Frank Gaffney’s new-style Bircher Conspiracy: Muslim Brotherhood has Infiltrated the Feds
February 2, 2011 No CommentThe John Birch Society almost over took the Conservative movement during the rise of Barry Goldwater, but was beat back by William F. Buckley and the NRO. Robert Welch was obsessed with Communists and started multiple conspiracy theories around his delusions including the one about Eisenhower being a Commie infiltrator. Welch wrote in a widely circulated statement, The Politician, “Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes.” He went on. “With regard to … Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.” [33] The controversial paragraph was removed before final publication of The Politician . [34] The sensationalism of Welch’s charges against Eisenhower prompted several conservatives and Republicans, most prominently Goldwater and the intellectuals of William F. Buckley ‘s circle, to renounce outright or quietly shun the group. Buckley, an early friend and admirer of Welch, regarded his accusations against Eisenhower as “paranoid and idiotic libels” and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the Birch Society. [35] From then on Buckley, who was editor of National Review , became the leading intellectual spokesman and organizer of the anti-Bircher conservatives. [36] In fact, Buckley’s biographer John B. Judis wrote that “Buckley was beginning to worry that with the John Birch Society growing so rapidly, the right-wing upsurge in the country would take an ugly, even Fascist turn rather than leading toward the kind of conservatism National Review had promoted.” [36] Using the cover of the Tea Party, the Birchers are making a huge comeback and they will find a conspiracy hidden in anything at all. Frank Gaffney gets a gold star of tor this one. Kudos to Think Progress: Amidst the political upheaval in Egypt, conservatives are scare-mongering about the possible Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt. But leading neoconservative Frank Gaffney is taking Muslim Brotherhood fearmongering to new heights. This past weekend, Gaffney was a featured speaker at the Educational Policy Conference in St. Louis, an annual gathering of social conservatives. Gaffney used the opportunity to discuss how the Muslim Brotherhood is not only poised to implement a new theocracy in Egypt, but is also operating in the United States under “front groups” like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil liberties group dedicated to “protecting the rights of all Americans, regardless of faith.” — TP: Do you think [Sharia law] has already infiltrated the federal government? GAFFNEY: There are questionable people who are sympathetic to the program of the stealth jihadists who have influence with the United States government. Some I think are actually working for it, but for sure people who are persuaded that the folks that they need to work with to reach out to the Muslim-American community, for example, who incessantly turn to Muslim Brotherhood organizations for that purpose, are a very real problem. TP: Can you name a few names, for instance in the federal government? GAFFNEY: John Brennan. John Brennan is the Homeland Security Advisor for the President of the United States TP: He’s complicit in this creep of Sharia law? GAFFNEY: He’s absolutely daft on what the nature of the threat and is insistent upon using Brotherhood-front organizations as sources of information and as vehicles for reaching out to the Muslim-American community. Jim Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, has said that these sorts of groups are “sources of wisdom,” as he puts it, to the United States government. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is incessantly meeting with Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and I think has in the past, if not today, employed people who are associated with them. This is sick and twisted, but as Digby noted this morning, according to the Tea Party, the Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are in cahoots. This just in on my wingnut chainmail: Have you ever wondered why President Obama has been relatively quiet and uninvolved in the uprising in Egypt? We dug up a two-year-old article that surprisingly shows a connection between Obama and, you guessed it, the Muslim Brotherhood! Obama was against Hamas during his presidential campaign and pro-Israel to get the Jewish vote. However, since he became president of the United States (POTUS), he has dissed Israel and is now spending billions of American taxpayers’ money to move and set up thousands of Hamas members within the United States homeland. Whose side is Obama on anyway? Read this linked article . It will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. This article is supported with a list of credits at the bottom of the article that gives it legitimacy. This topic must be opened up for some serious debate. The man that is said to still rule in Washington, somehow, we keep seeing him and Henry Kissinger in the news quite frequently. Google these two words together “Banna Nazi.” It’s important to to keep up with your history on kooky conspiracy theories. In the 80′s the Birchers came back in the form of Abramoff/Norquist/Reed who went hog wild about Commies infiltrating our government. Then during the 90′s under Clinton, the Alex Jones Black Helicopter squads invaded the fringes of Conservatism and Libertarians. They never go away on rebrand themselves. I wrote this in response to an idiotic piece written by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post: Barry Goldwater refused to dismiss the Birchers as wackos entirely because they were useful like the teabaggers, but he did attack Welch. Rick Perlstein’s: ‘Beyond The Storm:’ The attendees fell into two camps. Buckley and Kirk said they were ready to write the Birchers out of the conservative movement altogether. Goldwater and others canceled accommodation. He thought there were a lot of ‘nice guys’ in the Society and not just ‘kooks’ and that it wasn’t time to precipitate breaks in the conservatives’ fragile movement. They settled on a compromise. National Review would attack Robert Welch, not the John Birch Society. Goldwater would take the line that Welch was a crazy extremist, but that the Society itself was full of ‘fine, upstanding citizens’ working hard and well for the cause of Americanism. Haven’t we heard the same thing from Newtie and Rove about the teabaggers?
Continue reading …
Four reporters set upon as hundreds of pro-government supporters launch resistance against protests Supporters of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak beat up several journalists after going on the offensive today. Anderson Cooper from CNN , two Associated Press correspondents and a Belgian reporter were all set upon as hundreds of young pro-government supporters attacked crowds demanding Mubarak’s immediate resignation. Cooper said he and his crew came under attack, but CNN said no one was seriously hurt. Two Associated Press correspondents and several other journalists were roughed up during gatherings of Mubarak supporters. In what appeared to be the most serious incident, a Belgian correspondent who reports for newspapers in Brussels, northern France and Geneva, was beaten, detained and accused of spying. Maurice Sarfatti, who uses the byline Dumont, was covering a pro-Mubarak demonstration in the Cairo district of Shoubra when he said he was hit. “It was rough. I received several blows to the face,” Dumont said . “They claimed I was pro-Baradei [the opposition leader, Mohamed ElBaradei]. I was then taken by the military to a barrack on the edge of town. “I was given a glass of water – from the Nile so I would get diarrhoea, they said. I was guarded by two soldiers with Kalashnikovs and bayonets. “They said I would be taken to the secret service. They accused me of being a spy.” The strong-arm tactics immediately drew a rebuke from the US. “The United States deplores and condemns the violence that is taking place in Egypt, and we are deeply concerned about attacks on the media and peaceful demonstrators,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. “We repeat our strong call for restraint.” Egyptian state TV reported that foreigners were caught distributing anti-Mubarak leaflets, apparently trying to depict the movement as foreign-instigated. As the mood turned ugly after the last few days of euphoria, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said he was “deeply concerned” at the “unacceptable” violence. He urged Egypt’s leaders to “accept the will of their people that they should listen more attentively to the genuine and sincere wish of the people”. David Cameron sent the same message to the Egyptian authorities, saying it would be unacceptable for the Egyptian government to be supporting violence in any way. “If it turns out that the regime in any way has sponsored or tolerated this violence, that is completely unacceptable,” he said after meeting Ban Ki-moon in London. The UN High commissioner for human rights urged the authorities to listen to demands for fundamental reforms. “I urge all governments, both in this region and elsewhere to reflect on the fact that, in the long term, genuine and lasting stability does not depend on a ruthless security apparatus, or a ring of military steel, but on the development of human rights and democracy,” said Navi Pillay. “These are the principles on which the United Nations was founded. Stability cannot be approached solely through a security lens. This is a short-sighted method that, in the end, is bound to fail.” Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East United Nations Ban Ki-moon CNN TV news Mark Tran guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Our mother, Victoria Tawadros, who has died aged 71, followed what the poet Robert Frost described as a road “less travelled”. Politics and conflict formed a backdrop to her extraordinary life, which was spent between Britain and Egypt. She was born Victoria Wassef in Cairo, the eldest child of Youssef and Salma. Her grandfather, a journalist, had wrapped her mother in an Egyptian flag in a political demonstration against British occupation. She grew up in Heliopolis, an elegant suburb of Cairo, and was educated at the English school in the city. When her father relocated to Britain to become the Egyptian assistant air attache, she moved to a boarding school in Middlesex. It was a sharp contrast to the easy-going lifestyle she had enjoyed in
Continue reading …
The counter-revolutionary message to the people from an unvanquished, still vicious regime is: it’s over – go home, or else Hosni Mubarak launched his counter-revolution today, sending waves of armed thugs to do battle with pro-democracy demonstrators in Cairo and other cities. The attacks, reportedly involving plainclothes police and vigilantes as well as pro-regime citizens, appeared to be carefully co-ordinated and timed. And the army, which only days earlier had sworn to protect “legitimate” rights of protesters, stood back and watched as the blood flowed. This ugly turn of events should come as no surprise. What is unusual is that the regime tolerated such levels of unrest for nearly a week. Mubarak was never quite a dictator in the Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe mould. His rule was more akin to the semi-enlightened despotism of an 18th-century European monarch. But at bottom, it always depended on coercion and force. Today, the pretence of reasonableness was torn away. His dark side showed for all to see. Mubarak’s speech to the nation on Tuesday night was widely misinterpreted. The president was, by turns, angry, defiant and unrepentant. He offered no apologies, proposed no new initiatives, gave no promise that his son Gamal would not succeed him, and instead lectured Egyptians on the importance of order and stability (which he alone could assure). He appeared not to have learned anything from the past week. And his one “concession” – that he would not seek re-election – was no concession at all. After all, he had never said he would. This was not the performance of a defeated man. Mubarak may be down but he’s not out. And judging by today’s events in Tahrir Square, he and the military-dominated clique around him clearly feel they have done enough, for now, to get the Americans off their backs, flex their still considerable muscle, and reclaim the streets for the regime. All the talk about reform and elections and negotiations can wait, whatever Barack Obama says. Today’s immediate message to the people from an unvanquished, still vicious regime: it’s over – go home, or else. There’s a good to middling chance the counter-revolution strategy will work, given time. “Imagine yourself as Hosni Mubarak, master of Egypt for nearly 30 years. You’re old, unwell, detested and addicted to power,” wrote Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens . “You could have orchestrated a graceful exit by promising to preside over free and fair presidential elections later this year – elections in which the Mubarak name would not be on the ballot. Instead you gambled that you could ride out the protests and hold on. It’s a pretty good gamble …” Reasons for believing Mubarak can not only survive the next eight months but also exert decisive, possibly fatally obstructive influence over Egypt’s new direction are plentiful. As matters stand now, the regime is unreconstructed, the opposition is split, and the Americans are undecided. Despite his insistence on a swift, orderly transition, Obama has not withdrawn his personal support. In Brussels today, the EU also declined to demand Mubarak’s immediate resignation. David Cameron said reforms must be implemented faster. All of them got a dusty brush-off. In an official statement, the Egyptian foreign ministry, still led by an old Mubarak crony, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, rejected US and European calls for the transition to start now. Calls from “foreign parties” were ” aimed to incite the internal situation ,” it said. In other words: get lost. Mubarak and his close confidant and deputy, Omar Suleiman, have more cards to play as they foment a backlash and seek to regain control. As in the past, they can play on Israeli and American fears of an Islamist takeover. They can point out just how disastrous it might be if a new government tore up Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. The opposition leader, Mohamed ElBaradei can easily be portrayed as untrustworthy. In fact, such a campaign is already under way. The Americans, for example, suspected him of pro-Iranian bias when he headed the UN’s nuclear watchdog – and believe, too, that he is far too cosy with Turkey’s neo-Islamist leaders. As he tries to reassert his primacy, Mubarak can rely on the conservative Arab states of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Algeria, and on any number of African governments that have no wish to encourage popular revolution. Even old enemy Iran is privately ambivalent on this score. He can offer negotiations to the opposition and hope to gain advantage from their refusal, so far, to participate. And if all this fails, the regime can always let loose its thugs and hooligans, just to emphasise that without state-imposed order, only chaos, not democracy, reigns. Mubarak’s counter-revolution is still a long shot. Too much has changed in Egypt for it ever to go back the way things were. But today saw the beginning of a new stage in a complex internal struggle whose ultimate outcome remains deeply uncertain. Hosni Mubarak Egypt Middle East Simon Tisdall guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Newstalgia Reference Room – The Fifth Amendment and The Grand Jury – 1957
February 2, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media ( “The Olive Has Been Talking . . . ” ) It seems wiretapping has been a popular subject in legal circles for quite some time, if this special edition of Meet The Press from November 17, 1957 is any indication. This roundtable discussion features New York State Supreme Court Justice Miles McDonald , District Attorney of Richmond County New York John Braisted and the infamous Roy Cohn on the subject of the use or misuse of the Fifth Amendment and the use and misuse of wiretaps. All interesting stuff, considering it’s 1957 and the world seemed much simpler then . . .or not.
Continue reading …Mona Eltahawy on Democracy Now this morning, discussing the Egyptian uprising. AMY GOODMAN: You have called Mubarak the Berlin Wall. MONA ELTAHAWY: Absolutely, because, as you remember, in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, you saw revolution—revolutions and freedom movements across Eastern Europe. Mubarak is our Berlin Wall. When Tunisia had its revolution and toppled Ben Ali, everyone thought, “Beautiful little Tunisia, you’re so brave. But it’s never going to happen anywhere else.” Now it’s happening in the traditional leader of the Arab world. Egypt is a country of 80 million people. Once Mubarak falls—and he will fall; I mean, he’s crumbled. Several days ago, as far as I was concerned, he was done. Once Mubarak falls once and for all, you will see what will happen in the Arab world. This is going to—every Arab leader is watching right now in terror, and every Arab citizen is elated and cheering Egypt on, because they know the significance of this. AMY GOODMAN: Mona Eltahawy, I want to thank you very much for being with us, Egyptian-born columnist and speaker on Arab issues, based here in New York. Al Jazeera English, by the way, is now reporting up to two million people in and around Tahrir Square. And, of course, there are protests all over Egypt.
Continue reading …
Egyptian president’s regime orchestrates bloody battles in Tahrir Square against protesters seeking his removal from power Supporters of Hosni Mubarak moved today to brutally crush the popular uprising against him as they stormed Cairo’s Tahrir Square, for days the epicentre of the movement to remove the Egyptian president. Using clubs, bats, knives and even homemade spears, pro-Mubarak demonstrators charged the square at just before 2pm. They had been gathering for several hours 800 metres from the square on the Nile Corniche, outside the state television station. The violence was immediately condemned by David Cameron, who called it “deplorable”, by the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and by President Barak Obama, suggesting Mubarak’s resistance may be in danger of badly backfiring. While many had anticipated a move to clear Tahrir Square by the security forces, the use of mob violence, orchestrated by the regime, had not been foreseen. Pitched battles turned the area into a war zone as anti-Mubarak protesters tried desperately to hold on to the square where hundreds of thousands of opponents of the regime gathered peacefully yesterday. Earlier today, a request by the army for those in the square to disperse was ignored. At one stage, tanks attempted to move between the two groups but did little to stop the escalating clashes. The pro-Mubarak protesters, numbering tens of thousands, at first said they had no intention of initiating a confrontation. Some of them admitted that they had been brought in by bus in from the countryside and some had swapped sides in recent days, saying Mubarak had given enough concessions and he should have time to usher through political change. They came in cars and on foot from across the city, some riding camels and horses, some wielding whips. During the first scuffles that broke out, some on the pro-Mubarak side intervened to rescue those opponents who were being beaten, but that quickly ceased. By late afternoon, groups of men were visible on roofs in Chapillion, a few hundred metres from the square where they hurled missiles down on those beneath them. Paving stones were broken up to be uses as weapons and, soon after six o’clock, shots from automatic weapons were heard. Among those singled out for attack were western journalists who have been blamed by the pro-Mubarak camp for encouraging the movement against him. The Guardian witnessed dozens of people being brought in for first aid, some with horrific injuries, at a makeshift aid station set up in the open at the entrance to the square. As sirens rang out as night fell, fleets of ambulances could be seen moving in convoy along Ramses Street in the direction of the square. The differences between Tuesday’s demonstration against Mubarak and today’s violence were striking. Yesterday, army and activists staffed checkpoints to prevent violence; today, Egyptian soldiers made no effort to prevent confrontation. At one stage, they moved out of the way to allow pro-Mubarak demonstrators to reach their opponents. Among those attacking the square were groups of armed men who appeared to be plainclothes police officers. Credible reports spoke of some of those involved in the assault in Tahrir Square having been paid by the regime. On one boulevard leading from the square, a group of men had been deployed with weapons in their hands, clearly under orders. Egypt Middle East Hosni Mubarak Protest Peter Beaumont Jack Shenker Mustafa Khalili guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
http://www.youtube.com/v/CVxUgsRWBYs?f=user_uploads&app=youtube_gdata Read more: tahrir3
Continue reading …
Thousands of supporters and opponents of President Hosni Mubarak battled in Cairo’s main square, raining stones, bottles and firebombs on each other in scenes of uncontrolled violence as soldiers stood by without intervening. Government backers galloped in on horses and camels, only to be dragged to the ground and beaten bloody. Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher reports on the day’s events.
Continue reading …
‘Mubarak: bad guy, right? Protesters: bad guys, right?’ Events in Egypt cause conniption fits and confusion over at Fox studios Fox News hosts were torn between their idealistic belief in freedom and democracy for all people, and their fear of repercussions for the US if the people of Egypt prevail. Sean Hannity Hannity was disappointed by the Obama administration’s ambiguous response to the Egyptian riots and didn’t see much hope of a positive outcome ( view clip here ). “I am unaware of any democratic revolution that’s taken place in an Arab country and so my scepticism is that we’re going to see the Muslim Brotherhood, ElBaradei or some type of extremist, as bad as Mubarak is, some type of extremist element take over in Egypt.” He asks his guest, conservative commentator Ann Coulter if she shared his suspicion. Coulter admitted that she was not an expert on Egypt, but that she is somewhat of an expert on unruly mobs and liberals (flip sides of the same coin, apparently). And she agreed wholeheartedly with Hannity that there was no hope of a positive outcome as the protesters were a “dangerous mob”, some of whom were going around “smashing national museums and decapitating mummies”. Hannity did point out that the “mob” might, in fact, have some legitimate concerns worth protesting over and he alluded (in a somewhat garbled fashion) to the extremely high unemployment rate, particularly among the Egyptian youth. Do you not … look, if you’ve got 40% or 50% of the population living in poverty and 30% of the young people – you know, ah, 60% of the population is under 30 and 90% of them can’t find work – there seems to me that there is some democratic motivations behind some of the protest. What I’m worried about is that has now been hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood and those that want to take power, which will put in place a far worse dictatorship than the one we see now. Coulter chimed that changes do need to be made in Egypt and that the regime was “brutally unfair” and a dead-end society, (which she claimed, to no objection from her host, is the same sort of society that Obama wants to create in America). But she still maintained that no good can come from the current demonstrations, and that President Obama was wrong to lend even tepid support to the protesters. Hannity did not demur at her assessment, reiterating his fear that the worst may be yet to come. Bill O’Reilly O’Reilly was less concerned with the problems facing the Egyptian people than with finding the best way to ensure America’s interests continue to be served. He discussed the issue with Glenn Beck ( view clip here ). “So let’s connect the dots here. Mubarak: bad guy, right? Thirty years we’ve been dealing with this guy, and we’re in bed with him. We pay him a billion and a half dollars a year aid, and most of it goes to the military, but it goes back to his pocket a lot of it. OK? And he does us favours.” Beck agrees that Mubarak is, indeed, a very bad guy who has done very bad things, as O’Reilly elaborates on the positives and negatives of propping up a dictator. I mean, he’s against the jihadists. He doesn’t cause any trouble with Israel. He takes some of the al-Quaida captives and dunks them in the water, whatever he does to them, and he generally cooperates with the United States on global initiatives. Meanwhile, he brutalises his own people and they hate his guts. So, while O’Reilly had some reservations about the plight of the Egyptian people living under a brutal regime, he was more worried about Egypt falling to the jihadists whom he believes are the single greatest threat to democracy. Beck argues that the communist-socialist-progressive movement is an equally dangerous threat, but they both agree that America cannot afford an all-out war. We can’t fight they way we fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree with you 100%. We have to do surgical stuff and we have to be more ruthless. We do stand for democracy. We do stand for that. We just don’t have … in some places. As he struggles to complete his thought, Beck, wearing his humanitarian hat, jumps in to remind him that Mubarak is “torturing people with our money”. In response, O’Reilly finds himself playing devil’s advocate for the devil he knows. Think about it: 30 years, you had Carter, Clinton, two years Obama, Reagan … they had nowhere else to go in that country. I’ve been there. It’s chaos. They had no where else to go! The chaotic state of the world seems to have been contagious in Fox News land, too. Glenn Beck Earlier on his own programme ( view clip here ), Glenn Beck had so many devils dancing around in his brain as a result of the chaos in Egypt that he was at a total loss as to who to support, who to oppose or, indeed, what to do about any of it, other than to urge his viewers to follow the events in Egypt very closely as they are sure to have dire repercussions for Americans. He admitted that, some years ago, he would have been all too apt to ignore the happenings of so remote a region (he’s referring, I believe, to his young adulthood when he was, by his own account, more focused on substance abuse). But those days are over. He studied the issue all weekend and raised so many questions in relation to it that it was almost impossible to find one salient point to focus on. For example, he was concerned that a Muslim Caliphate is about to take over the Middle East and parts of Europe; that China is going to control Asia and North Africa, Australia and probably New Zealand; and that Russia will be taking over the old Soviet block and, for some random reason, the Netherlands. He also wondered if the chaos did not really happen because “a Tunisian kid had his fruit cart taken away,” and that the downtrodden and unemployed are not really rioting because they are downtrodden and unemployed but because they are being manipulated by darker forces who are out to undermine democracy at all costs. (I’m not sure how bringing down a dictatorship undermines democracy, but there you go.) Then, there was the issue about whether the Middle East is really capable of self-rule, or if they are “crazed animals” who have to be “contained by some dictator”. All in all, it was a wearying hour of television. His thoughts on the “coming insurrection”, of which he spoke in a quivering voice seem worth sharing, however. I’ve told you that this is a global movement. Could you play this out for me and just humour me for a second? Here, we have Egypt. It started in Tunisia, Tunisia then leapfrogged Libya and went right over here to Egypt. But the fires are starting here, as well [Libya]. But we see them here [Egypt]. This [Tunisia] is already in revolution and flipped. This is in revolution. I want you to look where Israel is, right here, and Israel, the Gaza strip is on fire. You have any idea, this strait, how much congress [sic] is done through here. You, also, this little area. All the oil from the UAE, everything flows through here. So, the Middle East is on fire. What’s even more worrying is that Beck believes the chaos has already spread beyond the Middle East to North Africa, and even much closer to home. Morocco is on fire. What’s across from Morocco? Spain, connected to France and Germany and Italy, also on fire, and Greece, also on fire, which brings you right back here to Turkey. The entire Mediterranean is on fire. More than that, it’s not just the surrounding countries of the Mediterranean; it also spreads up here. You have the UK and Ireland already with riots in the street! So, there you have it: Asia, Africa and Europe are all in flames. America is surely next, and it’s all because of jihadists and the socialist-communist-progressives with their sick, Soros-funded agenda that people are entitled to a living wage and jobs with benefits. It’s chaos out there, you know. Egypt Fox News Fox US television Glenn Beck Republicans Islam Religion Protest US politics US foreign policy Tunisia Sadhbh Walshe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …