so you will be happy to know, the yellow crime tape has been sliced, diced, and removed --
just take Hillary's word for it -- there is no need for alarm any longer. Egypt is on the right path now; the democratic process is fully underway as we speak.
We have been talking about "secret deals" this week. Anyone recall the days leading up to Mubarek's fall from grace (if he ever had any)? Our State Department was in there, having secret sit downs with Mubarek and his entire crew. We nudged. We interfered. We shoved. We meddled. Call it what you will, but deals were made way back when solidifying days like this:
As we have previously mentioned here, Egyptians may have been wooing Americans to visit --
as tourists -- but make no mistake, they don't want you to stay and take up residence [for they do not likey-likey the US of A at all] We wheeled and deal-ed with Mubarek for so long -- overlooking a number of transgressions -- that even when we wanted to... DO the RIGHT thing...the Egyptians had lost all faith in us.
[of course, there is wide debate on what Doing the Right Thing looks like...both here and abroad...]
The thing is, only 28% of Egyptians view strong relations with the United States as a good thing. They would rather, as the Daily Caller article points out, "cozy up" to Turkey or Iran.
As predicted over a year ago, the Muslim Brotherhood is running the "democratic process" in Egypt. And more important, they are not our friend.
AND the United States is giving them 1.3 BILLION dollars to bolster up their military to ensure the peace?
Is this what "
peace" and "
democracy" looks like?
And here's what the region really thinks about the 1.3 B's...
is the U.S. choosing stability over democracy yet again?
[but then again -- define democracy first, aljazeera...oooh snap]
and let's separate this 1.3 billion from the various miscellaneous funding sources also available, like through USAID funds; an article from the Washington Times (August 2010) illustrates how this has been working out for us:
"Americans also may be surprised to learn that the United States has been an active participant in mosque construction projects overseas. In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque’s namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country’s Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of “Muslim triumphalism” glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument - and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.
The mosques being rebuilt by the United States are used for religious worship, which raises important First Amendment questions. U.S. taxpayer money should not be used to preserve and promote Islam, even abroad. In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were “uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution” when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.
For example, our government rebuilt the Al Shuhada Mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, expecting such benefits as “stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups.” But Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits USAID funds from being used for the rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for “inherently religious activities.” It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam.
[and my apologies for the long read here...I intended to nip and tuck this section to smithereens, but just couldn't do it...choosing whole context over chopped up talking points...now let's move on...]
Sure, this community building via mosque reconstruction is kinda old news. But just where are the atheists fighting this one?
Certainly, if
they take issue with a simple cross on federal land, just imagine how cross they must be building mosques with American tax dollars in a foreign country, of all people, places, and things. Separation of church and state -- mosque and state -- across the pond, anyone?
Or does this just fit naturally into the anti-American narrative, marching against western colonialism any which way but loose, and thus, paving the way for a new, new world?
oh, but let's re-wind for just a quick sec:
"expecting such benefits as 'stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups.'"
that is priceless, isn't it?
Was it worth it...rebuilding that mosque in Fallujah...did it enhance a sense of pride, reduce opposition to foreign aid, promote able bodied young men to flee from a life of gang violence...did it make them 'like us' on facebook...?
The Middle East is a different breed altogether; complicated relations between the radicals and the moderates, between
sunni's and shia's, Muslims and Christians, East and West, stifle any true democratic process (according to American standards, that is) from ever gaining a foothold.
It's a crime scene, with yellow tape run amuck (still).
This action by the State Department isn't just some slip of the tongue misdemeanor caught on a live mic; it's a felony against our national security -- compromising OUR peace, OUR democracy, OUR future, and immediately becoming a direct threat to Israel -- while all accomplished with OUR money, the people's money, hardly in secret and hardly a best interest at heart.
Aljazeera knows exactly how this 1.3
B's gets played out in
Benefits.
But make no mistake, our "security" is not one of them.
....it's more like 1.3 B's to nowhere.
BBBBBut what do I know; I'm just a girl.
Make it a Good Day, G
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment