Saturday, November 26, 2011

Thanksgiving 2011

Usually this blog is used for political articles and things of a secular nature, however, its title is "Jacob Bogle Writes" and my life encompasses much more than politics. Sorry for it being a few days late, but here is my family message for Thanksgiving 2011.

"Today is Thanksgiving's Day, a day when we come together as family and friends and stuff our faces, but, it’s also a day, as every day should be, that has a spiritual side to it. A day for us to give thanks and remember what life means, and to remember the very truth of reality that God exists, that Jesus lives, and that through him we can have even better days and years to give thanks for in the future.

You read throughout the Bible of many men and women giving thanks to God; Moses did, David did and Jesus did. Christ taught us how to pray and give thanks for each other, but he also taught us how to give thanks to God for the bad stuff in life.
It’s real easy to say “thank you Lord” for a great meal, or for friends/family, or because we got a new job, but life isn’t always wonderful. Life can be full of hardships too, but again Jesus taught us what to do. Jesus never whined to God and even when he knew he would be arrested, brutally beaten and killed. Instead of saying “OK I want to stop” or “why me,” Jesus simply prayed and asked that if it was God’s will that he be crucified, for God to give him the strength to do it.

We aren’t thanking God that we got the flu or became disabled, we are thanking God for the opportunity to be like Christ. We are thanking him that through our hardships we can learn to lean on Christ, to trust the will of God and for the chance to overcome. So thank him in the good times and the bad, and when confronted with a problem or sickness to ask the Lord for the strength and inner peace to go through it, especially if what you’re going through really hurts or looks hopeless.
As Christians we are often told to look forward and gear our lives toward Heaven, but God didn’t make us human so he could be with us when we’re dead, he made us so that we might have life. We are only alive for this moment, not 10 minutes ago and not 10 minutes from now, we live just this second so let us remember the true meaning of what it is to live. That meaning is coming together, being thankful, loving each other, and, most importantly, sharing the love of God to others, that in us, we should exemplify.

If Christ is in you then let his light, your light, shine and be a symbol of hope to others. The best way we can thank and praise God is to be praise itself in our everyday life to the wonders of God."
-- Jacob Bogle, 11/24/11

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Herman Cain, Real Change or Status-quo "Lite"?

Herman Cain entered the race as an underdog. His personality quickly garnered him a number of supporters and his plain speaking and lack of political correctness made it sound like Mr. Cain was a new kind of candidate, a candidate not part of the establishment and someone who might actually shake up the system. And if elected, could put America on the right track.

During the first several months of the campaign he had great difficulty breaking into double digits in national polls and was usually listed 5th or 6th out of 9 main candidates. Despite the small showings there was a lot of talk about him and his ideas from many leading media outlets and popular radio talk shows. However it wasn’t until the debate in Florida where he talked about his personal triumph over cancer and was able to talk more about his “9-9-9” tax plan that brought him great success in the Florida GOP straw poll where he won with 37% of the vote; his nearest rival, Rick Perry, came in with only 15%.

The Florida straw poll results brought about a flurry of media attention and were seen as a possible GOP establishment “stamp-of-approval” given the fact that the poll voters were mostly state GOP members and local leaders. Some even suggested, before the poll, that whoever won would get the party nomination.

Cain’s surge issued a challenge to all to re-think his candidacy and signaled, to some, that it was time he became “top-tier”.  Despite raising very little money, having no political experience and admitting on several occasions his lack of knowledge on certain topics, this simple win pushed him to the top in the media’s eye and soon after he was tied with Rick Perry for 2nd place nationally.

Of course in the two weeks after the Florida debate the entire race seemed to shake up. Romney returned to first place, Perry fell by over 10 points, and Cain and Newt Gingrich displaced Ron Paul landing him in 5th place. However, none of this really matters if the message behind the candidate is flawed or just plain bad.

With this apparent shake-up it becomes increasingly important to take an in-depth look at the positions of Herman Cain and allow the public to decide in the end who is and isn’t the best candidate.
After 8 years of G.W. Bush and nearly 3 years of Obama America is ready for real change, but not change for the sake of change, positive change leading the nation in the best direction. If Cain is now top-tier and may become the Republican nominee we must ask ourselves, does Cain offer real solutions or is he simply another candidate defending the status-quo Americans are so tired of, only in a “lite” version?

1. Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan is very simple and because of that it has a lot of appeal. One of the “9s” is a federal sales tax which is added on top of state and local sales taxes. There are 45 states that have some form of a sales tax with many states charging an average of 7% and in Illinois the maximum is a whopping 11.5% tax. This plan is billed as one to level the playing field and create a “fair” tax system. What many don’t realize is that the richest Americans spend less overall as a percentage of their income than the poorest so in reality lower-income families will end up paying a greater share of their income to sales taxes than will the richest. Any plan that adds taxes to everyday items like food and clothing is a tax that will hurt middle and lower income families far more than those with higher incomes. And while a 9% income tax may sound great the reality is for millions of Americans you will end up paying more in taxes. The very poorest Americans pay less than 3% in income taxes and then usually end up getting a refund and pay, for the year, a net tax of 0%.  Under his plan these most vulnerable will end up paying 3 times their current tax rate and won’t be getting anything back.

For upper-middle and high income families his 9-9-9 plan works out very good but for most Americans, and the poorest, it only amounts to less money for bills and more money to the government.

2. American was founded on the idea of freedom for all and the right to worship as one sees fit. The 1st amendment isn’t something you can apply to one group but not another, everyone has the freedom of religion. You would think a presidential candidate would understand this and a conservative candidate would hold it most dear to his heart. Sadly, Cain has allowed personal prejudice to cloud his judgment and would support communities that would try and limit the 1st amendment. Hatred and misunderstandings aside peaceful Muslims have every right to build mosques and preach Islam. Under Cain it seems Americans should have the right to ban mosques which is a direct violation of the Constitution. Herman Cain has also said on several occasions that he doesn’t trust Muslims, wouldn’t appoint them and feels they aren’t as loyal as any other group. This is a gross showing of hatred and no amount of backpedaling can cover up the vial words he said.   
When you misunderstand or simply don’t respect the spirit of the Constitution and when you single out entire segments of the population you have lost any credibility to lead the nation. The saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” might prove prophetic when culling civil rights for “security”.

3. Cain has also flip-flopped on the issue of the assassination of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. While al-Awlaki may have been a bad guy he was still a citizen and the government is prevented by the Constitution from taking the life of a citizen without a trial. In America simply being accused of something is not the same as being convicted and this is another concept anyone who wants to lead must understand. The fundamental right to life and trial must never be withheld from any American because it opens the door for far worse. History has shown us time and time again that the only outcome of execution without trial, of picking who has rights and who doesn’t, is tyranny.

4. Herman Cain used to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and has said that the FED needs no audit. In fact he said that if the public wanted to know something all we had to do was ask. This is something the American public has tried to do, as has congress, but with little success. The Federal Reserve is the most secretive part of our government and is also one of the most powerful. It actively engages in activities with no congressional oversight, and has no real mandate to answer for any errors it makes. It spends more money than congress and is responsible for the devaluation of currency. The FEDs activities are seen as so corrupt and suspicious that 18 Senators and 183 Representatives have co-sponsored HR 459 and S 202 the “Audit the Fed” bill. The National Tax Payers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Young Americans for Liberty, the Center for Fiscal Responsibility and Freedom Works (along with many others) have all advocated an audit of the FED. Yet Chairman Cain sees little reason to, after all the FED is an open book in his eyes.

4.  Abortion is an issue that ignites the passion of many Americans both for and against but one area where most agree is that in the case of incest or rape woman should have the right to get an abortion. Herman Cain on the other hand does not. He even signed a pledge saying he would ban all abortions even in those extreme cases.

5. One skill a president must have is the ability to connect with the people diplomatically, especially if the main national problem is strongly affecting the domestic population. In the past he has come out against Muslims and then feigned an apology. During an interview when asked about the “Occupy Wall Street” movement he said “Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks -- if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself.” Several days later he backpedaled and said that the comments were only aimed at the protesters and then later he said that the comment wasn’t aimed at the people but was an attempt to say “Washington is the problem” and that the protesters should move their efforts there. But the truth is a president needs to say what he/she means and needs to be careful when chastising the populace. Nothing Cain said during the original comment would lead one to think that he wasn’t blaming the 14 million un-employed for their joblessness. For a man who tries to be the underdog who made millions from nothing he sure has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and forgets that it was both Washington and Wall Street lobbyists who played a large role in the economic downturn.

There are many other issues that if examined shows Herman Cain to be nothing more than a big government, pro-war candidate who only pretends to be different. Herman Cain said the economy was fine before the collapse, he supported the bailouts, supports the continuation of wars, refuses any form of diplomacy with N. Korea (which only leaves force), and said that we need more leaders like President Bush. 

It is more than clear that what we don’t need is 4 more years of war and economic hardship and that is all we will get under Cain. During the debate at Dartmouth on 10/11/11 he said that he doesn’t care about what bills can be passed he only cares about what will work. Even if we ignore the fact his tax plan won’t work it matters little if something doesn’t get passed into law. With each passing day we see how unprepared Cain is to lead and how out of step with reality he seems to be. 

There is only one answer, Ron Paul. He saw the recession before it occurred and offered real solutions. He understands the root-cause of terrorism and respects the Constitution. Only Ron Paul realizes that without a strong currency any discussion on taxes, jobs or the economy will be flawed and that to secure our economic future we must re-examine the Federal Reserve system. And unlike everyone else Ron Paul has remained consistent and voted consistently for 30 years with no scandals, no special interests and has never voted for an unbalanced budget, doesn’t participate in the lucrative congressional retirement program, never voted to raise taxes and has never voted for an increase in power for the Executive Branch.

Jacob Bogle 10/12/11
Pro-bailouts: (article by Herman Cain)



Saturday, July 30, 2011

Obama's Broken Promises and Ron Paul

Obama’s Broken Promises

In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president on a message of change and hope. Despite his limited experience in government and non-existent experience in business he was elected with the largest popular vote in US history1. And with Americans being tired of a multi-year war, troubled economic outlook there was every reason to look at this young, magnetic and up-beat person with a sense of hope. Finally, a man who wasn't from a political dynasty, who came from nothing bringing a message most Americans had wanted for decades…change you could believe in. Of course few really thought about what his idea of “change” meant. He may have been inexperienced, but your average voter saw in him potential. Little did they expect to get a president who reacted rather than led, who denied the notion that America was not the same as every other countrya, who would fill his administration with and take advice from radicals, known terrorists2 and special interest groups.

While campaign blips like “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”3 caused some to question this brave new world he planned, the promise of transparency, clean energy independence, secure public services, ending wars etc. was far too great to offer any real obstacle. He made many promises and a tired, desperate America was ready to believe, no matter the cost.

Obama had a very large following of young voters, college students and far-left liberals. Their focus on war, energy and domestic policy made promises like closing Guantanamo Bay and expanding government “protections” seemed to solidify the idea that Obama was an honest man who would do what he said. There has never been a candidate who was able to fulfill, entirely, every promise made but the thought of out-right lies never crossed their mind.

So why is it that in July 2011, half-way through his presidency, are the people who supported him most leaving the “Obama train” in droves? And even worse (from the left’s perspective) why is it that no name candidates in 2008 like Ron Paul are today coming within the margin of error to tying or even beating him in some polls?4 The answer is fairly simple, Americans have seen the kind of change Obama desires and even die-hard supporters can’t ignore the ever growing list of broken promises, hypocrisy and lack luster leadership since his first days in office.

