Democracy Inaction in Middle East – US Policy Appears to Support or Ignore Student Protests Depending Upon Which Way the Wind Blows

The Muslim Brotherhood Protests in Egypt - Photo: Isreallycool

In 2009, Iranian Students took to the streets in protest of an oppressive, theocracy, one where elections meant the outcome was predetermined. The Islamic State of Iran saw massive protests, first by students, who were later joined by the general populace, violently shut down by the “duly elected” Ahmadinejad. As the protestors were beaten back by hired mercenaries of the regime, the U.S., in general, paid little attention to what was, in fact, a call for true democracy and freedom in Iraq. The protests began approximately on June 15th of 2009 , while bloggers, working from twitter, and YouTube videos, attempted for days on end to get information out to the general public, as the U.S. media took a different approach. President Barak Obama, finally, on the the 23rd of June, officially “condemned” the violence against the protestors. To understand the extent of the violence against its people, and the brutal way in which this totalitarian “democracy” handles protests, visit and the support the work of Iran Human Rights. As to the U.S. response, a blind eye was turned in favor of the Iranian Regime.


Photo from the 2nd day of protests in Iran in 2009 - peaceful demonstrators beaten, no word from U.S. - image: Gaurdian UK

Egypt is another story entirely, and although understanding that these are two entirely different types of governments, with Egypts elections pending in September of this year, both the U.S. Media and the Obama administration appear to be formally behind these protests. Obama has taken an active role in offering support to the protestors, and booting the current President, Mubarak,to the proverbial curb. The protestors, some of which are students, are not content to wait for elections, rather are attempting to force President Mubarak to resign and leave the country.

Who is in the middle of this push to remove Mubarak - The Muslim Brotherhood. They are an organization based on Jihad, which had been banned in Egypt for multiple terrorist acts, including the assassination of former President, Sadat.

Further, in June of 2009 President Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood to attend a speech he gave in Cairo. (An excellent treatment of that visit here at www.examiner.com/foreign-policy-in-national//muslim-brotherhood-pm-invited-by-obama-to-attend-speech-cairo.)

The Muslim Brotherhood, it should be noted, has ties to Iran, and the Iranians are now making their judgments on the protests in Egypt and elsewhere : Ahmadinejad is supportive of these particular protestors, and looks for the overthrow of the current President, in order to spread this type of “revolution” across the Middle East. Of course, cast in their usual role as evil infidels: The U.S. and Israel. In addition, Ahmadinejad is fairly confident (given the aid these protestors in Egypt are getting from, of all places, the United States), is again,calling for the usual to remove Israel from the Middle East, and not reserving kind words for the U.S. Those protestors in Egypt, students and the Muslim Brotherhood, are apparently fine with both Ahmadinejad and, it appears, the U.S. under the guidance of one Barrack, James Earl Carter, Obama.

One has to ask: has the world gone mad? When legitimate peaceful protests took place in Iran, the brutality of the regime was ignored by the press, condemned halfheartedly and late by the administration. The resultant outcome of those Iranians brave enough to protest an election (which, may or may not have been legitimate, and asking only for freedom and democracy) death or imprisonment. The protestors were peaceful, the regime was insanely brutal. In Egypt on the other hand, the regime does not have a stellar human rights record, however, in this wise, students and an Obama approved Islamic Jihadist organization have every right to oust a President before his term is up. From this point of view, it is all or nothing, it is black and white, it is as plain as the nose on ones face: peaceful student protests in Iran, were given short-shrift by the U.S., while violent demonstrations in Egypt, where, should Egypt become an Islamic state (and that outcome aided by Obama’s legitimization of the Muslim Brotherhood (must like Carter vis a vis, the Ayatollah in 1978), are given the full attention of both the Media and the President. Understanding that journalists were targeted by the Egyptian regime, who were embedded in the middle of the protests, (putting themselves in harm’s way), perhaps giving more reason for the U.S.Press to side with the President over the regime. However, the fact remains that Mubarak had controlled the spread of the cult of radical Islam in Egypt, thereby stabilizing in part the Middle East. Now as a result of the interference, the entire Middle East may be lost to the stone ages. (Again refer to the documentation provided by Iran Human Rights.). What is imperative to keep in mind, the only true democracy in the Middle East is the State of Israel, an ally to the United States, and one which, always is made to be the pariah, regardless of their attempts at peace, and their national right to exist peacefully in a region beset by the insanity of Iran and now, with Obama’s aid and comfort,quite possibly Egypt and other states that are being aided by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama High on High Speed Rail Funding, Railroading the American Taxpayer

Amtrak Route Boston to Chicago photo Boston Globe, cost between Springfield, MA and Chicago Round Trip: $300, time in transit: 27 hours, making a two day trip impossible

With a need to rein in spending, both real and political, the President has requested 53 billion dollars for a high speed rail project. Although one may be a proponent of Mass Transit, one also has to understand the consumer base in order for this particular system to be profitable, enough so that it does not consistently feed at the trough of the Federal Taxpayer. Amtrak, the national commuter rail system, has been funded and defunded under several administrations, most recently: In 1997, the request for additional funds was “Derailed in the House”(Los Angeles Times), in 2003 Amrak concluded it would last through the year 2003, but needed additional federal support to continue to run , (Lodi News Sentinel) and in 2008 the Senate Approved a Bill for additional funds for the DC metro of 1.5 Billion (WJLA)

The continued funding, and requests for funding throughout the years, is indicative of an organization that cannot control costs, or alternately cannot attract enough consumers to make it profitable. Options for travel in the Western Massachusetts area, for example, include buses, taxies, air and rail. The cost to ride the bus: a prepaid booklet of 20 tickets is $47.50, assuming a traveler is commuting to work via bus, allows for 10 days or two full weeks of travel to and from work. A sample schedule (here) shows that bus service begins at 6:25 in the morning and ends at 9:40 in the evening, with Saturday and Sunday services more limited, but still adequate. To fill a tank of gas at $3.05 per gallon (going rate as of today) regular unleaded, is approximately $39 for a 13 gallon tank, which depending upon the length of the drive, private transportation may be more affordable, (again depending upon one’s inner city commute).

Amtrak is a different story entirely: one find schedules from Springfield to Boston, ranging in price from $67 to $158, routed through New Haven, CT, and taking up to 4 hours to reach Bean Town. Unfortunately, the Thursday Schedule does not include a return that will allow one to go back and forth in one day. Assuming one could make a connection - that connection is an additional 67 dollars, pre-tax, the total trip to Boston for the day: $225. The 90 minute drive up the pike with tolls included, assuming one uses an entire tank of gas, is under $50. The Springfield to Boston corridor is fairly active; one would think that a Federally funded Rail system would provide adequate service back and forth within the business day to drum up some business.
One has to ask, would high speed add efficiency? It most certainly would have to increase fares in order to absorb the costs, making it as enticing as a trip to the City Dump.

The same trip by bus :(Peter Pan Bus Lines), offers 7 departure times on a weekday, beginning at 5:45 am, in Boston by 8:10, the return trip offers departures up to 8 pm, with a total cost of $44.

The private bus company, even with a rise in the cost of fuel, offers a) more choices for day commuters as well as b) a much lower fare (equivalent to driving, plus eliminating the need to pay for parking).

One has to ask again, would high speed rail be able to offer more choices, at a rate comparable to say, the bus?

There is a reason that the House Republicans are ready to ax the budget for Amtrak and the high speed rail – (North Jersey .com) – it does not make sense to continue to fund a program that is both inefficient and out of the price range for most of the populace.

Perhaps a better option would be to have the brain trust that runs Amtrak, find ways to schedule one day trips between say, two cities in the same very small state 90 miles apart, several time a day, while keeping costs in line for consumers. If those currently running the behemoth of the public rail cannot come up with reasonable solutions, then sell it to a private company that might make it as efficient and possibly as affordable as – taking the bus.

There is something special about the rails, no doubt about it; historically they are a great part of our nation’s history, and responsible for U.S. expansion. However, do high speed rails make sense? Possibly, if the corporation behind the railways were not tied to the Federal government, here, along with so many other facets of our current Bureaucratic state, are opportunities for private enterprise to get the job done right.

As to the Presidents (and Vice-President) fascination with high speed rails, it boils down to the old adage about boys and toys, the Chinese have a shinny high speed rail, we want one, whether it makes sense or no, it’s big, it’s shinny, it goes fast, what more do the taxpayers really need to know?

CNN-Opinion Research Polling Obama Believed Unlikely to Win Second Term – Compares Obama to Clinton in Polling Data Release - Analysis

Trouble in River City – No matter how one slices it, 51% of American’s polled in a CNN-Opinion Research Poll believe that Obama will be replaced in 2012. The poll (PDF here) taken the last week of January 2011, compares 1995 Gallup Trends polling on Bill Clinton’s presidency to the results of their poll on Obama in order to draw the conclusion that Clinton was polling in similar numbers to Obama now, and went on to win re-election.

In looking at potential two-term Presidents and polling, in January of 2003, George W. Bush was polling at approximately the same numbers as both Clinton and Obama, however, he was expected to win, not lose the Presidency. What one has to consider when viewing polls on individual Presidents, is the key word “individual”. Each President had an individual approach to leadership, which either appealed or, in some cases did not appeal to American voters a year before the general election campaigns began. In comparing the results of Bill Clintons poll numbers to Obama’s poll numbers is akin to comparing apples to oranges. Clinton was viewed as a moderate, the polling was taken in January of 1993, following the news of personal scandals involving President Clinton – it was, in a word, an approval or disapproval of a personal nature, not based on the man’s ability to govern. The Republican’s nomination of Bob Dole in 1995, a weak candidate, gave Clinton the help needed to gain a second term. In addition, Clinton transitioned as a moderate, and with apparent sincerity. Consider Welfare Reform, for instance, and a solid economy, an appearance of working closely with both sides of the aisle, since he took the office in his first term lent to his reelection in 1996.

There are several reasons that Barak Obama may not realize a second term, regardless of an apparent move to the center, and his recent epiphany regarding Ronald Reagan’s policies, the chief among them, his polarizing effect on the electorate, his administrations performance on the Health Care Reform and the Economy will also continue to play a factor. At this stage in the game, regardless of the fact that there are, according to CNN, no clear frontrunners in the GOP field (as no one has clearly announced an intent to run), Obama’s job approval continues to remain stagnant, and sinking on his handling of the economy (latest Gallup).

Although not one of us has a crystal ball to predict a future, it is, based on historical trends and reactions in comparing Obama to a similarly ideological U.S. President, Jimmy Carter, where one finds a basis to realistically anticipate the probability is high that Obama will not gain a second term. Carter not only faced dismal poll numbers, and a challenger from within his own party, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. Carter did go on to win the nomination, but lost the Presidency to Ronald Reagan in what can only be termed as a total repudiation of Carters’ policies.

When one reviews, the economies under both presidencies (Carter/Obama), their handling of the respective situations in a similar manner, and subsequent failure, the advancement of the government roll and entitlement programs under both administrations, and finally, foreign policy as regards the Middle East, would appear to data worth reviewing. Perhaps CNN should have compared a similar president, ideologically speaking, in their polling on Obama, say Carter, rather than Clinton to draw an accurate conclusion. However, as badly as the media (CNN) wants Obama in a second term, the use of Clinton as an example, does nothing to support the theory that Obama, like Clinton will overcome this deficit.

On the Republican potential nominees, Mike Huckabee receives the highest approval and favorability, with Mitt Romney and Palin both at his heels in the same poll. What was of interest in this particular portion of the poll, the question on the import of a candidates’ views matching one’s own, or the ability of a candidate to best Obama – Republicans and Republican Leaning Independents overwhelming chose the latter. Therefore, one might overlook Romney’s involvement in Massachusetts Care, or Huckabee’s “liberal” ability to govern across the aisle (not to mention his Christian Credentials), or even Sarah Palin’s “polarizing personality” if it was though that individual would beat the current President.


Note: Although by now, readers of this blog understand that Public Policy Polling is a favorite pollster, (based on two facts: 1) accuracy of their polling data) and 2) They are a Democrat Leaning firm which, if one finds Republican’s with gains in a firm that skews Democrat, then one cannot question their integrity, or the integrity of the polling data. This firm has been polling both the GOP field (as it is seen now), along with matchups between those GOP potentials and the President since 2010 – the results are telling: To follow the trends visit http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/surveys.