There’s little question that the Egyptian people are protesting in resistance to tyranny, or that Mubarek has abused human rights and exercised totalitarian oppression of the people in the process of maintaining his 30 year rule. The Mubarek regime justifies its oppression as the only effective means of preventing the violent overthrow of its government and its replacement with an even more tyrannical regime. The people have clearly suffered under Mubarek’s rule, they no longer (if ever they did) subscribe to this justification for oppression, and are seeking a change in government. The Egyptian people, as all mankind, have a Natural Law right to the liberty and self-determination that they seek and that has long been withheld from them.
While the current mass protests in Egypt may indeed precipitate a change in government, the use of violence by either the protesters or the government is deplorable and is only destructive to the causes of either party. The use of violence in this type of mass popular uprising, where an unarmed people face a heavily armed and mechanized military force, the people will suffer more casualties and a higher rate of defeat, unless there is a significant mind-set change in the troops, military and other political leaders. If the current protests do lead to a change in government, it remains unclear whether such change will improve or diminish liberty for the Egyptians.
As freedom loving Americans, we can certainly identify and empathize with the desire of the Egyptian people to be free. However, regardless of American commercial or political interests in Egypt (which are undeniably significant), it is not our place to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, one way or the other. The question, then, is how do we support the Egyptian people in their quest for freedom without intervening inappropriately in internal, sovereign affairs? While we can provide moral support in terms of world reporting on the protests and our government and public opinion leaders, and the American people speaking out in support of the people, anything more than this could easily be interpreted as inappropriate meddling, and could actually be detrimental to the cause of freedom.
The Egyptian Army and Police have kept Mubarek in power all these years. While the U.S. has worked with Mubarek by default, in order to have dealings with Egypt, the U.S. has in no way “propped-up” the Mubarek regime at the expense, or promoted its oppression of the Egyptian people. Continued efforts to encourage the Egyptian government, whether changed or not, to conform to the principles of freedom and human rights, including the right of self-determination, must be maintained.
The real danger is that many groups and organizations that do not have the best interests of the Egyptian people at heart, including their right to freedom and self-determination, are seeking to co-opt
the current power of the people for their own designs of imposing different tyrannies. If the current government is incapable or unwilling to supervise the peaceful transfer of power to a new government that will hold free elections and respect the rights of the people, it is likely that the Mubarek government will disintegrate, leaving a vacuum that will be filled by one or the other of these totalitarian groups, leaving the people no better off, and perhaps even worse off, than they were under Mubarek.
Egyptian President Sadat, a leader who was largely responsible for Egypt signing on to a major agreement of cooperation and peace with Israel (the first such agreement between an Arab nation and Israel in modern times), was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood. At that time Alman-al-Zawahiri
was a major figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. After being jailed for his terrorist activity, he became the mentor of Bin Laden, and currently serves as second in command of al Qaeda.
The Muslim Brotherhood, despite Mubarek’s tremendous oppression and counter-terrorism efforts, has continued to spread blood and horror throughout Egypt, spread terrorism beyond Egypt’s borders with Hamas, al Qaeda and others, and continues to pursue the violent overthrow of the Mubarek government so they can impose an Islamic Totalitarian State. These folks, and many others like them, are not the good guys. Egypt is at great danger at this time of ending up like Gaza (ruled by Hamas), or more recently, Lebanon (ruled by Hezbollah).
Whether or not countries seeking freedom and self-determination succeed in their efforts, or fail, leading to more tyranny, is of considerable interest and import, not only to the citizens of the countries seeking freedom, but to the peace and security of all nations of the world. But the truth may be that there is precious little peace and security in store for the future. Perhaps the world is fated to descend into terrorism, anarchy and totalitarianism, and resistance is futile.
I pray for people everywhere seeking freedom, and especially now for the people of Egypt, that they may achieve their righteous goals and enjoy the blessings of liberty.
In the charter documents of the United States, the Founding Fathers highlighted Natural Law from which mankind’s unalienable rights are derived, including the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. These natural and unalienable rights, especially with regard to property and the pursuit of happiness, necessarily involve economic freedom and free enterprise. Natural Law, the Founders related, also defined and restricted the role of government to that of securing these natural rights to the people, without otherwise getting in the way of the individual’s pursuit of happiness. The Constitution, based on Natural Law, grants specifically limited powers for the sole purpose of enabling the federal government to protect and preserve these rights.
One of the major tasks of government is to protect the nation’s lives, liberty, property and economic freedom from foreign invasion. Primarily for this purpose, the Constitution provides the federal government with the power to raise and command military forces in the nation’s defense against foreign military attack. The Constitution, in granting the government the power to make and control money, also provides for the defense of the country from another form of foreign invasion and attack, that of the International Banking Cartel, which through its ownership and control of the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve’s absolute monopoly to make and control money, seeks to ensnare all Americans in debt-bondage and precipitate boom and bust cycles that lead to the systematic, legalized theft of American property.
The monopoly power to make and control money was usurped by the Federal Reserve while the nation’s leaders stood by helplessly, silently complicit in the construction of this most egregious form of Corporate Statism. This wholly, privately owned business (there is NO government ownership or control of this business) is strictly controlled by foreign banking interests, who operate this government-granted monopoly with the singular goal of acquiring America’s wealth without respect to natural rights. Only by restoring the power to make and control money to the Congress, as prescribed by the Constitution, can the federal government fulfill its Natural Law role in defending the nation against this form of foreign invasion and in securing our natural rights to economic freedom, property and the pursuit of happiness.
Some see the call for restoration of the power over money to government as a departure from free enterprise principles in favor of centralized, typically inefficient and imprudent government control. However, the Federal Reserve banking system, as a government-granted, Corporate Statism monopoly, never was free enterprise, it selectively dispenses financial advantages to its crony businesses thereby removing the effects of free market competition, and its persistently imprudent actions have led to massive erosion of the dollar’s purchasing power and to recurrent periods of economic chaos and collapse.
In addition, there is a clear duty of government to protect and preserve Americans’ natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness in defense against economic invasion, manipulation and conquest by the foreign, International Banking Cartel. Protection of economic and property rights by the constitutional power over money is no less a Natural Law role of government than that of maintaining military forces to defend against military assault.
The federal government has the responsibility, duty and authority to protect America’s property and economic freedom, and can and should restore the power to make and control money to Congress. The concept of the individual States sponsoring their own public banking system, minimizing the power and negative effects of the Federal Reserve banking system monopoly on a Statewide basis, and promoting State commerce, industry, employment and prosperity, is a natural function of State’s rights and sovereignty in the protection of its citizens’ rights, and is complimentary to and does not conflict with the federal power over money.
The truth is that elections in 2009-2010 represent one of the greatest routes of the Democrat Party in history with huge Republican gains across the country. While Michael Steele presided over the RNC during this incredible period of Republican success and he should be commended for his hard work and the successes of the Republican Party, Mr. Steele cannot be given all the credit for this. On the other hand, the greatest complaint about Mr. Steele is that he failed to raise sufficient funds that might have permitted even more Republican candidates to successfully campaign for office, and even went into significant debt in an attempt to help these candidates. While it is true that RNC fund raising suffered under the direction of Mr. Steele, he likewise does not deserve most of the blame for this.
Throughout the period from 2008-2011, the people rose up in a nationwide grassroots movement (Tea Party, 9/12 Groups, and others) to protest, not only the policies, edicts, principles and lack of listening to the people of the Democrat Party which had shifted markedly to the Left, but also those of establishment Republicans, who had abandoned many of the basic tenets on which the Republican Party was based and “lost their way”, primarily in regard to fiscal responsibility and morality (especially in reference to political corruption).
“We the people” determined to promote, from the grassroots, the nomination, campaign and election of good, honest candidates we believed would adhere to constitutionally conservative principles and shun corruption, and candidates that would listen to and act based upon the will of the people. This people’s movement intentionally functioned largely within the Republican Party rather than forming a third party which would be likely to dilute and divide conservative will and benefit the Left. This grassroots strategy was calculated to replace both Democrats and establishment Republicans who had failed the American people.
Unfortunately, establishment Republican Party leaders, acting primarily through the RNC in a top-down fashion (RNC decisions imposed from the top down to the local levels), based their strategy on a singular goal of Republicans “winning elections” at the expense of promoting higher quality candidates. This strategy was directly at odds with that of the people, and in many instances the RNC supported establishment candidates across the nation, even in the nomination and primary processes, in direct competition with grassroots candidates supported and promoted by the people. The people quickly learned to support quality individual candidates and the myriad cause groups accepting donations, rather than contributing to political parties that would use those funds to continue establishment people and practices and thwart the American people’s struggle to reform American politics.
This alienation of the American people by the establishment Republican Party (RNC), coupled with the people’s movement strategy of donating to individual candidates and causes, is the single most direct cause of the RNC’s failure to raise the desired funds. Of all the establishment Republican Party leaders, at least Michael Steele, more than most others, appropriately acknowledged and supported the people’s Tea Party movement where he could; this support for the people cost Mr. Steele dearly in terms of establishment Republicans supporting his chairmanship of the RNC. In addition, Mr. Steele provided support to non-establishment candidates once they had won Republican nomination.
The fact that Mr. Steele took the RNC into debt leading up to the 2010 elections, rather than reflecting fiscal irresponsibility, is evidence of his deep commitment to helping elect Republicans to office despite sagging donations to the RNC. Similar commitment was echoed by many of the citizenry who, having exhausted available funds, made donations to worthy candidates from their credit cards. In addition, nearly every candidate for public office goes into debt for campaign expenses. Do detractors contend that this depth of commitment, where people, organizations and candidates are willing to go into debt to support their cause (an expression of free speech), should be condemned?
During the 2008-2011 season there has been dramatic “climate change” to the political environment, I believe for the better. There is a new crop of leaders across the country determined to carry out the will of the people in changing the direction of the country from a freefall into the abyss of socialism and poverty to a return to the Constitution, harmony with Natural Law, preserving unalienable rights, and to recovery of American economic prosperity and employment, not just for Wall Street, Giant Banks and Financial Institutions and other Favored Large Corporations, but for Main Street and the small businesses and the people who live and work there and continue to suffer under the heavy hand of misguided government intervention, profligate deficit spending and excessive taxation.
With due public diligence and oversight, future election cycles are likely to further improve the numbers of quality leaders elected to public office. American political parties that respect, honor and respond to the will of the people will thrive. Those that refuse to reform will continue to suffer the consequences.
Michael Steele’s RNC Chairmanship, while at times considered corrosive by establishment Republicans, cannot be justly criticized for having managed a Republican landslide with severely limited funds. In addition, the restricted ability of the RNC to raise funds is directly due to establishment Republican practices and attitudes, not to Mr. Steele’s chairmanship.
Given the circumstances under which Mr. Steele had to function, his performance as Chair of the RNC has been exceptional. Based on this performance, and if Mr. Steele truly is the face of needed Republican Party reform that he seems to be, I believe Michael Steele has more than earned another term as Chairman.