by James Lewis
Today, Egypt is under assault by the fascist Muslim Brotherhood, which is pushing that old IAEA crook, Mohammed ElBaradei, who lied to the world about the development of Iranian nuclear weapons, for which he received a Nobel Peace Prize.
This guy's a jewel.
ElBaradei may be the figurehead of a new regime, but the Hoods will be in charge. The only "moderate" in sight is the president of Egypt, Mubarak, who is not very moderate, either -- except compared to all the others. And, of course, the Useful Idiot Brigade is in full hue and cry, cheering for all the wrong sides.
When Jimmy Carter brought the first really suicidal Islamic fanatics to power in Tehran in 1979, he was facing exactly the same correlation of forces. And he totally misread them. Andrew Young has written that the Carter State Dept. thought Ayatollah Khomeini was "some kind of saint." This kind of saint had his hands deep in the blood of innocents long before he took over in Tehran. Then he got into a martyrdom war with Saddam that killed a million people. Does anybody remember that?
The Carter White House had its head so deep in the cloacal darkness that it made all the wrong decisions. Luckily, our cookies were saved by Ronald Reagan the next time the American people got a chance to vote. After that election, even before Reagan moved into the White House, the bloodstained ayatollah released his American diplomatic hostages, because Khomeini knew a president who was not a Useful Idiot. So he backed off, pronto.
Carter was helpless in Iran because he felt so guilty about what the CIA did to Mossadegh in 1954, twenty-five years before, when Stalin was alive and the Cold War looked to be going nuclear any day. Jimmy was ably assisted by Zbigniew Brzezinski in sabotaging the world's sanity and security.
Today, both of those colluders with unalloyed evil still maintain their innocence before the entire world, even as Ahmadinejad storms toward nuclear weapons. Carter and Brzezinski are highly respected senior statesmen of the ever-gullible left.
Will Iranian nukes explode by 2012 or 2015? That's the biggest debate today. And no sane person has any doubts as to where those nukes are going. Thank you, Jimmy!
As soon A'jad gets his hands on nukes, the world will see a completely unprecedented thing: an ideological suicide regime, like the Heavenly Nipponese Empire in World War II, equipped with nuclear weapons and fifteen-minute long-range missiles. Neither Tojo nor Hitler would have surrendered if he'd had those weapons. Today we would still see Nazis goose-stepping in Berlin and imperial soldiers parading in Tokyo.
What's happening in Tehran today is the direct outcome of peace-loving Ol' Jimmah. Indeed, Egypt looks like a copycat revolution, because the ayatollah showed radical Islamists all over the world how to do it. Iran is the model.
Remember: What we are seeing in Egypt, Iran, and maybe Tunisia was brought to you by the appeasement faction of the Democratic Party, led by Jimmy and Zbig. Obama seems to be learning the steps to the masochism tango from the Carter wing of the left.
So -- what is Old Hope 'n' Change doing? The fact is that we don't know, because he uses deception as a primary tool of policy. It's in the Alinsky book of rules. For example: In the age of instant e-mail and the web, why is Hillary Clinton making every single U.S. ambassador waste time flying to Washington, D.C. to have a mass rally conference call?
This is bizarre beyond belief, and it has only one major goal: to throw sand in our eyes. No secstate has ever felt the need to do this before. Right in the middle of the biggest foreign policy crisis of this presidency, Hillary is throwing a 180-person ambassadorial party so that the heads of missions in foreign capitals will not keep their fingers on the pulse wherever they are. Instead, they will all be holding hands and singing Kumbaya. Now that's crisis management.
Following the Alinsky model, Obama's public message is always a lie. It has absolutely no bearing on what's really happening. All we know is what the agitprop media are telling us.
Here's the cast of characters according to the agitprops.
First, Mubarak is the bad guy. That's identical to the Carter story, in which the shah was the bad guy during the Iranian revolution -- because he had been an ally of the United States in the Cold War. And the shah made the fatal mistake of looking weak.
But in Egypt, it's Mubarak who has kept the only real Middle East peace treaty alive over thirty years. Blow up the Israel-Egypt peace accords, and you're right back to a war of all against all in the Middle East.
(NB: There are no good regimes in the Muslim Middle East, if your standard is Western-style governance. None. We just lost the last decent one in Turkey when the Muslim Bros took over there while our secstate did nothing. So forget that option.)
Second, the people in the streets are billed as the good guys. I don't doubt that there are thousands and thousands of well-meaning people in the streets of Cairo, and if they had their druthers, they would elect Thomas Jefferson or maybe Abe Lincoln. I love and honor those people, I'm all for them, and I'm very much afraid that they are going to be shot dead by the Muslim Hoods as soon as they take power.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the biggest and most powerful gang of Islamofascist reactionaries outside Iran. They are the Bolsheviks -- radical killers waiting to wipe out the Useful Idiots as soon as the regime falls. Lenin did the same thing. He let the Mensheviks do the hard work of driving the tsar out of power, and then he brought in his killer battalions from Berlin (!) and elsewhere to bring down the social democrats.
When the Bros make their move, it will be by deception, disinformation, and, when the time is ripe, with total, ruthless violence. It's their doctrine, just like it was Communist Party doctrine from Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. It's a radical recipe, like shish-kabob, and it's predictable.
It also means that anything the media tell us today is probably a lie. Example? Ayatollah Khomeini during the Iranian revolution of 1979. Khomeini allowed the liberals and the Mujaheddin Khalq (hard left) to overthrow the shah, and then he had his murder squads take them out. That is why the shah of Iran is now long gone, and Tehran has a throwback tyranny run by a corrupt, venal, and murderous theocracy. We saw their handiwork in the streets of Tehran last year, when the Basij drove their jeeps into the crowds to kill as many civilian demonstrators as possible, randomly, without regard to whom they were killing.
So whom is Obama betting on? I think we have two reasonable guesses. One is ElBaradei, who could not survive in the chaos of Egypt today without some major power backing him. My guess is that he's a CIA plant, because that's a very good reason for Hillary to pull back the U.S. ambassador from Cairo, so there will be no interference from State, and no high-level witnesses when the Egyptian revolution gets through.
The second guess about Obama is that he's been talking to the Brotherhood. We know that his good pals Jodie Evans and Bill Ayers have a close alliance with the Bros. That's who put on the Mavi Marmara agitprop stunt against Israel last year. Jodie and Bill prepared the way by agitating the mobs in Egypt to bring down the barrier between Egypt and Gaza. (Gaza is ruled by Hamas, which is run by...guess who! Yes, it's the Hoods again!)
One confirmation of that hypothesis today is that the Bros just came out in favor of ElBaradei. If you think that ElBaradei is really a democratic moderate, then somehow he's just jumped into bed with the Islamic fascists. How moderate is that?
The only question is whether ElBaradei is a useful idiot who will be overthrown by the Bros as soon as he takes over -- or, much more likely, there has been a longstanding arrangement to make him the figurehead for the radicals.
ElBaradei is no innocent. He's a typical U.N. corruptocrat who can bring tears forth from all the Useful Idiots in America and Europe, but who is playing some kind of devious game behind the scenes. ElBaradei is a Sunni Muslim who publicly protected the Iranian nuclear program and, for all I know, the Pakistani nuke program. He's a sort of a nondenominational nuclear proliferator. And now he's making hay with the Brothers.
If we keep in mind that this is a hall of mirrors, and that it is deliberately kept as such by all the players, here is my guess.
Mubarak is now 82 years old. The planning for this "spontaneous revolution" has been going on for a long, long time, because everybody knows that the handover of power is the time of the greatest weakness in the Muslim Middle East.
The biggest opposition to Mubarak has been, yes, the Bros again. It's amazing how those folks keep popping up. (In America, too, as it turns out...)
Obama has no interest in electoral democracy. Chicago is not a two-party democracy. Two parties just complicate things. Look at all the trouble Obama's having with the American electorate, and -- good grief! -- even the Republican Party. Obama's a radical leftist. He looks like one, he walks like one, talks like one, even has the t-shirt.
Barack Hussein Obama believes in enlightened despotism, and in the Muslim world he knows that there is only despotism without enlightenment. That's why he bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia and Hu Jintao, the colonialist killer of Tibet and president of China. And for good measure, Obama bowed to the figurehead emperor of Japan as well. How's that for a big signal?
Obama has a Napoleonic personality, as we have seen in his first two years. He does not thrive on the give-and-take of electoral democracy. He's happier with Hugo Chávez than with the elected government of Colombia. Henry Kissinger is notorious for saying, "Who do you call to talk to Europe?" His point was that Europe is two dozen different countries. Obama is likely to feel the same way about the Middle East. He wants a single phone number to call in every major Arab country, because that's how you wield power in his world. It's like Chicago. If you're Da Mare, you call the alderman for that precinct. No muss, no fuss, no democracy to worry about. Things get too complicated, too uncontrollable, with a genuine democracy.
Right now, Obama knows whom to call at GM, on Wall Street, at Google, in New York City and Chicago. If he gets ZeroCare, he will also have just one phone number to call to control one sixth of the American economy. Obama believes in top-down control. That's why he can't stand the U.S. Constitution.
Obama has negotiated with Muslim radicals all over the world, including the Taliban in Afghanistan and Ahmadinejad in Iran. He feels comfortable with them, for the same reason that London's previous mayor, "Red Ken" Livingston, felt comfortable dealing with Muslim radicals in London. It is also the reason for the tactical alliances between the Nazis and the Stalin-era Communists. They understood each other. They are tactical allies until one side takes over, and then each side plans to knock off the other. Until then, they have a red-black alliance because they have a common enemy: us.
Ayatollah Khomeini took over during the Iranian revolution after killing off the hard left there as well. This revolutionary chess game is so old that it's practically in all the cookbooks.
But the bottom line is simple: There are no Abe Lincolns in the Muslim Hood. There are only bad choices.
A pro-American president like Ronald Reagan would know that instinctively. Reagan would never play footsie with the worst elements in the Muslim world -- the biggest fanatics and reactionaries, the ones who find scriptural authority to kill teenage girls for going out with the wrong boys.
Reagan was an instinctive people person. Obama is an instinctive autocrat. We've seen it in two years of domestic policy. Now we see it in foreign policy.
Pretty soon the American people will get it, too.
Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/theres_no_abe_lincoln_in_the_m.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.