Riot Like It’s 1979! There Will NOT Be Democracy in Egypt

If you asked the rioters on the street during the 1979 Iranian Revolution if they wanted a radical Islamic government that would threaten nuclear war with the West, I doubt they would say yes. Anyone thinking that these riots in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East are going to bring democracy are not only fooling themselves, but supporting those who will brutally suppress any actual push for it when they take power. This is what we saw with the 2009-2010 Iranian election protests, and it is what we will see once the Islamic radicals take control.

With these riots in full swing, does it surprise anyone that the Muslim Brotherhood has now begun to position itself within this anti-government push? This from Souad Mekhennet and Nicholas Kulish at The New York Times.

…With organizers calling for demonstrations after Friday prayer, the political movement will literally be taken to the doorsteps of the nation’s mosques. And as the Egyptian government and security services brace for the expected wave of mass demonstrations, Islamic groups seem poised to emerge as wildcards in the growing political movement.

Reporters in Egypt said on Friday that, after rumors swept Cairo late Thursday that the authorities planned to throttle the protesters’ communications among themselves, access to the Internet, text messaging services and Twitter was not possible on Friday morning in Cairo, Alexandria and possibly other cities.

Heightening the tension, the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest organized opposition group in the country, announced Thursday that it would take part in the protest. The support of the Brotherhood could well change the calculus on the streets, tipping the numbers in favor of the protesters and away from the police, lending new strength to the demonstrations and further imperiling President Hosni Mubarak’s reign of nearly three decades.

“Tomorrow is going to be the day of the intifada,” said a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood here in Egypt’s second largest city, who declined to give his name because he said he would be arrested if he did. The spokesman said that the group was encouraging members of its youth organization — roughly those 15 to 30 years old — to take part in protests…

For those who still don’t understand how dangerous the Muslim Brotherhood is, believing that it is a moderate Muslim group, John Loftus wrote a great piece for Canada Free Press in 2006 about this organization’s disturbing and violent history. What’s more disturbing is that for decades, Western governments have propped this organization up because they mistakenly believed that communism was a greater threat than Islamic fundamentalism. You can read the rest in Loftus’ article since that’s not what I am writing about here.

The blogosphere has erupted over these riots, praising what they believe is an actual push for democracy, but many of these people are jumping to conclusions hoping for outrageously optimistic results. Both Hot Air’s Allahpundit and Michelle Malkin have voiced their support for protesters against President Hosni Mubarak, but, unlike many other bloggers, they have also pointed out that an end to his government means an end to the cold peace between Egypt and Israel. This doesn’t bode well for the Jewish state or her allies.

As for this talk about Mohamed ElBaradei, the recipient of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize who is now supporting the protests, being involved in a post-Mubarak government, don’t fool yourself. Returning to The New York Times article, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters won’t allow that to happen.

…Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, a Muslim cleric known as Abu Omar, said that many conservative Muslims would not support a secular politician like Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize winner and former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. “ElBaradei and the others, they have no connection to religion. If Hosni Mubarak goes, they will replace him with someone else like him,” said Abu Omar, who came to prominence after it was disclosed that he had been kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency from Milan in 2003…

If ElBaradei won’t push for an Islamic government, which many think he might, he will be cast aside. They’ll paint him as another Mubarak, as Abu Omar has done, and he will be kept from power.

There is a massive push in the Middle East right now by Islamic radicals. While riots continue in Egypt, they are about to begin in Yemen. We are also hearing rumblings about a movement starting in Jordan as well, and with Pakistan is on the verge of civil war, the Middle East may be on the verge of an Islamic revolution that will radicalize the entire region. We already saw the election of a Hezbollah-backed candidate, Najib Miqati, in Lebanon earlier this week, so let’s not pretend that this push will lead to anything other then establishing multiple Islamic states across the Middle East. How else can anyone explain that the countries that are on the verge of violent revolution are not only fairly secular but are, for the most part, allies of the West? Though corrupt, the governments in place now are far friendlier to the our governments than any leadership that will arise out of this chaos.

With Barack Obama refusing to support Hosni Mubarak, the situation in Egypt may very well mirror that of Iran in 1979. There will be no democracy, only another Islamic regime which will threaten Western interests in the Middle East. Instead of celebrating these violent riots, we need to be honest with what’s going on. As violent and oppressive as Mubarak’s government has been, things will be worse if the Muslim Brotherhood gets power.

UPDATE: It isn’t just American bloggers who are weighing in on this. Michael Coren discussed the rioting on his show today and, as I stated, it is clear that a democratic state will not be established when the dust is settled. Thanks to SDAMatt2 for the video.

What irritates me about Sid Ryan’s comments on this is that the West doesn’t want democracy at all costs. The truth is that a democracy isn’t always the answer for any country’s problems. If enough people are swayed, that very system can be torn out and replaced with a violent and oppressive dictatorship. In the case of Egypt, as long as individual rights are, for the most part, respected and people are given economic freedom, democracy can be pushed to the side temporarily.

Returning to what I said about Barack Obama refusing to support Hosni Mubarak and his government, it would seem as if the White House is taking an approach similar to that of Jimmy Carter during the Iranian Revolution. With the Muslim fundamentalists hoping to transform Egypt into an Islamic state, you don’t give make nonsensical statements about “concrete steps” towards reform. Hot Air’s Allahpundit has put up a post regarding the Obama’s remarks, aside from an earlier post discussing Press Secretary Robert Gibb’s non-statement on the riots. Is it any wonder why Iran is enjoying this fiasco? The United States looks powerless to prevent the rise of yet another Islamic state.

If Republicans were looking for something other than ObamaCare to campaign on next presidential election, Barack Obama’s display of utter weakness during these events should be enough to get any candidate they field elected. Pathetic…

UPDATE: It’s begun. This may have very well started off as isolated protests, people dissatisfied with Egypt’s economic situation, but it has become something far larger and far more dangerous. Mark Levin had former UN ambassador John Bolton on his talk radio show last night and according to him, there was only three options; Hosni Mubarak holds power at the military’s discretion, the military takes control, or the military maintains control so elections can be held and the Muslim Brotherhood eventually take over. We can scratch the first option right now as Hot Air’s Allahpundit has pointed out that the military might now be siding with the protesters.

How likely is it that the Muslim Brotherhood will take over? Allahpundit points to a post by Michael J. Totten at Pajamas Media, citing data obtained by the GLORIA Center, which clearly demonstrates just how likely it is that the Egyptian people will vote them into power.

…In Egypt, 30 percent like Hizballah (66 percent don’t). 49 percent are favorable toward Hamas (48 percent are negative); and 20 percent smile (72 percent frown) at al-Qaida. Roughly speaking, one-fifth of Egyptians applaud the most extreme Islamist terrorist group, while around one-third back revolutionary Islamists abroad. This doesn’t tell us what proportion of Egyptians want an Islamist government at home, but it is an indicator.

In Egypt, 82 percent want stoning for those who commit adultery; 77 percent would like to see whippings and hands cut off for robbery; and 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.

Asked if they supported “modernizers” or “Islamists” only 27 percent said modernizers while 59 percent said Islamists…

So much for democracy eh? If the military doesn’t take power, then it is quite obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood will. As for this talk about Mohamed ElBaradei, Allahpundit points to a post by Caroline Glick exposing the would-be-candidate as a supporter of fundamentalist Islam.

…Elbaradei has been a strong champion of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just this week he gave an interview to Der Spiegel defending the jihadist movement. As he put it, “We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. …[T]hey have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them”…

It is likely that Elbaradei could run as the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate if elections are held. Once again, this is playing out like a repeat of the Iranian Revolution.

I recommend my modest readership give Allahpundit’s post a read, especially since he touches on reports coming from the major media outlets. I also recommend that they also spend time listening to last night’s podcast of ‘The Mark Levin Show’.

UPDATE: Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has put up a post regarding Mohammed ElBaradei, the man the media has turned into the figurehead of the anti-government movement. He has now been given the support of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian government isn’t too worried about him taking power. It would be nice if the media would report this, but instead they are wrapped up in this overly optimistic belief that elections will created a Western-style democracy in Egypt, one that is peaceful and tolerant. I’m not holding my breath.

As for this ridiculous belief that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a radical Islamic terrorist group, Christine Brim at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace is reporting on the sharp differences between the message they put out in English and the message they put out in Arabic (hat-tip to Hot Air’s Allahpundit). How anyone could think that this organization is “moderate” is beyond me.

Abortionist Murderer: Gruesome Details Coming in About Baby Killer

Hat-tip to Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey for this story. Michelle Malkin is also posting on this. All I can say is that this is bone-chilling, that this is the definition of evil. Here’s the story via CBS Philadelphia.