The following is a list of examples that have been cited by multiple sources5 as of 7/2011:

1. Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners.-Broken
2. End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. -Broken
3. End no-bid contracts above $25,000. -Broken
4. Sign the Employee Free Choice Act (pro-union). -Broken
5. Prevent companies in bankruptcy from giving company executives bonuses. -Broken
6. Allow imported prescription drugs. -Broken
7. Mandate autism treatment in insurance coverage. -Broken
8. Close Guantanamo Bay. -Broken
9. Double the Peace Corps. -Broken
10. Allow 5 days for the public to read and comment on bills before signing them. -Broken
11. Create rules against lobbying and political appointees. -Broken
12. Urge States to treat same-sex couples with the same equality as heterosexuals in their adoption laws. -Broken
13. Restore the Superfund program (cleans up highly polluted sites). -Broken
14. Support a human mission back to the moon by 2020. -Broken
15. Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels. -Broken
16. Require a “plug-in” fleet at the White House. -Broken
17. Recognize the Armenian genocide. -Broken
18. No tax increases on families making less than $250,000/yr. -Broken
19. Televise all health care reform talks on C-SPAN. – When John McCain asked Obama about this in 2010 Obama replied “the campaign is over, John” *a
20. Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in his first year. -Broken
21. Restrict warrantless wiretaps. -Broken
22. Secure the borders. Obama “We need tougher border security…” Janet Napolitano later announced in 2010 that $50 million had in planned stimulus funds for border security had been diverted to other project.*a
23. Enforce “PAYGO” rules. -Broken
24. Sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. -Broken
25. Restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants. -Broken
26. Make White House communications about regulatory policy-making public. -Broken
27. Include sexual orientation and gender identity in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. -Broken
28. Increase the minimum wage to $9.50/hr by 2011. -Broken

Additional actions that went against his promises or that have hurt America.
1. Added a war in Libya and Yemen. –Lied about stopping undeclared wars.
2. Said we won’t be taking an active role in Libya or maintaining the “no-fly zone”. –Lied. We have spent over $500 million in Libya and led dozens of bombing runs.
3. Gave $2 billion to Brazil for off-shore drilling. –Gave it to Brazil soon after the “Deepwater Horizons” oil spill and had called for halting all US drilling for environmental causes. Brazil however has a very poor record in environmental protection.

(Note: This is simply a list of broken promises and hypocritical actions by Obama. It does not mean that I do or don’t support them)
All of this makes it clear that Obama was never fit to be president and that to allow him a further four years at the head of the most powerful nation in world history is irresponsible. However, all is not lost. Despite the Democrats being saddled with an exposed message of busted promises and failed leadership America is not condemned (should voters see the light) to continue living in a nation nearing an abyss. There is another choice and a choice who has proven leadership, experience, and trustworthiness - Ron Paul.

Even though few in national leadership are actually in it for the nation Ron Paul has been a staunch supporter and defender of the American way, the Constitution, limited government and personal responsibility. As is often the case, the mainstream media and political machines have tried to down play Dr. Paul’s accomplishments and message because they’re afraid of losing power. Nevertheless, voters are tired of being told what to do and who to vote for, and despite being called “radical” or “not having a chance” the reality on the ground is far different.

For more than 20 years Dr. Paul has maintained the same message, has voted consistently more than any other person in congress and his predictions that were laughed at in 1998 and 2008 have now come true and even those who laughed at him are now quoting Dr. Paul and trying to be the new “Dr. No”. Of course there can only be one and Ron Paul, while shining above all other candidates in message, truth, character, and principle is now beginning to take the lead in the polls, among the people and when paired with Obama levels the field. As proof that Dr. Paul’s candidacy is beating the establishments attempt at marginalization I’d like to give you a few facts.
During the 2011 2nd quarter fundraising period Ron Paul raise $4.5 million, coming in second to Romney (a multi-millionaire and big government supporter). Despite coming in second in total donations Paul out raised all candidates in MS, ND and OK and also out raised Romney in MN. Paul was the second highest fundraiser in 26 other states6.

