Are the Egyptian people demanding that President Hosni Mubarak step down? There is a mob in the streets of Cairo making this demand. And there is an American president who wants the mob to have its way. The Guardian UK headline reads: "Barak Obama impatient for credible transition in Egypt. " The article states what everyone knows; namely, that the United States government is putting pressure on President Mubarak to step down. Who is likely to fill the power vacuum? Anxieties are focused on the Muslim Brotherhood and the possibility of an Islamic revolution.
Regarding the demands of the Egyptian people: Two Ukrainian bloggers on Live Journal, traveling through Egypt, offer a different take on events than we see in the mainstream media. The two Ukrainians write, "We visited Egypt and studied the situation in detail, on the ground. Having talked with hundreds of residents in Cairo and other Egyptian cities, we came to a definite conclusion: a nationwide uprising against Mubarak does not exist."
If there is no nationwide uprising, then what is going on? According to the Ukrainian bloggers, "Most of the population [in Egypt], even those not supporting the current government, have a negative attitude toward the anti-presidential groups.... In fact, the Egyptian rebellion is limited to one area of Cairo. Statements made in Tahrir Square cannot be considered massive -- since they represent twenty thousand protestors, yet compared to the millions in Cairo this is quite small."
Even more curious, the two Ukrainian bloggers say that the Egyptian Army hasn't moved against the protestors because Mubarak does not want to "irritate the Americans." The protestors themselves are described as "nice people, but their protests are solely based on the support of the U.S. government." The impression is given here, as elsewhere, that the United States wants change in Egypt.
A Ukrainian friend who read the above-quoted blog expressed sharp disagreement with the bloggers. Surely, he said, the United States supports Mubarak. Surely, President Obama knows that the Islamic Brotherhood may take power if Mubarak leaves, and Obama knows he must oppose the Muslim Brotherhood. He knows nothing of the kind, I explained. "Well," said my friend, "Obama has a Director of National Intelligence who keeps him up to speed on all issues of strategic importance."
Oh really? Shall we take a closer look?
James Clapper is President Obama's Director of National Intelligence. On Thursday, Clapper testified before the House Intelligence Committee as follows: "The term Muslim Brotherhood is an umbrella term for a variety of movements; in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam...." Clapper further described the Muslim Brotherhood as pursuing "the betterment of the political order in Egypt," and having "no overarching agenda in the pursuit of violence."
With all due respect, the Director of National Intelligence is misinformed, and the President of the United States is ill served. As explained in the Center for Security Policy Team B Report of last year, "The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its express purpose was two-fold: (1) to implement shariah worldwide, and (2) to re-establish the global Islamic State (caliphate). Therefore, Al Qaeda and the MB have the same objectives." (P. 66) Furthermore, the creed of the Muslim Brotherhood states that "God is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations." The Team B Report adds, "It is evident from the Creed, and from the Brotherhood's history ... that violence is an inherent part of the MB's tactics. The MB is the root of the majority of Islamic terrorist groups in the world today."
It is doubtful that a global Islamic State (caliphate) will come to power through a worldwide election campaign. Unless suicide bombers are advocates of democracy, and killing women and children are a type of canvassing for votes, we are talking about the establishment of a global religious dictatorship. Such things are not established by strictly peaceful means. According a memorandum approved by the Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council and organizational conference in 1987, the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is described as a "Civilization-Jihadist Process." The memorandum explains that the Brotherhood's "work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
Does this sound peaceful and benevolent?
The President of the United States and his Director of National Intelligence have taken oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yet the Director of National Intelligence cannot properly identity a sworn enemy of the U.S. Constitution, possessing almost no accurate information about that enemy (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood). The Director of National Intelligence has no awareness, it seems, that documents outlining the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy were captured by the FBI in 2004. The strategy was outlined in five phases: (1) Phase of discreet and secret establishment of leadership; (2) Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene; (3) Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media; (4) Open public confrontation with the Government; (5) Seizing power to establish an Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.
According to the Team B Report, "The inherently seditious nature of the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda and its incompatibility with Western civilization and governments is typically obscured in the Free World by the assertion that the Ikhwan [the brotherhood] only seeks to achieve its objectives through non-violent means. As a result, the Brothers, their allies and proxies are all-too-often considered to be acceptable and reliable partners for governments seeking to counter violent jihad."
Has Director of National Intelligence James Clapper become an Islamic dupe? Is President Obama going to take his Director of National Intelligence to task? Readers are encouraged to listen to President Obama's speech at Cairo University, where he invited the Muslim Brotherhood to attend. The speech is flattering to Islam, and proposes a doctrine of peace between irreconcilable creeds (which the president imagines as potentially harmonious). At this juncture we should ask ourselves: Can the laws of the United States be maintained side-by-side with shariah law and Islam? The Team B Report says "no." On page 119 of the report we read of the anti-Constitutional character of shariah law: "As a nation, we have lost our understanding of America's founding principles and as a result have become increasingly ill-prepared to defend the superiority of those principles. This puts us at a distinct disadvantage in being able to identify, let alone understand and confront, hostile doctrines -- both foreign and domestic."
President Bush, therefore, was in error when he called Islam "the religion of peace." Contrary to these warm words, President John Quincy Adams made the following critical remarks about the Prophet Muhammad: "He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind."
Was John Quincy Adams an ignoramus? I doubt there is half as much learning in the entire Obama administration.
If the Muslim Brotherhood has duped the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, one might suppose that the Brothers are diligent and clever enough to seize power in Egypt. Since President Obama legitimized these tenacious fighters, and the U.S. national security system has given them a stamp of approval, we may expect to hear more applause as they sweep away the infidels on every side.
The reader will have to decide for himself whether or not Islam is "the religion of peace" or if, as Winston Churchill explained, there was no stronger retrograde force in the world. According to Churchill, "[Islam] has already spread ... raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science ... the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." (The River War, First Edition, Vol. II, pages 249-50)
Of course, it doesn't matter if the majority of Egypt's population fails to participate in the overthrow of Mubarak. Revolutions are effected by minorities. Governments are based on minority rule. Democracy itself is merely another way of organizing oligarchy, as shown in America today. And all this supposedly noble talk about Egyptian democracy amounts to nothing more. The only question is, which minority will rule?