Middle East expert Walid Phares says this weekend's vote on a new Egyptian constitution is part of a broader strategy by President Mohammed Morsi to transform the country into a "totalitarian Islamist state" like Iran.
"They forced the referendum on Egyptians without judges, monitors, and under the pressure of their street militias," explained Phares, an advisor to the anti-Terrorism Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives, said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.
"That's what the forces of civil society are seeing today. Egypt is divided between the Islamists and the rest of the country."
Following the first round of a two-stage referendum, Egyptians narrowly voted in favor of a constitution shaped by Islamists but opposed by other groups who fear it will divide the Arab world's biggest nation, according to officials in rival camps speaking to the Associated Press.
As of late Sunday afternoon, Phares said that the results showed an approval margin of nearly 60 percent for the referendum, which he said may be even higher when all the votes are counted.
transform the country into a "totalitarian Islamist state" like Iran. The people of Egypt are screwed as are the people in Iran. Seems like leaders like to head towards totalitarianism rather than freedom--even in this country. They like to remake a country in their image. Frederick Hayek nailed it in "The Road to Serfdom."
Had heard they were dredging like crazy. Article says El Magnifico could release water from the Missouri River, which helps downstream St. Louis but hurts the length of the Missouri. Good thing we have the man of steal making the tough ones. To muddle it further, there is good golf in Kansas City and a growing pusstule of white liberalism.
The worst drought in half a century has brought water levels in the Mississippi close to historic lows and could shut down all shipping in a matter of weeks -- unless Barack Obama takes extraordinary measures.
Must be that damn gerbil warming, all that rise in the sea level means the water has to come from somewhere, so obviously the Mighty Missississippi had to give it up.
and in all the pictures there is not one, one one mind you, pitiful polar bear clinging to a sliver of ice before he is forced to submit to the clutches of mankind in his never ending production of greenhouse gases......
Lets NOT fergit all those militantly anti-Gun Activists + Politicos, etc. whom want to take away people's guns while SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH
.....CCCCCCCCCCCCC quietly hypocritically mysteriously keeping a few for themselves.
THEY CAN HAVE THE BEST OR LATEST GUNS + AMMO, BUT NO ONE ELSE CAN.
JUST AS "THERE ARE NO ATHEISTS IS FOXHOLES/
COMBAT", SIMILARLY THERE ARE NO ANTI-GUN LOBBYISTS OR HATERS, ETC. WHEN CRIMINALS ARE INSIDE THEIR OWN HOME OR MET ON THE STREETS.
i haven't heard of half od these twits, and thos i have aren't anywhere on my list of events to pay to attend. only sad part is, Mrs. Ret. is a big fan of martha; in fact when she got out of the big house several years back, her co-workers threw her a party.....
nice to see that Islamorealism is beginning to gain a foothold in the WJC
Posted by: lord garth ||
When these Islamist rebels take power in Syria, I look forward to neo-con criticism of Obama for not backing these Islamists a little earlier. The child-like unworldliness of these morons in taking as gospel the Sunni troglodytes' assurances of moderation is breath-taking. It's pretty clear why they're working at think tanks - with their blinkered naivete, it's pretty clear they couldn't possibly make it in any line of work that's results-oriented. How the heck did neo-cons ever get classified with conservatives, who have an essentially pessimistic view of human nature and foreign ideologies?
The term "neo-con" is generally used as an epithet by the Left. It is not a term that anyone would use to describe their own beliefs. I think this can be best understood by the occasional admission by the Left that what they mean by "neo-con" is "Trotskyite."
The people who use the term "neo-con" are generally reacting to the idea that the US can and should sometimes forcefully intervene in foreign affairs. This is not a controversial position -- unless you are an isolationist or working for the other side.
The idea that the US can make foreign nations better (as distinct from simply improving things from the US point of view) is perhaps held by a very small minority. Mostly when it comes up though it is not a serious core belief, but an excuse or pretext. So, Bush used that kind of reasoning for Iraq and Obama has used in it connection with the idiocy we are calling the Arab Spring. That said, I don't think Bush or Obama had any illusions about what they were doing.