With his message of peace and smart international relations (as well as being the only candidate to serve in the military) Rep. Paul out raised all candidates in donations from active military personnel7.

One of the biggest issues people point to for his “un-electability” is Rep. Paul’s desire to end entitlement programs. Dr. Paul, who is a working physician, believes that programs like Social Security are unconstitutional and would develop a plan to allow those entering the workforce to opt out of it, keep those who rely on it now on a solvent Social Security program and then gradually phase it out without hurting the elderly and disabled. As David Weidner of the Wall Street Journal said “Mr. Paul faces an electorate that, like it or not, is dependent on Washington. Nearly $2 of every $10 in personal income, about $2.3 trillion…It's hard for most of us to vote against programs so obviously boosting our bottom lines.”8 

Of course, that’s the whole point. Nearly 1 in 4 Americans are on some sort of welfare, far above the number intended when these programs were instituted under FDR. Which means either the US is rapidly turning into a third world country or those in charge understand something most seem not too, if you give people money and cause them to become reliant on you then they are less likely to limit your power and will in fact be more willing to give you more power. When we surrender our liberties for “protection” and when we give up our obligation to self responsibility then we lose both liberty and protection and we become a virtual slave to those who provide us services.

As we have seen in Europe the more you give people the less willing they are to work, to further educate themselves and to provide for their own well-being. Today 60 million people take entitlements, nearly 45% of the working population pay no income taxes and we have allowed ourselves to be subjected to government sponsored molestation under the TSA. Ron Paul wants to reverse this and give us back the power to live our own lives, succeed by our own merit, own our failures and maintain our liberties.

In the polls Rep. Paul has the following record**:

WON – Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll, New Orleans. Paul 612 votes, Romney 74

WON – CPAC Straw Poll, Paul 30%, Romney 23%
WON – Texas GOP Poll, Paul 22%, Gov. Perry 17%, Romney >10%

Paul 37% vs. Obama 41%, Rasmussen 7/2011. In this poll Obama scores lowest against any candidate when matched against Ron Paul.

Paul 50% vs. Obama 50%, Harris Interactive 7/2011.

With Obama’s record of lies and failed accomplishments and Ron Paul’s 21 year history of consistent voting and intellectual honesty there can be no question about who should be the next president, Ron Paul.

Jacob Bogle, 7/30/2011

1. 2008 votes - 62,438,115 Obama/55,380,169 McCain., 2008

2. A- William Ayers

C- Van Jones


5. A-


A. American exceptionalism denied -, by John R. Bolton 2009

** Polls, in order




Monday, February 7, 2011

On Egypt and the Middle East, 2011

(This is meant to cause thought and discussion)

Over the past several weeks and indeed months the expanded Middle Eastern world, stretching from Pakistan in the east to Morocco in the west, has begun to catch fire. I’m not an expert on the dealings of the Middle East but I know a good bit about politics, history and the desires of people on many sides of the ideological spectrum. These are just some observations I’ve made and all the facts can be easily verifiable with much of the information being hard not to find so it’s not like this is just some random invented conspiracy theory. But I do want to stress that this is just a train of thought and potential connections to try and explain the interesting nature of the events in Egypt particularly.

Here is a timeline of events;
Dec 2010- Jan 2011: Tunisia
Jan 9-15/30, 2011: Sudan
Jan 14- present: Jordan
Jan 25- present: Egypt
Jan 26- present: Syria
Jan 27- present: Yemen
There are a number of smaller protests & riots in at least 4 other regional countries.

-- In Tunisia after a number of large protests and riots the president was ousted and forced to leave the country.

-- The events in Sudan have been going on for many years. After a 20 year civil war and widespread ethnic cleansing, primarily from Islamic and government forces against the minority Christian and tribal peoples, southern Sudan voted for independence. Between Jan 9-15, 2011 the people of southern Sudan held a referendum and the final results released Jan 30 showed that 98.8% of the southern population supported independence. One group that has been linked to the troubles in Sudan is known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

-- In Jordan similar protests occurred and the Jordanian king fired his Cabinet members in hopes of appeasing the people. There is also a Muslim Brotherhood connection.

