Rumsfeld Tells Rush: Radical Islamists Intend to ‘Create a Caliphate’

Posted on February 8, 2011 

by Scott Baker

(via DailyRushbo)

“We are up against a vicious enemy, the radical Islamists are there, they intend to try to create a Caliphate in this world and fundamentally alter the nature of nation states, and we’re reluctant to engage in the competition of ideas and point out what they really are and how vicious they are. This current administration is even afraid to say the word Islamist. And we need to fight. We need to be willing to say what it is and be willing to tackle it.”

Read the full transcript at RushLimbaugh.com.

US Union Boss Trumka Influencing Egyptian Revolution

US Union Boss Trumka Influencing Egyptian Revolution With International Labor Org That Calls for Redistribution of Wealth, ‘Social Justice’ and ‘New World Order’


Posted on February 8, 2011 
by Naked Emperor News

Gallup: American Public Becoming Extremely Dissatisfied

Nearly 7 out of 10 Americans say they are dissatisfied

February 8, 2011
Posted by Van Helsing

They say Comrade Obama got caught with his pants down on Egypt; he should have seen that the country was ready to blow. You could say the same about another country I know…

Nearly 7 out of 10 Americans say they are dissatisfied with the size and power of the federal government and with nation's moral and ethical climate, says the Gallup Poll.

Fortunately, despite the disastrous consequences in 2008, we are still able to believe in our electoral system, so revolution here needn't feature violence in the streets.

However, our rogue government is so far out of control, people are losing faith. In January 2002, 76% were satisfied with our system of government and how well it works. That has dropped like a rock to an alarming 42%.

In addition to grotesquely inflating the size and power of the federal government, liberals have used their control of the media to poison our culture. People don't like it:

The greatest public dissatisfaction … is with the moral and ethical climate of the country. Today, 69 percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with that climate, while 30 percent say they are satisfied.
Read More

Liberal Radio Talkers Call for Americans to Rise Up In Revolution Just Like in Egypt

Posted on February 8, 2011
by Naked Emperor News

Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, and the Unholy Alliance of Radical Islam and the American Left

http://www.newsrealblog.com/
Posted on February 8 2011
by David Horowitz

Bill Kristol is entitled to his optimism about democratic revolutions in the Islamic world. Perhaps the elections in Egypt will turn out better than those in Gaza where Hamas now rules a terrorist state; Iraq, which has instituted an Islamic Republic; Lebanon, where Hezbollah now rules a terrorist state; and Afghanistan, which is a kleptocracy wooing the terrorist theocracy in Iran. What he should not be doing as a conservative leader is demonizing Glenn Beck, who has done more to educate Americans about the unholy alliance between the secular left and the Islamic jihadists than anyone else. Kristol needs to apologize to Beck for comparing him — outrageously — to the conspiracist Robert Welch, and should be embarrassed by his own ignorance of the agendas of both American radicals and their jihadist allies. At this point in time, such ignorance is not only inexcusable but dangerous.


February 08, 2011
Bill Kristol, Stand for Truth
By Pamela Geller

Bill Kristol has opened the French doors of his ivory tower, stepped out and deigned to address the great unwashed conservative quarter. High above the people and reality, he admonishes those on the right for not embracing the catastrophic events unfolding in the Middle East.

In his opinion piece, Stand for Freedom, he dismisses or summarily denies the concrete facts on the ground. Of course, we all want freedom. Of course, we support voices yearning to be free. We fought for and believed The Bush Doctrine, and still do. But there is far more at work here, as evidenced by the fierce behind-the-scenes jockeying and arm-twisting by the on-the-ascent Muslim Brotherhood, an organization created after the fall of the Ottoman Empire for the purpose of restoring the rule of political Islam. 
Read More

The Brotherhood Amongst Us

Wherever Muslims go, the Brotherhood will follow. It has now even infiltrated many non-Muslim countries, including the U.S. and even our government.

Posted by Nonie Darwish on Feb 8th, 2011

The Muslim Brotherhood has long been a major political force in the Muslim world. Its power comes from a deep conviction among Muslims in general that its ideology represents true Islam and that it is the front line of defense of Islam and its protection from any novelty or change. As a matter of fact, there is a law in Sharia that entrusts the Muslim head of state with just that: protecting Islam from any “bidaa” — meaning novelty. Many Muslims in the West defend not only the Brotherhood but also many of its affiliates such as Hamas, and place them in high regard. To many Muslims, criticizing the Brotherhood is equivalent to attacking Islam itself. Thus, the Brotherhood has been a major force in bringing down regimes and installing new governments, and whether we like it or not they will play a significant role in any administration, whether it is openly Islamic or nominally secular.

Wherever Muslims go, the Brotherhood will follow. It has now even infiltrated many non-Muslim countries, including the U.S. and even our government. As a fellow Egyptian, I have no doubt that the head-covered, Egyptian-born White House advisor Dalia Mogahed is herself a Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas sympathizer and Sharia defender. She helped write president Obama’s Cairo speech, which was geared to appease and legitimize the Brotherhood, the very organization that inspired Al-Qaeda that attacked America on 9/11. Obama believed that he would be the hero who will make the Muslim world love us, but he ended up only empowering the Brotherhood against both Arab reformists and Western interests.  Read More

Egypt: a Foreign Policy Failure

The Obama administration is in way over its head.

Posted by Stephen Brown on Feb 8th, 2011

As predicted, President Barack Obama’s attempt last week to oust Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power failed miserably after he ran into a steel wall of opposition from the Egyptian president and his generals. Ignoring the pressure to resign, Mubarak showed Obama he will be the one who decides when he steps down and that he has the Egyptian military’s support in doing so. The White House’s plan to force Mubarak’s immediate departure not only exhibited an embarrassing lack of knowledge concerning Egyptian society and the danger a hasty coup would pose to Egypt’s fragile stability, but also that long-time American allies cannot rely on the Obama administration when in difficulty. This latest policy setback indicates, as has long been suspected, that in the area of foreign affairs, the Obama administration is in way over its head.

Perhaps the largest misstep in the failed attempt to get Mubarak out was made by Obama himself. In an obvious misreading of the political situation and of Mubarak’s character, President Obama intervened personally in Egyptian internal affairs with a hasty, 30-minute phone call to Mubarak last Tuesday evening after the Egyptian president said in a speech to the nation he would not seek re-election in September. The speech met with a mixed reception, but managed to garner sympathy among segments of the population, a development the White House had obviously not even considered.  Read More

Nine Perversions of Multiculturalism

Our unique American culture has led us to be the freest, wealthiest, most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. This is NOT due to cultural diversity, but to the contrary, this was due to our founding principles and concept of "the American melting pot".

Freedom from religious persecution is one of our founding principles. Of course religious freedom is part of the American culture. However, a moral and religious people is required for self governance. ...garyganu's blog

October 5, 2010
Michael Novak

The fraudulence of much that currently masquerades under the name "multiculturalism" results from gross perversions of what, in 1972, I called the new ethnicity. Multiculturalism is a profound betrayal of the fundamental principles of the new ethnicity. In the current culture wars on campus, however, an explicit indictment of the perversions of multiculturalism may be useful.


1. Anti-Americanism. Since it regards the West (at least its white males) as imperialistic, and America as the most advanced face of the West, multiculturalism expresses hostility to American traditions and institutions, while glorifying non-Western cultures, especially those inimical to America.

2. Victimology. Multiculturalism tends to divide the world into a privileged set of victims and their alleged oppressors, through the lens of a loose and vulgar Marxism. This Marxism is cultural rather than economic.

3. Ego-boosting. The aim of multiculturalism is to boost "self-esteem" at the expense, if necessary, of facts.

4. Evasion. The assumption of multiculturalism is that its selected favorites cannot meet universal standards because of the evil actions of others; therefore, multiculturalism regards honest inquiry as pointless. It further pretends that its privileged groups are innocent. Having no awareness of "original sin," it is merciless toward others.

5. Tactical Relativism. Multiculturalism pretends to be "nonjudgmental," hiding behind the myth of moral equivalence, while it is in fact based upon harsh judgments about good and evil (and the oppressed and their oppressors).

6. Censorship. Since it regards inquiry as useless, criticism as malevolent, intellect as impotent, and reason as nothing more than a servant of power, multiculturalism protects its wishes through speech codes, the banning of books, and the shouting down of opposing voices.

7. Groupthink. Blind to the complex relations of individuals to the communities that nurture them, multiculturalism approaches people only as members of groups and, afraid of the creativity of dissenting individuals, imposes thought control by humiliating dissidents in public, and encourages its partisans to look to each other before speaking out.

8. Egalityranny. In the name of "equality" wrongly understood, multiculturalism focuses on groups, group outcomes, and group statistical profiles -- in ways destructive of individual aspiration and achievement. Equality falsely construed (as uniformity) can scarcely be imposed upon the blooming, buzzing abundance of individual vitality -- except through despotic methods.

9. Double standards. Multiculturalism is constituted by double standards. Multiculturalism basks in the supposition that there are no universal standards by which individuals and cultures may be judged.

Read More

British Prime Minister Lashes Out At Multiculturalism

'Multiculturalism' Under Fire in Europe, Blamed for Extremism by British BP

By Jim Angle
Published February 07, 2011
FoxNews.com

British Prime Minister David Cameron has lashed out at multiculturalism, the second time a European leaders has done so recently. Following on the heels of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Cameron implored the West to confront extremism now.

Cameron said last weekend that letting different cultural groups -- especially Muslims -- exist in separate communities divides the nation and is not only wrong but dangerous.

“We have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives,” the center-right Cameron stated, “apart from each other and apart from the mainstream.”

Cameron's concern is that separatism allows young people to be lured into extremism, saying "the biggest threat that we face comes from terrorist attacks, some of which are, sadly, carried out by our own citizens."

One leading authority on transatlantic relations says this mentality is a “fundamental rejection” of a widespread doctrine that has failed across Britain and Europe the past two decades.

"Islamic extremists have exploited this doctrine to advance their own anti-British agenda," explains Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation.  Read More

Sarah Palin and the Liberal Psyche

Sarah Palin and the Liberal Psyche
Posted by The Right Scoop on Feb 7, 2011

The Muslim Brotherhood Has Only One Strain, An Islamic Supremacist Virus

Big Lie in Bill O’Reilly’s Obama Interview: The Muslim Brotherhood Has Only One Strain, An Islamic Supremacist Virus

Posted on February 7 2011
by Joseph Klein

Bill O’Reilly conducted a live pre-Super Bowl interview yesterday of President Obama from the White House on Fox. Given the time constraints and the protocols governing respect for the office of the President, O’Reilly’s tone was more constrained than usual, but he still managed to elicit some disturbing insights into Obama’s thinking.

For example, President Obama told O’Reilly that he’s not terribly concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. After all, according to Obama, who invited members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his own speech in Cairo in June 2009 and who has invited the president of a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Islamic organization in America to the White House for Ramadan dinners, only certain “strains” of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology ”are against the U.S.” and the Muslim Brotherhood is only “one faction in Egypt.”

That’s like saying that there are only certain strains of a dangerous virus that will kill us immediately as opposed to causing a long painful illness. Could Obama be hoping for something in his Obamacare legislation that will provide a cure?  Read More

Fox News Crew Describes ‘Life or Death Struggle’ in Cairo

"The main street was a total war zone, it was smoke, it was rocks being thrown, it was Molotov cocktails, it was flames, it was live fire,” Polkot recalled.

Posted on February 6, 2011
by Meredith Jessup

While anti-government protests continue in Egypt, many international journalists have retreated from the frontlines after being threatened and, in many cases, detained by authorities. As we reported last week, a Fox news reporter and cameraman were confronted by a large contingent of pro-government demonstrators and savagely beaten.

Fox News correspondent Greg Palkot and cameraman Olaf Wiig have since returned to London. In the first interview following their ordeal, the two recounted the frightening experience for Fox News on Sunday.

“The main street was a total war zone, it was smoke, it was rocks being thrown, it was Molotov cocktails, it was flames, it was live fire,” Polkot recalled.

“I got grabbed and I thought at that moment, I thought, ‘Ok, I’m really now in trouble,’” Wiig added.

“People are all over him,” Palkot said, referring to Wiig. “Within about 30 seconds, people are all over us — and that’s where our life or death struggle began.”

Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Obama...Nothing Has Changed

O'Reilly Obama Interview Shows That President Still Hasn't Changed Course

FoxNews.com
Published February 06, 2011
By Christian Whiton

Bill O’Reilly’s Sunday interview with Barack Obama revealed a president who has not changed course from the path of the last two years—contrary to the conventional wisdom on both left and right in Washington.

On the revolution sweeping Egypt and other Middle Eastern capitals, President Obama still cannot articulate what U.S. interests are and how he will use tools available to him to advance those interests.

This could be as easy as saying, "we stand with those seeking democracy, we insist that the dictator of Egypt leave, and we will oppose and work against the Islamists who want an even worse alternative to existing repression." Read More

NFL on FOX: O'Reilly Interviews ObamaNFL

White House distances itself from its own envoy to Egypt

February 6, 2011
by Ed Morrissey

Almost a week ago, the Obama administration decided to get off the fence on Egypt and start pushing for Hosni Mubarak to resign as president of Egypt. On Tuesday night, Barack Obama told the US that Mubarak needed to transition to a new government that had support from the people, and he sent Frank Wisner to Egypt to send the message to Mubarak personally. Wisner, however, sent an entirely different message back to the US:

The latest challenge came Saturday afternoon when the man sent last weekend by President Obama to persuade the 82-year-old leader to step out of the way, Frank G. Wisner, told a group of diplomats and security experts that “President Mubarak’s continued leadership is critical — it’s his opportunity to write his own legacy.”