A West Philadelphia abortion doctor, his wife and eight other suspects are now under arrest following a grand jury investigation.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

“I am aware that abortion is a hot-button topic,” said District Attorney Seth Williams. “But as district attorney, my job is to carry out the law. A doctor who knowingly and systematically mistreats female patients, to the point that one of them dies in his so-called care, commits murder under the law. A doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is committing murder under the law”…

The first thing that came to mind was whether or not Barack Obama, as a lawyer, would argue, as he did as a Junior Senator (State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript Pages 86-87), that it was unconstitutional for Kermit Gosnell to be forced to provide treatment to these babies that survive late-term abortions. Illegal procedures or not, these were living and breathing children that he murdered. Let’s remember that. The second thing that came to mind was what this monster said about how he isn’t the only one doing this. It isn’t just shiver-inducing, but downright disturbing that there are more like Gosnell out there, and no matter what regulation is put up, these criminals will find a way around it.

Why is it that pro-lifers are always the ones portrayed as villains? It wasn’t that long ago that students at Carleton University were arrested for erecting anti-abortion displays which the pro-abortion Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) couldn’t tolerate. Will they tolerate this then? Is this the kind of doctor they want to protect? Disgusting.

I just can’t imagine not only who would think this was appropriate, but how anyone could defend what this murderer did. Disgusting…

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more information on what is turning out to be a gruesome mass murder case. Not just “fetal material” that was stuffed into refrigerators but many more mothers who wound up dead in this aptly described “chamber of horrors.” While I do recommend my modest readership give Michelle’s post a look, it isn’t for the faint of heart. The details of this crime are gruesome.

UPDATE: According to Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist murderer has been denied bail. With the charges as serious as they are, the judge couldn’t do otherwise. I recommend my modest readership also give this post a look as it also touches on the issue of the lack of media coverage on this story, which Elizabeth Scalia of The Anchoress highlighted in her most recent post.

Quick Post: Michael Reagan Responds to Ron’s Newest Low

I spent a long time deciding how to approach this. Ronald Reagan Jr. has always been a parasite to me, someone leeching off his father’s legacy for fame and fortune. He is, as Joseph Stalin said, a “useful idiot”, a tool to be used against those who regard former President Ronald Reagan as the model president. Ron, knowing this, actually seems to enjoy tearing down his father at every turn. “My Father at 100,” his latest book, is a poorly disguised attempt to cash in on the celebration of his father’s centennial.

Now, I could have attacked the claims in this book head on, like Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey did, citing CNN’s coverage of its release, as well as the interviews done with those who served under Reagan like Ed Rollins and David Gergen. I could have also done as RedState.com’s Moe Lane and talk radio host Mark Levin did, expose Ron as the opportunistic embarrassment he’s always been, and point out that outside a small niche group of Reagan haters, no one will buy this book, let alone believe what is claimed within. Considering the expert analysis of those like Dr. Larry Altman, a Senior Medical columnist for The New York Times, the fabricated dates and events presented in the Ron’s book that have already been debunked, no one but those who are rabidly anti-Reagen would give this filth a second look.

I think though that there isn’t much else that can be said now, not after Michael Reagan’s tweet about the issue (hat-tip Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s blog).

Ron, my brother was an embarrassment to his father when he was alive and today he became an embarrassment to his mother.

That sums it up doesn’t it? Ron Reagan continues to be the embarrassment his father distanced himself from when he was alive.

You’re a pathetic piece of filth Ron, and I am glad that your father, former President Ronald Reagan isn’t alive to see what a disgrace you have become. Pathetic…

UPDATE: Hot Air’s Allahpundit has a new post up concerning an interview with Michael Reagan on CBS’s ‘The Early Show’. He has the video of the segment up, and I would recommend my readership give it a watch. Aside from posting the video, Allahpundit also discusses the importance of this myth to the left and how they ignore that two of their greats actually did serve with serious medical problems. I would add that many need to believe this in order to justify to themselves that it is because of illness that Reagan didn’t embrace their radical politics.

Whatever the case, as Peter Schweizer at Andrew Breitbart’s BigPeace.com stated, Ronald Reagan, with or without medical problems, was far superior to the current President of the United States who is at full mental strength.

Stupid Statement: Joe Scarborough Should Know Better

Of all people, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC should know better. Here’s the quote from Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: I don’t think you’re overstating it at all. I really don’t. I think, all of us, Pat Buchanan was talking yesterday about how we understood the anger that Sarah Palin might feel for being unjustly accused minutes after the shooting of causing that, the shootings. But, Jon Meacham, the response by Sarah Palin, on the day that they were going to remember a nine-year old little girl that got killed and several senior citizens, and of course a congresswoman who was clinging for her life, to make it all about her, and to stir the pot up additionally with a very loaded phrase–that others have used–but others weren’t considering running for President of these United States. Got to say, I really do believe, it’s not an overstatement to say this probably ended Sarah Palin’s political career. I would be stunned–and save this tape, save this tape and rub it in my face if I’m wrong–would be stunned to ever see Sarah Palin elected to another political office.

Now here’s the controversy that ended his political career via Wikipedia.

…On July 20, 2001, Scarborough’s constituent services coordinator, Lori Klausutis, age 28, died after hitting her head on a desk when she fainted while apparently alone in Scarborough’s Fort Walton Beach, Florida, office. According to Scarborough, soon after her death, allegations “spread all over the Internet” that he had been involved, although there was no evidence of foul play…

Scarborough has the nerve to attack Palin for defending herself from false accusations? What did you do when you were blamed for the death of Klausutis? Were you inserting yourself into the stories about her suspicious death?

Instead of coming to Palin’s defense, having been in the situation himself, he did the opposite, attacking her for defending herself against vicious accusations. Scarborogh should have had a far better understanding of what she was going through as he was falsely accused of a young woman’s death by those like the people he now works for. I also know that he is still very sensitive about the subject, having the Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas banned from MSNBC for a slanderous tweet he made. Is it so difficult for him to come to Palin’s defense? Has Scarborough become such a partisan that he isn’t willing to take a step back, remember his own experience, and not make such stupid statements?

This is just hypocrisy on an unprecedented level. Mind-boggling…

Quick Post: Dire Straits Censored in Canada

Seeing how Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s blog is posting on this, I guess the story has become important enough for me to weigh in on it. Heard about this first from Blazing Cat Fur. Here’s the article he cites, a piece written by Brian Lilley at the Toronto Sun.

…After a complaint from a listener to OZ-FM in Newfoundland who heard the song at 9:15 at night, the CBSC ruled that Money for Nothing, a radio staple since 1985, violates the code of ethics on several fronts due to the use of the word “faggot.”

The songs second verse contains the offensive word three times.

“The little faggot with the earring and the makeup”

“Yeah, buddy, that’s his own hair”

“That little faggot’s got his own jet airplane”

“That little faggot, he’s a millionaire”

The decision here in Canada comes as Americans are embroiled in a debate over censoring the literary classic Huckleberry Finn…

My question is, considering that the song was first released in 1985, why did it take this thin-skinned twit so long to call up the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) and complain about it? On that same note, why did it take the CBSC so long to censor the song? I am glad to hear that at least one radio station, K97 in Edmonton, will defy the ban, but most will not. Is it any wonder why Canada is a laughingstock worldwide when it comes to this nonsense?

I was raised on classic rock, be it Dire Straits, Genesis, Men at Work, etc so this is rather offensive to me. Is it a classic on par with Huckleberry Finn? No, but it is one of those classic rock songs that helps define not only the band, but the era. It is controversial? Of course, people will get offended over the use of certain words, but as Mark Knopfler said to Rolling Stone in 1985, “faggot,” in the song, isn’t used as a slur against homosexuals.

I got an objection from the editor of a gay newspaper in London – he actually said it was below the belt. Apart from the fact that there are stupid gay people as well as stupid other people, it suggests that maybe you can’t let it have so many meanings – you have to be direct. In fact, I’m still in two minds as to whether it’s a good idea to write songs that aren’t in the first person, to take on other characters.

Did it even cross the mind of the twit in Newfoundland that, seeing how Knopfler is a rocker, that him referring to a rocker in Money for Nothing as “faggot” was in anyway satirical? I guess some Canadians aren’t just thin-skinned, but empty-headed eh?

Here is the song for anyone who hasn’t already heard it, sang it, and did air guitar while listening to it. It doesn’t have “faggot,” but it does use the word “queenie.”

My favourite Dire Straits song, however, is Sultans of Swing.

UPDATE: Guy Fletcher of Dire Straits has responded to the CBSC’s ban on the unedited version of their song, Money for Nothing. Here’s what he said as reported by The National Post’s Charmaine Kerridge.

…Calling the ruling “unbelievable,” Fletcher wrote that Mark Knopfler, the song’s writer, will now substitute the word “fudger” for “faggot” for use on Canadian airwaves. “I reckon Canada could ban about 75% of ALL records ever made,” he wrote later…

The story then goes on to mention that Halifax’s Q104 will join Edmonton’s K97 in protesting the song’s ban. I’m hoping that the CBSC has the common sense to back away from this, reverse their decision and admit they overreacted. Political correctness has gone too far when rock classics are censored because of a single complaint about a word used in a song.