-- The events in Egypt have been very complex and will have widespread results. Egypt has long been a US ally and a relatively stable force in the Middle East. Since Hosni Mubarak took power some 30 years ago Egypt has also taken a fairly peaceful stance toward Israel. Although the protests are new the problems leading up to them have been building for a long time. Despite the government’s pro-US stance and period of general economic success (compared to other countries) the government has also kept tight control over the media, political dissent and the military instead of the people have held control for much of Egypt’s modern history. Because of higher food prices, unemployment and a dictatorship the people have been ready to revolt however the reasons why they revolted now, 30 years after Mubarak took over, is something we should look into.

-- Syria has seen protests and deaths but the result and end of protests has yet to be seen.

-- Yemen, there have been relatively minor protests and their president pledged he wouldn’t seek another term.

Now back to Egypt. Egypt has been a US strategic ally for many years and they’ve had the same autocratic regime for decades. When you look at the whole situation, the way its unfolded, how it started, its current status, it all seems to be a bit suspect.

For example, this has been the largest demonstration in Egypt for many many years. If 250 people gathered in protest in Nov. 2009 they would have been met with a crushing police and even military response. But for some odd reason hundreds of thousands of people have been allowed to gather now with extreme tolerance by the government.

The protests began Jan 25th , a day chosen to coincide with the holiday “National Police Day”, but during that time the Egyptian military (which pretty much controls the nation) was preparing for very important talks here in the US about their military foreign aid. On Jan 29th their top brass were all at the Pentagon and so any response to these protests would have been slow and indeed the Egyptian government was very slow to respond. Anyone who has access to information and who knows about foreign aid talks would have known that the leaders of the Egyptian military would be out of the country for a period of time and it would be a relatively safe period to launch or at least inflame the protests.

Another curiosity is that Egypt has a population of 80 million and yet large protests only erupted in Cairo and Alexandria. Even though the police and military were ordered to not fire on the protestors the growth of the gatherings remained localized in those 2 cities with a smaller demonstrations and riots in a few others. In Europe & the US during the start of the Iraq war there were hundreds of protests some including tens of thousands of people.

Why then, in a nation with such a history of “horrors” would these protests be so small relative to the population AND compared with the grievances they claim it to be about, especially when they know that police and military forces wouldn’t stop them? It just doesn’t make sense unless perhaps these events began naturally but were inflamed by outside forces in order to try to topple the government. If any people lived utterly dreaded lives for decades when given the chance to speak out they would but in Egypt it has just been a modest affaire with some of the groups involved coming from outside Egypt or were banned in the country such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

There has been increasing evidence that the extreme left in the US and Europe has been courting extremist Islam as a means to end the dominance of America, capitalism and true freedom. One such group is the US based “Code Pink” an organization of women who claim to be against war and for peace. Why then would Code Pink have placed an ad on the English site for the Muslim Brotherhood which asks them to “Help us Cleanse our Nation”?

The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical group that opposes the state of Israel, supports extremist Islamic law and has connections with many other groups, some known terrorist organizations. The MB has been banned in Egypt for several years and has very little popular support there. Why then has there been so much news talking about their potential power? I personally believe it’s because the MB and similar groups have been getting outside support, which has been seen.

One way you solidify support for your movement is by showing how bad the other side is. Most demonstrations have been fairly peaceful and as I’ve stated before the military have official orders to not engage in conflict with the demonstrators. A method of gaining popular support is by having more radical supporters pose as the “enemy”, in this case out of uniform and retired police/government people, and cause trouble. Then you can claim that while your protestors have been good and only want peace the evil government and your opposition have engaged in violence. This was a tactic used by Nazi Germany and helped justify the invasion of Poland.

Now I’m not suggesting that it isn’t possible for government supporters to engage in violence and I’m sure some have but I also know that by posing as your enemy and doing something violent it’s a great way to gain support.

