Stanley Zir
Egypt, a path to freedom or hell (Part 2: Obama's betrayal)
By Stanley Zir
This essay was written on November 29 and posted on Right Truth one day before the elections in Egypt. It has been updated with a new ending to address Egypt's future and America and Israel under Obama's leadership. http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2011/11/egypt-beyond-obama.html.
Who is Barak Hussein Obama? A hero standing for freedom in Egypt, and for freedom in the Islamic world? He says Americans must respect the rights of the Islamic people and that their voices must be heard. Would he agree with the Egyptian people if they declared it their inalienable right to choose Islamic tyranny through free elections? If the leader of the free world does not declare what America stands against, then for what DO we stand, and with whom? Certainly not the Egyptian people who claim they want to be a tyranny-free nation.
"Last week the White House called for the Egyptian military to surrender all power immediately to a soon-to-be-elected new civilian government. This White House statement marks a shift from its more ambiguous positions in which it sought to avoid publicly criticising the military regime that receives about $1.3bn a year in aid from the U.S.
This was due to a marked increase in pressure on the ruling generals. After days of protests on Tahrir Square, swelling crowds chanted, Leave, leave" and "The people want to bring down the field marshal," referencing mlitary leader Mohamed Tantawi who assumed power from Mubarak.
Washington appears to have withdrawn its support for the army to retain a significant political role after next week's parliamentary elections. In the past, Washington had condemned the violence only in broad terms, angering many Egyptians by implying that the security forces and protesters were equally responsible. Our administration never publicly questioned the army's oversight of the process or its plan to retain significant political power for many months — possibly years to come (click here).
But this time, even though the people in Tahrir Square do not trust Ganzouri, a throwback to the Mubarak regime, the United States threw its lot in with the new prime minister, Ganzouri, certain that Tantawi is not intent on staying in power.
What message is Obama trying to relay to the Egyptians as they go to the polls? One of confidence? That he stands for a new, free Egypt? You'd have a better chance of understanding his purpose by deciphering hieroglyphics. One moment Obama stands with the protestors, calling for the Egyptian military to surrender all power immediately to a new cilivian government, and the next, he collaborates with the military, saying the new government must be empowered with sufficient authority to smoothly transition to democracy.
Even though this may sound confusing, Obama's foreign policy follows a distinct pattern of behavior when dealing with the uprisings in the Islamic world. His commitment to give support to those who are leading the uprising in the Arab Spring changes in direct proportion to those who are guaranteed to win.
• In Egypt, it was only until Obama knew that Mubarak would fall, that he announced to the world he was calling the people of Egypt to overthrow their oppressor. In this case he was not willing to support the perceived victim until the outcome appeared guaranteed.
What he never commits to is a policy that insists that a constitutional government be implemented that opposes Islamic tyranny, even if it is not the will of the victors. Obama manages to shuck his responsibility as the leader of the free world when it suits his purpose, proclaiming America will not interfere in the internal affairs of any nation in the Islamic world.
• In Libya, he backed the rebels, not knowing who they were or what they stood for, but knowing there was a greater chance to overthrow the tyrant Ghadaffi with military support, making Obama the hero while ignoring that the rebels would be forming an Islamic state at odds with the freedoms they're fighting for.
• Iran, 2009, was the worst case scenario, when the people protested in the streets against Ahmadinejad's rigged elections, and Obama was silent. When it looked as though the protestors had no chance to effect regime change, he stood with Ahmadinejad, telling the protesters he would honor the Iranian sovereign authority by accepting the election results. What was his policy then? Not to anger the Islamic republic of Iran or the Islamic world? Here he justifies his cowardly action by using his policy of "We must stay out of Islamic affairs."
Now, what happenned in Iran could happen in Egypt. In Charlie Rose's interview of Naguib Sawiris (click here), co-founder of Free Egyptians, a liberal-secular political party, the guest spoke about the protest at Tahrir Square and Obama's failed foreign policy toward Egypt. Sawiris said, "From the beginning, the army gave the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) too much lead; this is a tribal war and and they believe they are in power already. After a million people came to Tahrir Square, the Brotherhood said,'Whoever thinks they can stop us will be buried alive.'"
When Sawriri was asked what he thought was the biggest mistake the US made in dealing with Egypt, Sawriri replied ‚ "It was Obama's just sitting and watching from the sidelines, and not being pro-active in any sense. While the Catholics finance the Brotherhood and Saudis finance individuals not with the government, no one sides with those against a religious state. Even other secularists are all too willing to work with the devil (MB) in order to form a new state. "The devil eats them up‚ " Sawiris stressed, "Here we are sitting, crying that no one is with us. There are many people, rich and poor, who do not want a religious state."
Unfortunately, it looks as though Obama's policies are capricious. Obama seems to fashion himself the Dialogue King, a Prophet of Peace, a modern-day Martin Luther King, anyone but the leader of the free world.
The question we must ask in his quest to be a Gandhi, is why, as the leader of the free world, is he not standing with Israel, the only nation that embraces democracy in the Middle East? And he is not standing against the Palestinians who voted in terrorists as their elected officials.
It seems that President Obama is confused as to whether he is the President of the United States of America or the head of the United Nations, an international "peace" organization. Unlike the United States, the United Nations is not mandated by decree or charter to end the reign of tyranny in order to achieve a peaceful co-existence among nations.
In concurrence with the United Nations, President Obama advocates that by maintaining open dialogue with fascists and their supporting cast of totalitarian scoundrels, he can achieve the same end. Does the President of the United States really think that giving totalitarian governments an equal vote in determining the outcome of world affairs is the gesture of friendship and trust that is needed to avoid future world conflicts? What is the price we must pay for partnering with criminal enterprises and extortionists to protect against the outbreak of a Third World War? Ask those who found themselves in partnership with the Mafia. The answer is the same from all parties involved: the loss of their freedoms, and economic ruin.
It is not the religious and secular totalitarian nations of the world that have forgotten their mission in undermining our free marketplace of ideas, but the leader of the Free World who has abandoned his pledge to defend and stand against the forces of treachery and deceit. Thus, such eloquent speeches that President Obama delivers, no matter how noble and impressive, only resonate with hollowness.
There can no longer be any doubt that Obama's current foreign policy will not only lead to the destruction of Israel, but to the moral and financial collapse of America and the free world. That is why, in the name of our Founding Fathers and all who sacrificed their lives so we can enjoy the freedoms we have today, "We the People" must demand the renewal of America's foreign policy that once again honors freedom and our nation's Protocol — our eternal stance against the advancement of governances of tyranny in this world.
Thank you,
Stanley Zir Founder of NeverAgainisNOW
website: http://www.neveragainisnow.net/
contact: http://www.neveragainisnow.net/contact-us.
© Stanley Zir
December 9, 2011
This essay was written on November 29 and posted on Right Truth one day before the elections in Egypt. It has been updated with a new ending to address Egypt's future and America and Israel under Obama's leadership. http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2011/11/egypt-beyond-obama.html.
Who is Barak Hussein Obama? A hero standing for freedom in Egypt, and for freedom in the Islamic world? He says Americans must respect the rights of the Islamic people and that their voices must be heard. Would he agree with the Egyptian people if they declared it their inalienable right to choose Islamic tyranny through free elections? If the leader of the free world does not declare what America stands against, then for what DO we stand, and with whom? Certainly not the Egyptian people who claim they want to be a tyranny-free nation.
"Last week the White House called for the Egyptian military to surrender all power immediately to a soon-to-be-elected new civilian government. This White House statement marks a shift from its more ambiguous positions in which it sought to avoid publicly criticising the military regime that receives about $1.3bn a year in aid from the U.S.
This was due to a marked increase in pressure on the ruling generals. After days of protests on Tahrir Square, swelling crowds chanted, Leave, leave" and "The people want to bring down the field marshal," referencing mlitary leader Mohamed Tantawi who assumed power from Mubarak.
Washington appears to have withdrawn its support for the army to retain a significant political role after next week's parliamentary elections. In the past, Washington had condemned the violence only in broad terms, angering many Egyptians by implying that the security forces and protesters were equally responsible. Our administration never publicly questioned the army's oversight of the process or its plan to retain significant political power for many months — possibly years to come (click here).
But this time, even though the people in Tahrir Square do not trust Ganzouri, a throwback to the Mubarak regime, the United States threw its lot in with the new prime minister, Ganzouri, certain that Tantawi is not intent on staying in power.
What message is Obama trying to relay to the Egyptians as they go to the polls? One of confidence? That he stands for a new, free Egypt? You'd have a better chance of understanding his purpose by deciphering hieroglyphics. One moment Obama stands with the protestors, calling for the Egyptian military to surrender all power immediately to a new cilivian government, and the next, he collaborates with the military, saying the new government must be empowered with sufficient authority to smoothly transition to democracy.
Even though this may sound confusing, Obama's foreign policy follows a distinct pattern of behavior when dealing with the uprisings in the Islamic world. His commitment to give support to those who are leading the uprising in the Arab Spring changes in direct proportion to those who are guaranteed to win.
• In Egypt, it was only until Obama knew that Mubarak would fall, that he announced to the world he was calling the people of Egypt to overthrow their oppressor. In this case he was not willing to support the perceived victim until the outcome appeared guaranteed.
What he never commits to is a policy that insists that a constitutional government be implemented that opposes Islamic tyranny, even if it is not the will of the victors. Obama manages to shuck his responsibility as the leader of the free world when it suits his purpose, proclaiming America will not interfere in the internal affairs of any nation in the Islamic world.
• In Libya, he backed the rebels, not knowing who they were or what they stood for, but knowing there was a greater chance to overthrow the tyrant Ghadaffi with military support, making Obama the hero while ignoring that the rebels would be forming an Islamic state at odds with the freedoms they're fighting for.
• Iran, 2009, was the worst case scenario, when the people protested in the streets against Ahmadinejad's rigged elections, and Obama was silent. When it looked as though the protestors had no chance to effect regime change, he stood with Ahmadinejad, telling the protesters he would honor the Iranian sovereign authority by accepting the election results. What was his policy then? Not to anger the Islamic republic of Iran or the Islamic world? Here he justifies his cowardly action by using his policy of "We must stay out of Islamic affairs."
Now, what happenned in Iran could happen in Egypt. In Charlie Rose's interview of Naguib Sawiris (click here), co-founder of Free Egyptians, a liberal-secular political party, the guest spoke about the protest at Tahrir Square and Obama's failed foreign policy toward Egypt. Sawiris said, "From the beginning, the army gave the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) too much lead; this is a tribal war and and they believe they are in power already. After a million people came to Tahrir Square, the Brotherhood said,'Whoever thinks they can stop us will be buried alive.'"
When Sawriri was asked what he thought was the biggest mistake the US made in dealing with Egypt, Sawriri replied ‚ "It was Obama's just sitting and watching from the sidelines, and not being pro-active in any sense. While the Catholics finance the Brotherhood and Saudis finance individuals not with the government, no one sides with those against a religious state. Even other secularists are all too willing to work with the devil (MB) in order to form a new state. "The devil eats them up‚ " Sawiris stressed, "Here we are sitting, crying that no one is with us. There are many people, rich and poor, who do not want a religious state."
Unfortunately, it looks as though Obama's policies are capricious. Obama seems to fashion himself the Dialogue King, a Prophet of Peace, a modern-day Martin Luther King, anyone but the leader of the free world.
The question we must ask in his quest to be a Gandhi, is why, as the leader of the free world, is he not standing with Israel, the only nation that embraces democracy in the Middle East? And he is not standing against the Palestinians who voted in terrorists as their elected officials.
It seems that President Obama is confused as to whether he is the President of the United States of America or the head of the United Nations, an international "peace" organization. Unlike the United States, the United Nations is not mandated by decree or charter to end the reign of tyranny in order to achieve a peaceful co-existence among nations.
In concurrence with the United Nations, President Obama advocates that by maintaining open dialogue with fascists and their supporting cast of totalitarian scoundrels, he can achieve the same end. Does the President of the United States really think that giving totalitarian governments an equal vote in determining the outcome of world affairs is the gesture of friendship and trust that is needed to avoid future world conflicts? What is the price we must pay for partnering with criminal enterprises and extortionists to protect against the outbreak of a Third World War? Ask those who found themselves in partnership with the Mafia. The answer is the same from all parties involved: the loss of their freedoms, and economic ruin.
It is not the religious and secular totalitarian nations of the world that have forgotten their mission in undermining our free marketplace of ideas, but the leader of the Free World who has abandoned his pledge to defend and stand against the forces of treachery and deceit. Thus, such eloquent speeches that President Obama delivers, no matter how noble and impressive, only resonate with hollowness.
There can no longer be any doubt that Obama's current foreign policy will not only lead to the destruction of Israel, but to the moral and financial collapse of America and the free world. That is why, in the name of our Founding Fathers and all who sacrificed their lives so we can enjoy the freedoms we have today, "We the People" must demand the renewal of America's foreign policy that once again honors freedom and our nation's Protocol — our eternal stance against the advancement of governances of tyranny in this world.
Thank you,
Stanley Zir Founder of NeverAgainisNOW
website: http://www.neveragainisnow.net/
contact: http://www.neveragainisnow.net/contact-us.
© Stanley Zir
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
