringing in refugees who cannot be vetted even
 if they are ISIS infiltrators. Although the Muslim Brotherhood is illegal and
considered a terrorist organization in several Muslim countries, we in the West
 do not mind them at all. In fact, we in the West are so kind-hearted and welcoming
that we are encouraging many organizations to operate legally in the West under
 the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood -- even organizations that are sympathetic
 to the terrorist group Hamas and that are pledging to overthrow us! See how we are
 courageous, self-confident and free of "Islamophobia"!
By embracing the Muslim Brotherhood as not dangerous to free societies and by
bringing in refugees from terror-infested areas of the Middle East, we are sending
 a message to moderate Muslims in the Middle East: Citizens in the West are not
even bothering to protect their free system from being conquered by sharia-lovers,
 so perhaps the dreams of the Caliphate are not that bad after all.
The West, by taking all the Syrian refugees, is not just sending the above "unintended"
message; it is also emptying Syria of any kind of resistance to the Caliphate (ISIS).
 The West's compassion, by taking in the refugees escaping ISIS, will end up leaving
 only the radicals to rule unopposed in Syria and Iraq.
A US foreign policy that recommends absorbing unvetted Muslim refugees has been
advocated as compassion, but in fact it is gross negligence and reckless endangerment
 to U.S. citizens, Western freedoms and democracy.
There are unintended consequences to rescuing all Muslim refugees:
  • We are telling Muslim reformists, wrongly, especially in the Middle East, that
  •  there is nothing to fear from ISIS infiltration.
  • By not declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization we are yet again
  •  legitimizing and empowering it.
  • By not showing the proper angry response to Islamic terrorism, the West is not 
  • perceived as gracious, but as weak.
By taking in Islam and its refugees without proper vetting, the West is not doing
either Islam or Muslims any favor: for the reformists, it is shutting out any hope
of reform.
Tough love is badly needed when dealing with the Muslim world. We must say:
 No, we cannot accept your jihadist aspirations. We cannot accept you forcing
 your way of life on the world; your way of life is unacceptable to us. Before you
 send your refugees, you must end your "us against them" jihadist culture. The
 civilized world no longer finds your aspirations for an Islamic Caliphate tolerable.
If the West has the courage to do that, perhaps one day history will attribute the
 reformation of Muslim world partly to strength and conviction of Western resolve
against tyranny and human suffering.
Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of the new best-selling book, "Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values".

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Obama Is A Muslimophile.


Obama’s Transparent Presidency


President Barack Obama promised that his would be the most transparent administration in US history.
And the truth is, it was. At least in relation to his policies toward the Muslim world, Obama told us precisely what he intended to do and then he did it.
A mere week remains of Obama’s tenure in office.
But Obama remains intent on carrying on as if he will never leave power. He has pledged to continue to implement his goals for the next week and then to serve as the most outspoken ex-president in US history.
In all of Obama’s recent appearances, his message is one of vindication. I came. I succeeded. I will continue to succeed. I represent the good people, the people of tomorrow. My opponents represent the Manichean, backward past. We will fight them forever and we will prevail.
Tuesday Obama gave his final interview to the Israeli media to Ilana Dayan from Channel 2’s Uvda news magazine. Dayan usually tries to come off as an intellectual. On Tuesday’s show, she cast aside professionalism however, and succumbed to her inner teenybopper. Among her other questions, she asked Obama the secret to his preternatural ability to touch people’s souls.
The only significant exchange in their conversation came when Dayan asked Obama about the speech he gave on June 4, 2009, in Cairo. Does he still stand by all the things he said in that speech? Would he give that speech again today, given all that has since happened in the region, she asked.
Absolutely, Obama responded.
The speech, he insisted was “aspirational” rather than programmatic. And the aspirations that he expressed in that address were correct.


If Dayan had been able to put aside her hero worship for a moment, she would have stopped Obama right then and there. His claim was preposterous.
But, given her decision to expose herself as a slobbering groupie, Dayan let it slide.
To salvage the good name of the journalism, and more important, to understand Obama’s actual record and its consequences, it is critical however to return to that speech.
Obama’s speech at Cairo University was the most important speech of his presidency. In it he laid out both his “aspirational” vision of relations between the West and the Islamic world and his plans for implementing his vision. The fundamentally transformed world he will leave President-elect Donald Trump to contend with next Friday was transformed on the basis of that speech.
Obama’s address that day at Cairo University lasted for nearly an hour. In the first half he set out his framework for understanding the nature of the US’s relations with the Muslim world and the relationship between the Western world and Islam more generally. He also expressed his vision for how that relationship should change.
The US-led West he explained had sinned against the Muslim world through colonialism and racism.
It needed to make amends for its past and make Muslims feel comfortable and respected, particularly female Muslims, covered from head to toe.
As for the Muslims, well, September 11 was wrong but didn’t reflect the truth of Islam, which is extraordinary. Obama thrice praised “the Holy Koran.” He quoted it admiringly. He waxed poetic in his appreciation for all the great contributions Islamic civilization has made to the world – he even made up a few. And he insisted falsely that Islam has always been a significant part of the American experience.
In his dichotomy between two human paths – the West’s and Islam’s – although he faulted the records of both, Obama judged the US and the West more harshly than Islam.
In the second half of his address, Obama detailed his plans for changing the West’s relations with Islam in a manner that reflected the true natures of both.
In hindsight, it is clear that during the seven and a half years of his presidency that followed that speech, all of Obama’s actions involved implementing the policy blueprint he laid out in Cairo.
He never deviated from the course he spelled out.
Obama promised to withdraw US forces from Iraq regardless of the consequences. And he did.
He promised he would keep US forces in Afghanistan but gave them no clear mission other than being nice to everyone and giving Afghans a lot of money. And those have been his orders ever since.
Then he turned his attention to Israel and the Palestinians. Obama opened this section by presenting his ideological framework for understanding the conflict. Israel he insisted was not established out of respect of the Jews’ national rights to their historic homeland. It was established as a consolation prize to the Jews after the Holocaust.
That is, Israel is a product of European colonialism, just as Iran and Hamas claim.
In contrast, the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land. They have been the primary victims of the colonial West’s post-Holocaust guilty conscience. Their suffering is real and legitimate.
Hamas’s opposition to Israel is legitimate, he indicated. Through omission, Obama made clear that he has no ideological problem with Hamas – only with its chosen means of achieving its goal.
Rather than fire missiles at Israel, he said, Hamas should learn from its fellow victims of white European colonialist racists in South Africa, in India, and among the African-American community.
Like them Hamas should use nonviolent means to achieve its just aims.
Obama’s decision attack Israel at the UN Security Council last month, his attempts to force Israel to accept Hamas’s cease-fire demands during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, his consistent demand that Israel renounce Jewish civil and property rights in united Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, his current refusal to rule out the possibility of enabling another anti-Israel resolution to pass at the Security Council next week, and his contempt for the Israeli Right all are explained, envisioned and justified explicitly or implicitly in his Cairo speech.
One of the more notable but less discussed aspects of Obama’s assertion that the Palestinians are in the right and Israel is in the wrong in the speech, was his embrace of Hamas. Obama made no mention of the PLO or the Palestinian Authority or Fatah in his speech. He mentioned only Hamas – the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which shares the Brotherhood’s commitment to annihilating Israel and wiping out the Jewish people worldwide.
Sitting in the audience that day in Cairo were members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.
Then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak rightly viewed Obama’s insistence that the brothers be invited to his address as a hostile act. Due to this assessment, Mubarak boycotted the speech and refused to greet Obama at the Cairo airport.
Two years later, Obama supported Mubarak’s overthrow and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to replace him.
Back to the speech.
Having embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, branded Israel a colonial implant and discredited the US’s moral claim to world leadership, Obama turned his attention to Iran.
Obama made clear that his intention as president was to appease the ayatollahs. America he explained had earned their hatred because in 1953 the CIA overthrew the pro-Soviet regime in Iran and installed the pro-American shah in its place.
True, since then the Iranians have done all sorts of mean things to America. But America’s original sin of intervening in 1953 justified Iran’s aggression.
Obama indicated that he intended to appease Iran by enabling its illicit nuclear program to progress.
Ignoring the fact that Iran’s illegal nuclear program placed it in material breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama argued that as an NPT signatory, Iran had a right to a peaceful nuclear program. As for the US and the rest of the members of the nuclear club, Obama intended to convince everyone to destroy their nuclear arsenals.
And in the succeeding years, he took a hacksaw to America’s nuclear force.
After Obama’s speech in Cairo, no one had any cause for surprise at the reports this week that he approved the transfer of 116 tons of uranium to Iran. Likewise, no one should have been surprised by his nuclear deal or by his willingness to see Iran take over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. No one should be surprised by his cash payoffs to the regime or his passivity in the face of repeated Iranian acts of aggression against US naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
Everything that Obama has done since he gave that speech was alluded to or spelled out that day.
Certainly, nothing he has done was inconsistent with what he said.
The consequences of Obama’s worldview and the policies he laid out in Cairo have been an unmitigated disaster for everyone. The Islamic world is in turmoil. The rising forces are those that Obama favored that day: The jihadists.
ISIS, which Obama allowed to develop and grow, has become the ideological guide not only of jihadists in the Middle East but of Muslims in the West as well. Consequently it has destabilized not only Iraq and Syria but Europe as well. As the victims of the Islamist massacres in San Bernardino, Boston, Ft. Hood, Orlando and beyond can attest, American citizens are also paying the price for Obama’s program.
Thanks to Obama, the Iranian regime survived the Green Revolution. Due to his policies, Iran is both the master of its nuclear fate and the rising regional hegemon.
Together with its Russian partners, whose return to regional power after a 30-year absence Obama enabled, Iran has overseen the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Sunnis in Syria and paved the way for the refugee crisis that threatens the future of the European Union.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Islamist leader, was a principle beneficiary of Obama’s admiration of Islamism. Erdogan rode Obama’s wave to destroy the last vestiges of the secular Turkish Republic.
Now he is poised to leave NATO in favor of an alliance with Russia.
Obama and his followers see none of this. Faithful only to their ideology, Obama and his followers in the US and around the world refuse to see the connection between the policies borne of that ideology and their destructive consequences. They refuse to recognize that the hatred for Western civilization and in particular of the Jewish state Obama gave voice to in Cairo, and his parallel expression of admiration for radical Islamic enemies of the West, have had and will continue to have horrific consequences for the US and for the world as a whole.
Cairo is Obama’s legacy. His followers’ refusal to acknowledge this truth means that it falls to those Obama reviles to recognize the wages of the most transparent presidency in history. It is their responsibility to undo the ideological and concrete damage to humanity the program he first unveiled in that address and assiduously implemented ever since has wrought.
Reprinted with author’s permission from The Jerusalem Post

Read more at https://www.jpost.com/printarticle.aspx?id=478313#MOdymm8e3lP21toC.99