Jake Tapper, David Kerley, and Kirit Radia report for ABC that the White House began distancing itself from its own special envoy:  Read More

Why America goes to war

Political Bookworm
By Steven E. Levingston
October 26, 2010
 
Why go to war when a peaceful resolution to a conflict may still be an option? Richard Rubenstein, a professor at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, has spent a career trying to answer that question and to find ways to inspire a reflex toward peace over violence. In “Reasons to Kill: Why Americans Choose War,” just released by Bloomsbury Press, he explains why ordinary Americans follow their leaders into battle even when war is difficult to justify. Here, he outlines five traditional justifications for war – and why they should stir skepticism.


By Richard Rubenstein

Since 1950, the United States has spent more than 20 years at war, with military operations killing more than a hundred thousand Americans, wounding at least five times that number, and consuming several million foreign lives. We have been fighting continuously since 2001 with no end to the violence in sight.

The question that most wants answering at this point is not why our leaders go to war but why we so often follow them into battle. Some commentators think that Americans are innocent dupes, people who will buy anything, including war, if it is cleverly packaged and sold. Others insist that since the early days of our republic we have been a nation of frontier warriors eager to prove our manliness in battle.

Each of these theories contains a piece of the truth but misses the most important point: we are a religious people who will not fight unless first convinced that war is morally justified. (This is why virtually every American war has spawned a significant anti-war movement.)

Our nation’s history reveals five crucial justifications for war:

Self-defense: We are under attack and have a sacred right and duty to defend ourselves.

Evil enemy: A diabolical enemy – one who wishes us harm because of his evil nature – exists and must be destroyed if we are to remain safe and free.

Humanitarian duty: We are morally obligated to rescue the victims of atrocious oppression from tyrants who violate their human rights.

Patriotism: Loving America means being willing to fight for the nation when asked to make this sacrifice.

Last resort: War is necessary because the enemy has refused to negotiate or cannot be trusted to adhere to diplomatic agreements.

These principles have often been invoked to induce us to participate in unnecessary and unjust wars. That is why each one should trigger a series of skeptical questions.

Claims of self-defense should make us ask who, exactly, is threatening us and what the threat consists of. If U.S. troops occupying another nation are attacked by local insurgents, is a war of counter-insurgency needed to defend our nation or merely to secure some imperial outpost?

Similarly, even though a figure like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden is declared an evil enemy, we still need to ask what, exactly, motivates his hostility and what non-violent policies and actions on our part might undermine his sources of support and make us safer.

Humanitarian duty is often invoked to convince us to intervene to save oppressed peoples. But if we assume that America alone is capable of liberating the oppressed without becoming a new oppressor, we make the fatal assumption of our unique virtue and fruitlessly deny our own “dark side.” This is why, following the Spanish-American War, we repeated in the Philippines the worst excesses of the Spanish counter-insurgency campaign in Cuba, killing more than 200,000 Filipinos in the process.

Patriotism does not necessarily mean fighting for one’s country; it means doing what is best for America and the world, which often requires working for peace rather than participating in war.

And, most U.S. wars have not been justified by the principle of last resort. Not only have our own leaders often refused to negotiate, they have not yet learned to use the methods of conflict resolution to discover and eliminate the underlying causes of war.

Americans are neither gullible dupes nor frontier warriors. But we have too often abandoned our usual hard-headed skepticism when asked to support U.S. military campaigns abroad in the name of patriotism. There is an antidote to this – the “I’m from Missouri, show me!” attitude exhibited by great patriots from John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln to Mark Twain, Jeannette Rankin, David Dellinger and Dennis Kucinich.

It’s not too late to regain our balance and end America’s unnecessary wars.

Richard Rubenstein, conflict resolution and public affairs professor at George Mason University, reports on why he believes Americans are amenable to the notion of war. Mr. Rubenstein argues that the U.S. government sells war to the populace and he examines the ways that involvement in foreign conflicts are proposed to the nation. Richard Rubenstein discussed his book at the Cambridge Public Library in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

To Watch Full Discussion  http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/KillW