Another interesting thing is the way our government has reacted to this situation. The Obama administration has said many times throughout the years that they would support any nation or people who wanted to be free. So why has the Obama admin. taken a “deer in headlights” approach? Neither the president nor State Dept. said anything definitive for days in the beginning and the limited words they have said since have all been a bit of “duck & cover”, not saying anything in strong support for the end of the Mubarak regime or for Mubarak’s people to stay in power. All they’ve said is that the demonstrators’ demands should be heard; that free elections need to be held, there needs to be a peaceful transition and that Mubarak should probably stand down. Obama’s gov. only began being vocal about Mubarak stepping down when Mubarak himself said he wouldn’t run for another term.

Of course some of the biggest backers of this administration has come from the far left and include former domestic terrorists and people like George Soros.

Soros and his many organizations have for years talked about the need to end capitalism, restructure the US and have been fairly vocal and direct with flat out socialist (politically & economically) rhetoric. One of the “leaders” to come out of the throng of protestors is a man named Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei was born in Egypt but has lived in London for decades. He is also on the board, along with George Soros, of the International Crisis Group.

The ICG is a leading NGO and is a large source of advice for foreign governments, the UN, World Bank and EU. I’m not saying the ICG has anything to do with this in the least but it’s a big link between ElBaradei and Soros; the two also have connections with the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1992 Soros was largely responsible for the devaluation of the pound Sterling and earned over $1 billion off the damaged finances of 50 million British. He has consistently said and been reported saying how amused he was at the whole thing and how he had actually planned to devalue the pound far more. He also had a part in the 1997 Asian financial crisis which at its end the affected nations lost a total of 32% of its nominal GDP.

There has been a great deal of reports and papers showing the increasing connection & friendly behavior between the liberals in the US & Europe and radical extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood which though banned in Egypt actually have a fair chance of greatly exploiting the unrest in Egypt to their benefit. Not to mention extremist groups across the Middle East. Groups Soros donates to or runs gives around $600 million annually and much of the money goes to far left causes including the destruction of Israel and to wage war on the west & capitalism (according to their own people & websites).

Mohamed ElBaradei told the media at the beginning that he had no intention of running for president of Egypt but several days later he changed his story saying that if the people wanted him to run he would.

The Mubarak regime has been one of limited rights and crushing opposition but it has also been one of the most stable governments in the entire region. Egypt has been an ally to the US and has treaties with Israel. Under Mubarak the Egyptian economy has grown and is comparably wealthy (excluding oil dominate economies). Despite a recent downturn in their economy (which was the main cause for the demonstrations at the beginning) Egypt has things pretty good when you look at places like Sudan, its southern neighbor. This brings me to my final point:

The demonstrations did start over the economy but as you watched things unfold it became more and more about the overthrow of the government. This coincided with an influx of foreign supporters like ElBaradei and an increasing presence of the illegal Muslim Brotherhood. The MB has also had a hand in similar protests and riots across several countries.

So I think the start of the events began fairly organically but was influenced by outside and extremist groups at a time when the government was ill-prepared to act. The goal, I believe, was the overturn of the government in Egypt as well as other nations in order to set up further extremist and anti-American/anti-free market states. All helped by the support of people like Soros (either directly or in directly) and groups like Code Pink that are generally behind the scenes.

If these protests were all ran by the people of Egypt without extremist or outside influence, given that the government has promised to let them demonstrate, why have they not taken off in many other cities? If a 20% unemployment rate was the primary factor why the limited extent of the protests? And why after only 14 days has the number of protestors dropped dramatically? Mubarak has said he will step down at the end of his term but they still lack an “opposition” government and there’s a threat that his supporters will take over so reason would suggest that the size and strength of the movement would be growing, not shrinking, and not being taken over (at least on the front and in the eyes of the west) by the MB, a group with little public support in Egypt.

Perhaps there is much more here than meets the eye.

--Jacob Bogle, 2/7/2011