Warming Temperatures

Well, it's happening again: global weather change. All across the United States, cities are checking in with warmer temperatures, a sign, according to longtime observers, that global weather change is for real. There are signs that the Earth’s weather has begun to change ominously and that these changes may portend a drastic increase in temperatures over the coming months – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The regions of the United States destined to feel its impact are the wheat and corn-producing lands of the Midwest, the avocado and lettuce-producing lands of the West, the blueberry and spruce-producing lands of the Northeast, the magnolia and cotton-producing lands of the South, and the cactus and coyote-producing lands of the Southwest. Hawaii should be okay.

The evidence supporting these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. All across the United States, farmers and industrial workers have seen their hours of daylight increase incrementally with the persistent warming of the weather and a resultant overall disappearance of cooler temperatures. Just last year, the average temperature in the United States warmed as much as 50 degrees in the eight months between January and August - a repetition of that pattern this year, a virtual certainty, could mean drought, desolation, and humiliating rivulets of sweat. Beginning in April of last year, an onslaught of thunderstorms erupted, knocking out power in many parts the nation, leaving citizens without cable television and internet service. The coming warmer temperatures are almost sure to produce the reemergence of the scourge of summer, the perennial wave of global warming predictions designed to make us believe the same phenomenon that made much of the United States look like Siberia in December will make some of those same areas feel like the Sahara by August.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate that seemed to be cooling down warmed back up then cooled back down again without warning. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, and theories vary broadly over exactly what the trend is and its impact because it is all so darned confusing. But they are almost unanimous in the view that we should prepare now to see some increase in agricultural production over the summer and into the fall, but this production will decline dramatically by late October. “A major weather change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of PseudoSciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” (Whatever that means...)

Meteorologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the weather change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of weather uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with weather change once the results become grim reality.

You have been warned.

[This blog post represents a totally frivolous and cruel butchering an entirely serious article that appeared in the April 28,1975 Newsweek titled, "The Cooling World." You really ought to read it before the summer wave of global warming predictions begin again. Of course, that 1975 article was published before a politician and climate-scare entrepreneur from Tennessee, Al Gore, set us straight. Click here to read the original Newsweek article.]

JFK Moments

When John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as the 35th President of the United States on January 20, 1961, the American economy was at the pit of a recession and the unemployment rate was 7%. 

His statements cited below span the period of his presidency from two months after his inauguration to two months before his assassination.

The next time you hear the words, "JFK-esque" or "JFK moment" attributed to someone speaking on economics, think of these JFK statements and judge the appropriateness of the comparison for yourself.

These are real JFK moments:

"Expansion and modernization of the nation's productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry ... An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment."

– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1961, message on economic recovery

---

"I have asked the secretary of the treasury to report by April 1 on whether present tax laws may be stimulating in undue amounts the flow of American capital to the industrial countries abroad through special preferential treatment."

– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 6, 1961, message to Congress on gold and the balalnce of payments deficit

---

"We must start now to provide additional stimulus to the modernization of American industrial plants ... I shall propose to the Congress a new tax incentive for businesses to expand their normal investment in plant and equipment."

– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 13, 1961, National Industrial Conference Board

---

"In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment."

– John F. Kennedy, April 20, 1961, message to Congress on taxation

---

"A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."

– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

---

---

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

---

"Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking ... The present tax load ... distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference

---

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

---

"This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes ... Next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital ... I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

---

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

---

In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"

---

"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"

---

"The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

---

"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

---

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

---

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood: A Means to an End

PART IV of IV

So, the other day, the U. S. Director of National Intelligence characterized the Muslim Brotherhood as an "umbrella term for a variety of movements." He seems to have gotten at least that part of his Congressional testimony right, but I'm probably thinking of it in a different context than he had in mind.  I wonder if he was thinking of organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir when he mentioned those other "secular" movements.

There are other organizations under the Muslim Brotherhood umbrella. Among the better-known branches of the Brotherhood in the past 30 years are the al-Jihad in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, the Afghan mujahadeen, and others, the latter being a group also supported by the United States in fighting against the Soviet Union that has since morphed into the group led by, here he is again, Osama bin Laden.

In recent years, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken on a new tactic, in part because it's been outlawed in Egypt. It has embraced the tactic of feigning moderation, speaking as the peace-maker while working behind the scenes with others who do the dirty work. Today, there are vocal elements in our country like our DNI who are pitching the Muslim Brotherhood as an innocuous political entity that has left violence behind. But many Americans still remember the organization cheering the 9/11 attacks in 2001. At least as recently as 2001, the Brotherhood wasn't quite as cordial as it's often portrayed now.

We hear groups in Egypt speak of democracy and we clamor to their side as though their merely uttering the word is enough to know what's in their hearts. I have no doubt that a significant number of the protestors in Tahrir Square in Cairo were genuinely looking for democratic reform, but I likewise have no doubt that extremists who have co-opted that movement will more fully exploit these freedom seekers when or if they get the chance.

As I wrote in the 2006 paper in which I first mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood, "We can't let our affinity for those Muslims who want a peaceful Islam distract us from seeing and confronting the threat that is poised boldly in front of us. As we acknowledge the good in them, let's remain keenly focused on the fact that the dominant Islamic culture today is bent on the violent assimilation of the world under Islam. Therein is the threat. Knowing and appreciating the good can't be a reason to weaken our resolve to defeat the bad."

We should remember our own history. While Americans in 1776 named the King of England as the culprit in the Declaration of Independence, it was the Parliament that imposed the laws that drove the Colonies to the Revolution. In the Colonies, those early Americans had democracy even before the Revolution. They lived and conducted their government under Enlightenment-inspired charters and constitutions that were characterized not only by their democratic qualities but also by their insistence on liberty for all. As the British Parliament bore down on Colonies and those liberties were incrementally denied to them, the cry from Americans like Patrick Henry wasn't, "Give me Democracy or give me death!" it was, "Give me Liberty or give me death!"

As we proceed in developing our posture with respect to Egypt, we need to remember that democracies have a colorful history of tyranny of their own. Before we go too far, we had better come to some recognition of what we believe a democracy is or what we expect one in Egypt to look like. Does our vision include free and fair elections there? Does it include a representative republic where both majority and minority interests are protected? Does it include a culture where the people live freely and practice the faith of their choosing and enjoy their God-given right to liberty? Will there be free speech and a free press?

We hear in our press about the so-called "faces of the revolution" in Egypt like Google executive Wael Ghonim or former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Muhammad ElBaradei, but where are the enlightened voices leading the charge to become the Middle Eastern prototype for liberty? Where is the Egyptian Thomas Paine, the Adam Smith, the Frederick Douglass, the Thomas Jefferson, the Abraham Lincoln, the W. E. B. Dubois, the George Washington, or the Martin Luther King? We can't say we didn't hear voices in the crowd. We heard from Hizb ut-Tahrir and others like them. What about the voices of liberty? I know there are those who want liberty in the crowd, but will we hear from them and will their voices become instruments of a new Egyptian paradigm, or will they be swept away by the inertia of models already in place elsewhere in the Middle East?

We know we want democracy for Egypt, but do we really want to promote a system of government that manufactures election results like they have in Iran? Do we want a repetition of the emergence of Hamas in "democratic" Palestine? What obligation does a new democracy in Egypt have for the safety and security of its people and the region?

What obligation does the United States have for ensuring not only that the region is safe for democracy, but that it's safe for the United States as well? Regardless of how diplomats and politicians characterize American foreign policy with respect to the world's despots, the fact is that our policy has been one of pragmatism and selective outrage for many years.

Two years ago, the United States reluctantly and tepidly spoke out against the repression of the Iranian people as they took to the streets of Tehran in protest of a corrupt presidential election there. There were no calls by our leaders and pundits for President Ahmedinejad to begin a transition out of office immediately. Less than a month ago, the United States hosted the President of China at a rare lavish state dinner in Washington. There were no calls for President Hu to step aside in favor of the hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens who have lived for decades under the tyranny of dictatorship there.

To me, there are two key differences between the examples in Iran and China and the situation in Egypt. The first is that Egyptian government was an American ally and had at least a tacit obligation to yield to the wishes of the United States, and it did. Iran and China are under no such compulsion or inclination. Second, Egypt was led by a despot who was nonetheless willing to tolerate the protests and was ultimately willing to accede to protestor demands. It might have been a despotic regime, but it wasn't so consummately despotic that it wouldn't abolish itself peacefully. That is certainly not the case in Iran and China. So, while the terrible despot in Egypt has left the palace, even worse depots continue to enjoy the indulgence of the United States.

Of course, in the case of China, we have an economic interest and no desire for war with a major power. In the case of Iran, we're concerned about regional stability and our desire not to generate a perception that we're anti-Islamic. I suggest that while we might be well-advised to take care in pressing our adversaries, especially when other interests are involved, we are equally well-advised to take care in forcing the issue with our allies. The fact is that when it comes to our allies, we often have security interests that are no less important than the interests we have when the dispute involves our adversaries. While we'd like to live in a world where citizens are free, safe, and enjoying God-given rights, we also have an interest in doing what we can to make the world safe enough for existing democracies to thrive as well. And we have an interest in seeing a world that is safe for America and for Americans too.

As former U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton recently reminded us, on April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson stood in front of a joint session of Congress to get a declaration of war against Germany that would involve the United States in World War I: "the war to end all wars." He told Congress that American entry into the war was necessary in order that the world would "be made safe for democracy."

That fall, former President Theodore Roosevelt countered, "First and foremost, we are to make the world safe for ourselves. This is our war, America's war. If we do not win it, we shall some day have to reckon with [our enemy] single-handed."

There is always a reckoning and we will always have an interest in what happens elsewhere in the world. The trick will always be to balance our interests with our idealism. When we pursue one without considering the other, we do so at our peril.

That doesn't mean we don't let our voices be heard on issues that are fundamental to our values. We should be very clear about what we stand for, but as we do, we should bear in mind that consistency is a vehicle for projecting that clarity. We need to be careful not to stand on principle only when we can have our way. In the larger perspective, that's not very principled, and our friends and adversaries alike recognize the hypocrisy. Finally, when we preach listening to the will of the people abroad, we'd better do it at home. While we have had the advantage of the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Lincolns, and Kings, we took a long and troubled road to get to where we are, and we are still struggling in many areas to be true to our own principles.

In Egypt, we hope not to set the table for a massive shell game - or more aptly, a bait-and-switch - in which one autocrat is replaced by another, or in which one autocrat is replaced by a collection of them. We should not be naive enough to believe a "democratic" outcome in Egypt that leaves the Muslim Brotherhood in power will necessarily be just and will leave a peaceful imprint on the Middle East. It could well provide the setting for the establishment of a new caliphate and an impetus for regional conflict in pursuit of a Worldwide Caliphate.

Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood: Seeking the Mahdi

PART III of IV

As I wrote yesterday, the Shiites believe Ali was the first of twelve important Imams. The Twelfth Imam is - after Ali - probably the most important of them all. The Twelfth Imam was Muhammad al Mahdi ("the Mahdi"), also known as the "Hidden Imam." He's known as the Hidden Imam because he's believed by many to have been hidden from the faithful - roaming caves - since he suddenly vanished at the age of 5 in the 9th century. Believers live for the day he reappears so he can lead the world to justice and absolute peace.

"Twelvers," who make up about 80% of Shiites, believe the Mahdi will return to rule over - wait for it - a worldwide caliphate, a worldwide Islamic kingdom. Twelver Shiism is the official state government in Iran, and has been since the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran in 1979 in the aftermath of a massive "student" uprising that overthrew the autocratic Shah of Iran.

Twelver language sounds ambiguous and harmless enough... unless you know what you're listening to. Just before I wrote that paper in 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad gave a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. He told the General Assembly, "I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace, and brotherhood on the planet." 

He gave a similar speech the following year and both were received by many in America as a message of peace and an indication that maybe Ahmedinejad was someone we could reason with if we only approached him on an equal basis. Anyone who knows about Twelver Shiism, however, reads that message of "peace" entirely differently. It's a message of conquest. It's the language of the campaign to establish a Worldwide Caliphate.

So, what does all of this have to do with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

By 1924, there were fourteen or more versions of the Koran until a group in Egypt, "an Egyptian Royal Committee of experts," assembled and issued a unified - and final - edition of the Koran. The idea was to bring some new discipline and unity to Islam, but as was the case when Caliph Uthman attempted the same feat in the early days of Islam, dissent arose among those who believed that work betrayed the authentic nature of Islam.

Out of that discord arose the voice of an Egyptian named Hassan al Banna who believed Islam had lost its dominance because Muslims and Muslim nations had been corrupted by the West. At the same time, the President of Turkey abolished the Ottoman Caliphate; the Islamic Caliphate seemed to be receding. However, Banna called for a return to the "original" Islam and believed the Koran should be applied to all parts of life and government (Sharia law).

Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 after the failure to revive the caliphate through the Khilafat Movement in 1924. He established the Brotherhood under the words, "God is our objective, the Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations." The charter since that early day has maintained that is seeks to install a just Islamic empire and a Worldwide Caliphate through stages designed to Islamize targeted nations by whatever means possible.

Through stages. We Americans are susceptible to incrementalism because we have a notoriously short political attention span. While many of us are alert to Muslim revolutions that indicate the emergence of the caliphate, the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations are taking an entirely different approach:  an incremental approach through stages. While we're watching the front door, they're patiently crawling through the bathroom window.

So, how has the Muslim Brotherhood done since 1928? By 1936, it had 800 members. Twelve years later in 1948, it had half a million members, and one of those members assassinated the Prime Minister of Egypt. Banna was killed by Egyptian government agents the following year. Undaunted, the Muslim Brotherhood tried to assassinate Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954. When Nasser's successor, Anwar Sadat, signed a peace agreement in 1979 (and won the Nobel Peace Prize for it), four members of the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated him in 1981.

So, in the modern era - since 1922 - Egypt has had five rulers: Fuad I, Farouk, Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak. When King Fuad died of natural causes in 1936, he was replaced by his son King Farouk. After Farouk's defeat in the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, he was forced from the throne in 1952 by Gamal Abdal Nasser who established the Egyptian Republic. The Muslim Brotherhood attempted to assassinate him in 1954 (they did manage to assassinate the Prime Minister). His defeat by the Israelis during the Six Day War led him to an alliance with the Soviet Union (which included a significant Soviet military build-up there).

Sayyid Qutb was an Egyptian Islamic thinker who wrote one of the Muslim Brotherhood's most important books on anti-Western jihad. He was arrested with his brother Muhammad for allegedly plotting to kill Egyptian leaders and wanting to overthrow the government. Sayyid was later executed by the Egyptian government.

Muhammad, however, went on to greater glory as an author and professor of Islamic Studies at a university in Saudi Arabia. Muhammad Qutb a mentor to a young man you might have heard of, Osama bin Laden.

After Nasser suffered a heart attack and died in 1970, his fellow revolutionary Anwar Sadat took over as President.

After becoming a national hero for his success in the Yom Kippur War with Israel he fell out of favor with fundamentalists when he later made peace with the Israelis. He was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1981. He was succeeded by his Vice President Hosni Mubarak who was injured in the attack that killed Sadat. With the failure of the Soviet Union, spheres of influence in the region shifted as well and Egypt became an American ally, much to the chagrin of Muslim extremists in the region.

Since 1922, Egypt has had five kings and presidents and the Muslim Brotherhood has either assassinated or attempted to assassinate two of them.

In the final segment of this discussion tomorrow, I’ll discuss the Muslim Brotherhood in the context of today’s Middle Eastern politics and our need in America to remember what we stand for so we can speak with clarity about our hopes for Egypt.

Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood: Dueling Caliphs

Part II of IV

So, as we're told the Muslim Brotherhood has been largely secular in its conduct and mostly political in its operations in Egypt, now we know why. When Hosni Mubarak rose to power after the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat, he outlawed the organization.

I don't know what's going to happen in Egypt in the next few days, let alone the next few years, but I do know we can't be naive enough to believe the only way the Muslim Brotherhood could be a threat to the United States and progressive Middle Eastern countries - particularly an Egypt in transition over the next few years - is if it is allied with Al Qaeda as our government seems to be suggesting.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been around a LOT longer than Al Qaeda has. The Muslim Brotherhood boasts a history, staying power, and a reach into regional politics that is easily the toast of terrorist tea parties.

Back in September 2006, I wrote a paper about a then-obscure world vision called the "worldwide caliphate." Well, it was obscure in the United States, but it wasn't so obscure in the Middle East.

After the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632 AD, the new Islamic faithful were led by Abu Bakr. He was the first "Rightly Guided Caliph," or ruler of the Islamic kingdom, the caliphate.

Not everyone believed Abu Bakr was the rightful first leader of Islam; they believed the first caliph was actually Ali ibn Abi Talib (Ali), the Prophet Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law. This controversy didn't arise right away, though, Ali didn't assert his place until Uthman ibn Affan - the third Rightly Guided Caliph - rose to prominence and attempted to get control of the various versions of the Koran that were already being circulated in the mere eighteen years since Muhammad's death.

Ali asserted that Uthman had no right to the leadership of Islam, while Uthman's supporters maintained he was one of the very few people who stood in Muhammad's tight inner circle at his death. Ali, on the other hand, had the distinction of being Muhammad's blood relative and also the husband of Muhammad's daughter. Tough call.

Ali claimed that Uthman had strayed from Islam, and after Uthman was assassinated by rebels, Ali became the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph. Or maybe he was the first Rightly Guided Caliph, depending on who you ask.

It turns out this rift between Ali and Uthman that began in the shadow of Uthman's effort to compile the Koran and the disagreement over the right to leadership of Islam has had quite a lasting and significant impact on Islam.

It was this succession argument and the related dispute over the language of the Koran and the path Islam was following that gave rise to the two Islamic sects we know today: the Shiites and the Sunnis. The Shiites supported Ali and asserted (and still assert) that he was actually the first Rightly Guided Caliph and the Sunnis supported Uthman and maintained he was the rightful third successor to the Prophet Muhammad.

The Shiites believe Ali was the first of twelve important Imams. The Twelfth Imam is - after Ali - probably the most important of them all. The Twelfth Imam was Muhammad al Mahdi ("the Mahdi"), also known as the "Hidden Imam." He's known as the Hidden Imam because he's believed by many to have been hidden from the faithful since he suddenly vanished at the age of 5 in the 9th century. Believers maintain he will lead the world to justice and absolute peace.

The splintering of Islam into Shiite and Sunni sects is the political aspect of the internal conflict within Islam that began almost immediately after Muhammad's death. Of as much significance is the ongoing and seemingly endless argument (this is well beyond a mere debate) over which group adheres perfectly to the original Koran which Muslims say was channeled directly to Muhammad by the Archangel Gabriel. This isn't a contest over which group is more right; it's an argument as fierce as any over which group is right and which group is wrong. The consequences are grave because one group believes the other has departed from the true path of Islam.

Just as Ali's allies arose to question the Koranic interpretations and spiritual pathway of Caliph Uthman, another man made the same claim about others in Egypt 1,300 years later. More on that tomorrow.

Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood: The Spin Cycle

PART I of IV

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), retired Air Force Lieutenant General James Clapper, is responsible to the President for all national security intelligence. Today, LtGen Clapper testified before a Congressional committee, "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."

The first thing that jumped out at me when I read LtGen Clapper's statement was the obvious oxymoron, that an organization called "Muslim Brotherhood" could be or would be secular. I checked my dictionary to confirm that I actually did know what "secular" meant, and I did: "not concerned with or related to religion."

As I was shaking my head about how the DNI could seriously consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be secular, an official in the DNI's office "clarified" the DNI's statement: "To clarify Director Clapper's point, in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak's rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation. He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization."

Well, maybe he's aware of it and maybe he's not. It doesn't matter. What matters is the narrative he's pushing about an organization that's a serious threat in the Middle East. There is quite a lot of misinformation out there about the Muslim Brotherhood and there is also quite a lot of disinformation out there. The Muslim Brotherhood is not only not a secular movement, it's not some harmless political party either.

One of the most prominent lines making the rounds right now is that the Muslim Brotherhood has been secular and purely political in Egypt for the past 2 or 3 decades. Well, the Muslim Brotherhood has been outlawed in Egypt for the past 30 years. Of course, it's been largely political over the past three decades!

No one reports why President Mubarak outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood in the first place. The reason? It assassinated Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat. And it wasn't the first time the "movement," as DNI Clapper describes it, assassinated an Egyptian leader...

Tomorrow in Part II, I’ll continue with a little history that explains where, when, and how the Muslim Brotherhood found its inspiration. Read on and see if you can find a libertarian amongst them...

Semi-Random Thoughts on Egypt

I believe individual freedom is a God-given right and an entitlement owed to all people in the world. As a practical matter, I also know freedom doesn't endure unless people are willing to fight and sacrifice everything to win it. The pursuit of freedom can't be merely a mood and expect to succeed; it has to be a passion. We Americans can't want it for others more than they want it for themselves; it just won't hold unless the people are thoroughly invested in the idea. I'd like to see the people of Egypt live in freedom, but in my view, the freedom movement there is vastly undercooked right now.

Here are some semi-random thoughts relating to events in Egypt:

1. Once President Obama succeeds in pressuring President Mubarak out of office, maybe he can turn his energies to President Ahmedinejad in Iran, President Assad in Syria, and President Hu in China. Mubarak has never been as bad as either of those three guys. How's he been different? Egypt under his leadership has been an important ally to the United States for the past 30 years. Thank you. No, really...

2. Speaking of President Hu... Two weeks ago, that dictator was the toast of Washington, treated to a luxurious state dinner. This week another dictator, this one an ally in Egypt is being told by our government to leave office NOW. By the way, he was told that in front of an international audience after he had already announced he was going to leave office by September. Why did we have to thump him on the forehead like that?

3. Egypt gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920s, an organization that has assassinated two Egyptian presidents in the past 90 years. Egypt was the catalyst for 40 years of warfare waged against Israel in the 1900s until Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed a historic peace agreement with Israel that persists still today. Sadat was assassinated for his efforts. Mubarak emerged to take his place and kept Egypt from reversing course. If the next government in Egypt turns its back on peace with Israel, what will we do? What can we do?

4. I'm hearing the U. S. government is reevaluating its position regarding the Muslim Brotherhood in light of the potential realities in Egypt. As the line goes, we know they're an unsavory bunch, but we need to prepare to embrace the possible new future. Don't we all just love people who are tougher on their friends than they are on their adversaries? Here's a prediction: regardless of who is in power in Egypt when this is all over, we're going to have a heck of a time being called "friend" by people there who mean it.

5. When did 100,000 protesters throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails and setting fire to things that don't belong to them necessarily become a freedom movement? How do you count that vote? I think of the large protests we have in our country and rhetorically ask if those are also freedom movements.

6. The Shah of Iran was a bad guy, but he was an ally. When we left him hanging during the anti-government protests in 1979 because he was a despot, what did we get in his place? We got the Ayatollah Khomeini. After returning to Iran after the fall of the Shah, the Ayatollah won something like 98% of the "popular vote" in that country. How's that been going for us?

7. Speaking of Iran, wasn't it a year ago when hordes of no-kidding freedom protestors took to the streets in Iran protesting a massively corrupt election? The internet was shut down, journalists were shut out, and the government fired on non-violent protestors. Do you remember the words, "an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now" coming from the White House directed at President Ahmedinejad last year? I don't either. I do remember hearing them directed to President Mubarak this week though.

8. We need a better compass.