Freadom Nation: Democracy in Egypt may or may not be good

The Muslim Brotherhood says they want to create a democracy in Egypt, and that "might be" the reason for the riots in the streets calling for Hosni Mubarak to quit. Considering Mubarak's Egypt has been a major ally of the U.S. for over 30 years, and considering some Muslim-democracies are fake, Obama must continue to be leery.

A democracy was created in the Gaza strip, only for that democracy to be taken hostage by Muslim extremists. Mubarak was an ally with the U.S. despite American hatred among most of Egyptians. So it's very unlikely even if a democracy is formed it will not be an American ally.

If a true democracy is created, George W. Bush should get the credit, because he said long ago that if we create a democracy in Iraq democracy in the region will spread. It will spread, he said, because once Muslims see what democracy has to offer, they will want it. So is this what's going on?

Bush should get credit because the media and progressives and liberals and democrats all called for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq. They said democracy in Iraq was not possible. They said democracy in the Middle East was not possible.

Yet what is happening today? An uprising from the grassroots for democracy? An uprising from those who want social justice (fake democracy)? Are the people just fed up with Mubarak and don't care who they get in his stead? Could what replaces him be worse than the dictatorship they have now?

Perhaps? Yet it could be better. It could be the true democracy Bush dreamed of.

Still, we must be leery. Democracy in Egypt may or may not be so good. It's good if it's truly a democracy, yet it's not good if it's only democracy in disguise.

So Obama must be leery. He also must be leery because Jimmy Carter supported a revolution that allowed Muslim extremists take over Iran in 1979. He allowed this to happen thinking something good would come of it, yet what happened is he allowed Iran to become a terrorist harboring, America hating, thug nation that it is today.

Some wonder if Egypt is going to be Obama's Iran. What makes one wonder is that when their was a similar uprising from the youth of Iran in 2009, Obama did nothing and said nothing. Yet in Egypt he has spoken out and has encouraged a rapid and safe transition.

So why does Obama do nothing and say nothing when it's an enemy of the U.S., and feel obligated to say something when it's an ally of the U.S.?

Although some say Egypt shouldn't have been an ally of the West, considering it was run by a dictator thug. Yet this dictator was wise enough to know it needed the U.S. to maintain stability. And, dictator or now, suppressor of individual rights or not, Mubarak's Egypt had a peace treaty with Israel, the only true democracy in the region right now.

Obama does not want Egypt to become another Iran. He doesn't want that under his belt, or does he. Or does he?

I say it this way because Obama is now supporting the ouster of Mabarak in that he asked for a gradual and peaceful transition. And those who truly yearn for a New World Order, for social justice, for socialism, cannot come out in the open because "socialism" in the West is a bad word (thanks to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini).

Obama even went as far to send his former ambassador to Egypt Frank Wisner with a message that Mubarak should not run for re-election in September. And of course this was the major news of the day yesterday, that Mubarak would not run for re-election.

There are those who believe there is a truce between the progressives of America and the West and Muslim operatives similar to those who run the Muslim Brotherhood. (This group now is calling for an end to the Egyptian/ Israili peace treaty).

The Muslim Brotherhood is saying they want to create a democracy, yet it's not really a democracy they want to create but a socialistic government. It will create the Chaos the people like George Soros think is needed to collapse the world as we know it to create the New World Order. If these people gain control of Israel, it won't be good for America nor Israel.

They say they want freedom for the people, yet they call it social justice just like progressives call for social justice in the West. You have many in the streets of Egypt yelling, "We need revolution in Egypt just like we need revolution in the West." They want an end to the West and capitalism. They want an end to America.

This, some believe, is just part of the battle, the baby steps, the slow revolution, to transform the world into a new world order. Of course we don't know. We don't know what kind of government will be created in Egypt. Yet it's scary because we don't know.

Some say the progressive left in the West and radical Islam both have the same goal: world dominance. Progressives want the New World order, and Islam wants the global Caliphate (a welfare state). Progressives want world socialism, and Islam wants the destruction of Isreal, the West, and to force everyone to live as Muslims.

(It's interesting to note that immediately after Beck asked his readers not to believe him but to look it up for themselves, Google searches for Caliphate spiked. So it's obvious people are taking him seriously).

Progressives and Muslim extremists need the support of each other to create chaos among existing governments, and in this way they do work together. While they both have a different end goal, they'll cross that bridge when they get their. In the short term, they need to work together to create chaos. This, in essence, is the Glenn Beck Theory.

Is Glenn Beck's theory true? Well, it would be foolish to completely ignore it, as there is way too much evidence. He suggests you research it on your own. Neville Chamberlain had a similar theory about Hitler, and it was ignored. The result was the slaughter of millions of innocent Jews.

Well, Glenn Becks theory, if it comes true, will result in the slaughter of millions of Jews. If he is ignored, the consequences could be far more extreme than what Hitler did. So we must take Glenn Beck seriously.

Likewise, the Muslim Brotherhood has strong ties with Mohamed ElBaradei, who is a strong supporter of the Caliphate and radical Islam. And even if a true democracy is created, the Muslim Brotherhood could get many votes. Whether they could get a majority is yet to be known.

Yet if Mohammed ElBaradei becomes the Prime Minister or President or Dictator, that would result in a destruction of the Israeli/Egyptian peace treaty, and would lead to instability in the Middle East.

Of course this strategy of creating instability in the Middle East is a great place to start on the quest to creating the NWO and world Caliphate, because economies of the West are very dependent on Middle East oil.

Obama should be leery, just like Israel is leery. That little democratic nation depended on Egypt, a Muslim nation, for support. So will the fall of the Egyptian dictator, coupled with the fall of other dictators in the region, result in Israel being swallowed by radical Islam? Will this result in a destabilization of the region?

Obama should be leery. If he truly has the best interest of America on his mind and isn't part of the team trying to create this New World Order, then he should definitely be leery. Of course he also could pretend to be leery too. He could be smiling behind closed doors.

Good summaries of what's going on in Egypt: