Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

he history of what many throughout the world have been led to believe was, and still is, a student-inspired, student-orchestrated freedom movement in the Muslim world actually began on Feb. 26, 2009, almost two years before the first Arab Spring student freedom demonstrations. On that date, then CNN commentator Lou Dobbs reported that, in the United States, there was a concerted effort underway by the Obama Administration to curb free speech "...irrespective of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights." Dobbs said that "...free speech advocates say the United Nations has come down precisely on the wrong side. The United Nations," he continued, "has adopted what it calls a Resolution Combating Defamation of Religion. The United Nations now wants to enact an anti-blasphemy resolution that is binding on member nations—including our own. That would make it crime in the United States, if the UN has its way, to criticize religion. In particular, Islam." Please understand that had the binding resolution passed, it would have made it a crime to criticize Islam. (Theoretically, the Resolution would have criminalized defaming Christianity, Judaism or Islam, but the realty is, the measure—pushed by 57 Muslim nations, was proposed for only one reason—to stop any person in any nation of the world from speaking out against Islam. Not Christianity. And, certainly not Judaism.)

Constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams said what the 62nd Session of the UN General Assembly, Agenda Item 70(b), wanted to pass was a binding resolution that "...would make it a crime to put out a movie, write a book, or a poem, which someone could say was defamatory of Islam."

Dobbs reported that the UN Anti-Blasphemy Resolution, which was enacted in 2008 as a non-binding resolution, without any legal teeth, would urge that member States enact their own laws to determine what can be said about religion in public. The resolution would "...also urge States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions." According to CNN's Kitty Pilgrim, essentially what a binding UN resolution would do is require countries to pass laws which would be unconstitutional in the United States. Agenda 70(b) would violate the spirit of many western judicial systems.

Dobbs noted there were 57 nations (all Islamic, or with substantial Islam populations) supporting the anti-blasphemy resolution. He asked Pilgrim how many of the supporting nations were democracies. She replied: "I couldn't tell you," adding, "but many of them are Islamic countries. Pakistan has led the charge to pass the resolution." (Note there are 46 Muslim majority nations in the world, and 12 Muslim minority nations in which Islam is practiced by at least 25% of the population, bringing Islamic-influenced nations to 58.) Clearly the nations attempting to enact this resolution want to make it a crime to speak out against Islam.

Pilgrim told Dobbs that the United States position is that the concept of defamation of religion has another meaning. "While appearing in name to promote tolerance," the US response said, "the implementation of this concept (Sec. 62/154) actually fosters intolerance and has served to justify restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms...Even talking about the influence of Islam on terrorism could be called criminal under this resolution if adopted by an individual country."

Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy said "...You are entitled to say that in America. But not if the UN has its way. They would criminalize that kind of practice; and they are trying to do it elsewhere around the world." Fifty-seven Muslim nations—the largest bloc in the UN—has been pushing it over, it said, "anti-Islamic behavior. This resolution is a major step towards sensitizing the international community on the serious impact of defamation of religions."

In reality, what Islam hoped to accomplish was to use political correctness to silence dissent of Islam by the international community as the Muslim world embarked on its grandest crusade since the demise of the Ottoman Empire—creating an Islamic Super State. One that is larger and more powerful than any nation on Earth except China. Paula Schriefer of Freedom House noted that a newspaper editor in India was charged with violating the non-binding UN resolution by reprinting what Muslims viewed as an anti-Islamic article that was initially printed in the United Kingdom. While the article mentioned the three major religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the editor was arrested for hurting the religious feelings of Muslims. The long and the short of it is: if the media is afraid of the potential legal repercussions from accurately reporting on acts of terrorism committed by Muslims against non-Muslims, or reporting on the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood was behind what the "student movement" initially called "Arab Spring" (the peaceful overthrow of secular Muslims states—those who tolerate theological views other than Islam—particularly if those nations are politically or militarily aligned with the United States, France or England).

Arab Spring began on Dec. 17, 2010 with the "student-inspired" overthrow of Tunisian strongman Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Twenty-eight days later on Jan. 14, 2011 Ben Ali, who was protected by both the United States and France, was granted refuge by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He is now living in Jeddah.

Tunisia's "first family," Ben Ali and his second wife, Laila, a former hair dresser, who was dubbed "the regent of Carthage" by the people of Tunisia who saw her as the power behind Ben Ali's throne. Many Tunisians want Ben Ali brought back from Saudi Arabia to stand trial. He has already been tried in absentia twice, and found guilty. While most Tunisians believe that will not happen in their lifetime, and with the former Mafia-style dictator awaiting his 75th birthday, they expect he will die in exile before Tunisia sees justice. Justice will happen if Saudi King Abdullah, who is 87 and in ill health dies first. His brother, Crown Prince Sultan, 86, is suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and will be passed over. Adbullah's half-brother and Saudi Arabia's Second Deputy Prime Minister, Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz, the caretaker of the Wahabbi religious establishment (and the man who controls the "income payments" to the families of Islamic suicide bombers), will likely be the Muslim Brotherhood's initial pick to replace Abdullah. Even though Prince Nayef denounced the Muslim Brotherhood on Feb. 5, 2011 as the flames of civil war spread across Egypt, when he said the Muslim Brotherhood "...is guilty of betrayal of pledges and ingratitude and is the source of all problems in the Islamic world," he will likely be their choice to lead Saudi Arabia because it will prevents a regional war that will draw the United States into the conflict on the side of the Al Sauds. Should Prince Nayef become King Nayef while Ben Ali is still alive, the Saudi government will likely deport him to Tunisia to stand trial.

As Arab Spring turned into Jihad Winter in Tunisia, the seeds of revolution took root in Egypt. As the "student" protests entered their 15th day, an anti-Mubarak Egyptian billionaire and one of Egypt's top businessmen, Naguib Sawiris, surrendered the use of his newspaper and TV station to those he thought were the organizers of the protest: Ahmed Maher, 30 and Mohamed Abbas, 26. Sawiris was motivated out of fear that if the Egyptian business community did not help the student protests, the Muslim Brotherhood would somehow manage to steal the protest and take control of the rebellion against the Mubarak government. Although Sawiris did not know it at the time, both Maher and Abbas were Muslim Brotherhood Youth Movement leaders, and Arab Spring was being orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood which Sawiris was now unwittingly helping. Maher heads a Brotherhood group known as the April 6 Movement.

Sawiris told Fox News in Egypt that "...there was a real danger that the Muslim Brotherhood will hijack these (protests). What is the problem with these people? They will say if you want a democracy. Fine. You get elected in a democracy. Then you get the Iranian version of democracy where they shoot their own people and deprive them from electing, and so on." Sawiris told Fox News that he believes radical Islamic nations like Iran, Qatar and Syria were behind the plot to destabilize Egypt and turn it into another radical Islamic state.

Because Maher and Abbas did their job so well, they never blew the Muslim Brotherhood's cover in staging the freedom revolt in Egypt. Sawiris never realized, until it was too late, that he was helping put them in power in Egypt as Maher and Abbas and other Youth Movement members moved their road act into Syria. The irony of Sawiris' role in the overthrow of Mubarak is that he is a Christian in one of the few Muslim nations that, up until then, tolerated Christians. Sawiris' fear was that the Muslim Brotherhood might take over and place Egypt under Shariah law. He told Fox News that "...Egypt should never be a religious country..." making it clear that he and others would fight to the death to keep Shariah from becoming the law of the land. If Sawiris takes a few minutes and reads Rev. 20:4 he will see the outcome of that struggle.

As Arab Spring heated up into what could be construed as Arab Summer, the Youth Movement ignited the flames that ultimately engulfed Libya with the help of NATO and US fighter jets—once again gullibly helping radical Islam conquer the lands of their non-Muslim and/or Christian adversaries as they did during the Clinton years when the United States joined NATO to help Albanian Muslims steal the mineral-rich Serbian province of Kosovo (much the way reconqusitas in the radical Chicano groups have renamed the US Southwest Aztlan, claiming it is the actual ancestral home of the Aztecs and not Mexico's to sell to the United States in the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo in 1848. Like Mexican migrant laborers who crossed the border into the United States each year to harvest fruits and vegetables for the US food market in the 1930s, the Albanian Muslims flooded into what was then Christian Kosovo to work in the gold, silver, lead, zinc, cadmium and coal mines. Kosovo, a province of Yugoslavia, contains most of the mineral wealth in the Balkans. It was this wealth that Albania wanted. While the province of Kosovo was predominantly Muslim in 1921, they were Yugoslav Muslims by reason of birth and citizenship, even though 65% of the people in Kosovo spoke Albanian rather than Serbian.

During World War II, thousands of Albanian Muslims fled into Yugoslavia from Albania. By 1948, 68% of the population of Kosovo were Albanian Muslims. Most were illegal. In 1991 when the Albanian Muslims attempted to secede from Serbia, Muslim-orchestrated-atrocities against Serbian Christians intensified. By 1991, 81% of the population of Kosovo were Albanian Muslims. When the Soviet Union theoretically collapsed, Yugoslavia fractured. It split theologically along Muslim-Christian lines with Catholic Croatia-Slovena distancing itself from Muslim Bosnia-Herzegovenia. Without an iron hand to maintain the peace, jihad broke out in the Balkans with the liberal media in Europe reporting a slanted view of the atrocities taking place in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo. The victims, of course, were those who initiated the violence—the Muslims. The villain was the despot of Serbia—Slobodan Milsovec.

When the Serb government retaliated against the Albanian Muslims in 1995, there were 1,360,000 [or 89.9%] Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. Most were illegal. (Logic tells you that, in Kosovo, the minority [10.1%] Christians would not be the aggressors. The Christians, terrorized by the radical Muslims, appealed to Belgrade for help.) In Kosovo, the real victims were the Christians. Yet the international media focused on the "crimes" which Serb President Slobodan Milosev reportedly committed against the "defenseless" Muslims who were waging jihad against both Christians and gypsies in Kosovo. Why? Because, under pressure from Milosev, all of the Balkan States, who were largely socialists, were adamantly opposed to the European Union—just as they previously opposed the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Balkan States' refusal to join the European Union appears to have influenced Eastern Europe's reluctance to join the "democratization process" that would ultimately lead to a unified, borderless Europe. The emerging European Union wanted to show the world it had the power to enforce its edicts. Serbia would be the perfect example.

Both Serbia and the Eastern European States feared Islamization, remembering a time when the Islamic Empire of the Ottomans under Suleiman the Magnificent conquered Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq. Suleiman crossed North Africa and entered Asia Minor, reaching the Caucasus. Using the Ottoman Barbary navy, Suleiman crossed the Mediterranean and conquered Greece, penetrating Europe. Suleiman conquered Spain, the Balkan states, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary (which he took from the Hapsburg in the summer of 1529). Suleiman arrived at the the gates of Vienna, Austria on Sept. 27, 1529 with 112,000 men. He laid siege to the city. Ferdinand I defended the city with 16,000 men. He was outnumbered 7 to 1. The Ottomans' cannons could not penetrate the six foot thick walls around Vienna, but the Hapsburgs' cannonfire devastated Sulieman's troops. Two weeks after the siege began an early blizzard blinded the Austrian landscape. Suffering severe losses at the hands of Ferdinand I, Sulieman's war council voted to retreat, and the Ottoman forces left central Europe. Suleiman tried again in 1532. This time a force of 700 Croatians stopped him. The feudal war between the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs continued until 1566, ending with the Siege of Azigetvar, which the Muslims won. However, during the battle, Suleiman (who was 72 and ailing when he embarked on what would be his last attempt to defeat the Hapsburgs) died. To prevent the news of Suleiman's death from reaching his fatigued troops, the Royal Physician was strangled. Selim II, the son of Suleiman's 4th wife, replaced him. Selim II had no military aspirations. Selim II retired from the battle. His short reign was a time of loss for the Ottomans.

After the death of Selim II, wars between the Ottomans and Christian Europe intensified, culminating in the Great Turkish War in 1663 with another disastrous attempt by the Muslims to defeat the Hapsburgs. Defeated in 1664, the Muslims turned north and attacked Lithuania, which was bankrupt and lacked the money to finance an army. Poland attacked the Muslims at Khotyn and defeated them. While it would be two decades before the Ottomans returned to Austria, the Great Turkish War was a disaster for the Ottomans from which they would not recover, they still made several excursions into Europe, draining not only their resources, but those of the Hapsburgs as well. The power shifted in Europe with England, France and Russia replacing the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs as the muscle of Europe in the mid-19th century.

Why were the Muslims so successful from the 14th to 17th centuries? Because their theology is fused into the Islamic political system. Islamic theology not only controls the administration of government it also controls the State judicial system. And, of course, the Qur'an mandates loyalty to Islam by ordering the deaths of those who were not faithful to Islam, or those who befriend those who are not Muslim. To the adherents of Islam, anyone who does not practice the faith is an enemy of those who do. If you thoroughly understand Islam (although few people do) you recognize that, unlike Christianity and Judaism which does not advocate killing those who disagree with your theology, Muslims are taught to lie to nonbelievers and, to kill them, when their use for them ends. Islam is neither the friend nor a real ally of Christianity. They need America, and they need NATO to win against the tanks and jet fighters of the secular Muslim nations as the Muslim Brotherhood traces the footsteps of Suleiman II across the Arab Peninsula and North Africa.

Those who take the time to closely study the factual events that transpired between the super majority Muslims in Kosovo and the Christian Serbs who lived in Kosovo, and compare UN's biased campaign to overthrow then Serb President Sloboden Milosev—who was, without question, a corrupt, tyrannical despot—as well as Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Libya's Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi and Syria's Bashir Assad, and you have to walk away from that contemplation with the realization that the United States should have stayed out of the Balkan War, and the United States should not have gotten involved in Libya. Granted, all of these dictators are, or were, totalitarian despots who grossly violated the laws of humanity.

Rebirth of the Caliphate of Suleiman II
While the Obama Administration and the leftwing media in the United States and Europe fans the myth that the "populist" revolutions in the Mideast portend a new era of Arab democracy, Obama knows—or should know from his military and political intelligence agencies—who, and what, the Muslim Brotherhood really is. The Muslim Brotherhood is the birthing chamber of nearly every radical Islamic group in the world. They are believed to be the group behind the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for his climbing into bed with Israel at Camp David, Maryland, and the signing of the Camp David Accord that created the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Yet, that has not stopped Barack Obama from bringing three hardcore Muslim Brotherhood adherents into his administration. They are Rashid Hussain, whom Obama appointed as Special Envoy to the 57 nations in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Hussain, a Brotherhood "sleeper" who has been part of the Obama Administration since its inception when he was part of Obama's Presidential Transition Team. Hussain served as a Deputy Associate Council to Obama. His work was focused on national security and "new media" technology. Hussain's job was to work with the National Security Staff in "...developing and pursuing the 'New Beginning' Obama outlined to the Muslim world in his June, 2009 address in Cairo, Egypt."

Second was Dr. Azizah al-Hibri, a Lebanese Muslim, the first Muslim woman law professor in the United States. When she was tapped by Obama to the US Commission on Religious Freedom, she was a law professor at the T.C. Williams School of Law in the University of Richmond. In June, 2011 Obama appointed her a commissioner on the USCIRF. While al-Hibri advocates on behalf of Muslim women in the 21st century, she is an advocate of Shariah, and an advocate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Third is Dalia Mogahed who is also an advocate of Shariah Law. She believes in restricting the rights of Muslim women. Mogahed is a member of the US-Muslim Engagement Project which calls for engagement by the United States with the Muslim Brotherhood although she knows that, in its own words, the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated to "...a grand Jihad [that will...destroy] Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated, and God's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Before continuing, it is important for the reader to understand two things. First, the reader needs to understand that Barack Obama and no person other than Barack Obama brought three radical Islamic extremists into the the White House—and gave them access to national security information. Second, the readers need to understand the creed of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is their political and theological manifesto. "Allah is our objective, the prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law. Jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." In Shariah 4 America, the website notes that "...in Islam, the public veneration of idols and statutes is strictly prohibited. This has forced sincere Muslims to develop realistic plans that will aid in the removal of the Statute of Liberty...Post demolition, it is recommended that a minaret be built as a fitting replacement, allowing the glorification of God to be proclaimed daily as well as act as a powerful reminder of the superiority of Islam over all other ways of life." And you wondered why Barack Obama had the "graven image" (the initials IHS which symbolize Jesus Christ covered when he spoke at the chapel at Georgetown University in April, 2009. Now you know. And, if you ever wondered whether or not Obama really is a Muslim, you know that now, too. And, finally if you heard the "rumors" that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia financed Obama's Harvard's education, now you know why. Obama is, and always has been, a Manchurian Candidate.)

Although the Muslim Brotherhood has been linked to radical Islam, Obama chose to ignore those ties when he announced in June that US diplomats would be allowed to meet with members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt—which of course means anyone, anywhere. Even before the capitulation of the government of Muammar Gaddafi's government, or the media-anticipated surrender of Gaddaffi forces in Bani Walid on Sunday, Sept. 4 which did not happen, the Obama Administration and the government of the European Union were in agreement on supporting the National Transitional Council [NTC] of Libya as that country's legitimate government. The NTC orchestrated the Libyan uprising. The Obama Administration was preparing to surrender to the NTC $185 billion in Libyan assets in the United States—theoretically without knowing who they were, or with whom they were politically aligned. That was not true. They knew (but chose not to reveal to the citizenry in the United States and the EU) that the opposition forces now attempting to overthrow Bashir Assad's corrupt regime in Syria, is the same highly organized opposition forces behind the make-believe "popular uprising" in Libya. In both cases, as in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, and Yemen is the Muslim Brotherhood. (The "popular uprising" in Yemen has been eclipsed by the fighting in Syria and Libya).

Perhaps the media has ignored the state of flux in Yemen because the winner thus far is al Qaeda, which has wrenched control of the Abyan governorate in the southern part of the country along the coast of the Gulf of Aden, from the Islah Party which is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Yemeni Socialist Party and the leadership of the Hashid tribal confederation, with al Qaeda vying for an official voice in the government of Yemen.

In its March 22 online product, Foreign Policy magazine (owned by the Council on Foreign Relations (which also owns Foreign Affairs magazine) highlighted the six Islamic leaders whom it predicted would become the power brokers of the "new" anti-western influenced Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Mideast. Since Libya is foremost in the minds of the media, let's begin there since Obama has already agreed to surrender Libyan assets totaling $185 billion to the Libyan National Transitional Council which is comprised of three Muslim Brotherhood members, beginning with the most prominent member of the Council, Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi's Justice Minister, Mustafa Mohammed Abdel Jalil who defected from the Gaddafi government on February 20, 2011. Jalil's cohorts in the NTC are Abdul Hafez Ghuga, a longtime member of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi, and the head of the February 17 Martyrs' Brigade; and finally, Fathi Tirbil Salwa, a young lawyer who was the face of the popular uprising in Libya.

In Egypt, while it was 75-year old Defense Minister and Supreme Military Council head, Field Marshall Mohamed Hussein Tantawi that deposed Hosni Mubarak on Feb. 11, 2011 and installed itself as the custodian of Egyptian democracy, the face of the Muslim Brotherhood belongs to Armed Forces chief Sami Enan who will very likely emerge as the next President of Egypt. Enan studied in Russia, speaks French and has friends in the Obama Administration—Rashid Hussain, Obama's Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and, of course Admiral Mike Mullen, Obama's head of the Joint Chiefs. In Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood's choice is one of the Arab world's most prominent Islamic preachers, Yusaf al-Qaradawi, who championed the Muslim Brotherhood's overthrow of Egypt.

When Brigadier General Ali Muhsin al-Ahmar suddenly announced his support of the "popular uprising" in Yemen, the media speculated that the ouster of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh's was imminent. Admar, a relative of Saleh, is in bed with al Qaeda in Yemen, which is now fighting government forces there. While al-Ahmar is singularly the most powerful man in the Yemeni military, he and other other Muslim Brotherhood defectors who joined him, might be carrying to too much baggage to stay for very long beyond the Muslim Brotherhood transition. But for the moment, al-Ahmar appears to be the Muslim Brotherhood choice. But remember, in World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood made an alliance with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party. The Muslim Brotherhood has always made pacts with their enemies if it would further their objective, breaking the pacts when their enemies could safely, once again, become enemies. Of course, their enemies seldom realized they were once again enemies until their heads rolled from their severed necks.

Bahrain's leading Shi'ite cleric, who is virtually unknown outside the Persian Gulf area, is Sheikh Issa Qassem. He is a follower of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On Friday, August 26, 2011 Qassem warned the Bahraini Royal Family that they will be removed from power if they do not immediately begin the process of democratic reform. In his Friday sermon, Qassem said: "Can't they learn from the fall of the dictatorships and see what happens to those who deny their people basic rights? We now see what happens to the Libyan dictator, must as what happened to Tunisian and Egyptian despots." Qassem's speech came just days after receiving a letter from Bahrain's Justice Minister who warned him to tone down his speeches. Qassem, a Shi'ite, is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and appears to be Foreign Policy magazine's pick to head the government when Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa is deposed. Al Khalifa became Emir in 1999 and proclaimed himself king upon the death of his father in 2002. Almost immediately King Hamid moved towards democratic reforms. Bahrain now has an elected Parliament. In Bahrain, women can run for and be elected to public office. But political parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, are outlawed.

Most of the important government positions in Bahrain are held by Sunni-minoroty Al Khalifa family members who have ruled Bahrain since 1783. Arab Spring began in Bahrain on Feb. 13. Five days later, the ruling family issued an order to the military to fire on hundreds of Shi'a protesters. A day later, the crowds returned to Pearl Square. Only this time, they numbered in the thousands. The police fled. The prospect for a real democracy looks bleak. The problem in Bahrain is not corruption by the Al Khalifa family. The problem in Bahrain is that the United States and England back its government. To get rid of western influence in the Gulf region, every Gulf State with ties to the United States are being targeted for overthrow.

And finally, America's most important Muslim alliance in the Mideast is also about to change. King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, who has been regent of Saudi Arabia for shortly over 6 years (although he was the defacto ruler of Saudi Arabia since 1996) when his half-brother, King Fahd had a major stroke. Since the 1990 Gulf War, Muslim clerics under the control of Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, another half-brother, placed fatwah's on Abdullah's life. Today Abdullah is 87 years old and suffering from the ailments of severe old age. His brother, Crown Prince Sultan, 86, is said to be suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. Prince Nayef, a spry 77, is next in line for the throne. The Muslim Brotherhood would like to see him sitting on the throne of Saudi Arabia since there is no love lost between Nayef and the United States. Since several of the Sept. 11 skyjackers were Saudi citizens, the Bush-43 Administration criticized Nayef for his lack of interest in either investigating or taking action against known extremists in Saudi Arabia, or other areas of the Mideast where the Sauds had sway with the local governments. In 2003, Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-NY] appealed to Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud to remove Nayef as Saudi Arabia's Minister of the Interior. Nayef, who is favored by the Muslim Brotherhood as King Abdullah's replacement, will likely tread more lightly in the land of the Sauds than anywhere else in the Arab Peninsula since it is likely that Muslim Brotherhood instigated violence will be met with both US air and ground troops—helping the Al Sauds. It is more likely King Abdullah will simply die in his sleep and because of his Alzheimers, Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud will simply be passed over, and Prince Nayef, who heads the country's Wahabbi religious establishment will be the Muslim's Brotherhood's pick to lead Saudi Arabia—at the onset.

The world of Islam is a society in which the strong rule the weak and the meek. The politicians and media moguls in the United States and the EU would like the voters in the democratic nations to believe what is happening in the Mideast today is different—popular uprisings led by the next generation of leaders. People, not unlike ourselves, demanding liberty. And, who among us is not in favor of liberty and true freedom for everyone? Sadly, that is not what is really taking place in the Mideast. Tragically, the catalyst for what happened in Tunisia and Egypt, and Yemen and Libya and Syria—the seed of hope—was planted by the United States with the overthrow and execution of Saddam Hussein. People, largely young people, who had not experienced previous interventions by the West in the land of sand and oil, and the hopes of tribal peoples that real democracy had come to the Arabian peninsula when all that happened was that new tribal leaders were handed the mantle of governance by the warlords of the West. They knew real democracy was but a fleeting, elusive moment in time as new dictators replaced the old tyrants. Only the young foolishly believed the "popular uprising" rhetoric. The old, who lived those types of dreams themselves in bygone uprisings in bygone years, knew the role of the young was to serve as cannon fodder for CNN and FOX News cameras to generate enough sympathy from the warlords of the West (who need their oil), that they would send their armies—or at least, their jet fighters and stealth bombers to cripple the armies of the tyrants so they can win—what? Broader citizenship rights in what many already see as the rebirth of an Islamic Super State? Not likely. What will come to those who fought for freedom in the popular uprising that surrenders the Muslim world to the Muslim Brotherhood, will be a role as the foot soldiers in the Army of the 12th Caliph, which intends to complete the work that Suleiman II would very likely have achieved had he not died of natural causes in Szigetvar, Hungary on September 5, 1566—conquering all of the nations on Earth. And, of course, establishing world government with a cacophony of theocratic laws that will affect every man, woman and child on Earth and, of course, that government's global religion—Islam.

As the world makes the radical shift to a super Muslim State that may or may not include Iran, but will nevertheless dominate the world, just remember how it ends. "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them; and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the Word of God, and who had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon forehead or their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." (Rev, 20:4; KJV)


Just Say No
Copyright 2011 •Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved