Mass mooning targets Trump Tower

Over the weekend a “rowdy and enthusiastic” crowd gathered in front of Chicago’s Trump Tower and engaged in a coordinated mooning of the building bearing the brand of the president. Chicago’s Fox 32 recorded the event for posterity.

The video shows a small crowd of 100-200 people gathered at the River Walk across from the imposing edifice. As the crowd counts down from twenty, they simultaneously drop their trousers and flash their posteriors at the architectural stand-in for the president. Video of the event does not require parental discretion due to the camera angle.

An obvious question is why? The Facebook page “Chicago Moons the Trump Tower” gives the official name for the event as “Operation ‘Kiss Our Asses, Release Your Taxes!’” and notes that it was presented by “S#!TSHOW,” a satirical Youtube show.

A second Facebook page for the show contains a more graphic video of the mass mooning, which we watched so that you don’t have to. Accompanied by a tuba and drums, the protesters chanted “This is what democracy looks like” and “We don’t want your tiny hands anywhere near our underpants.”

What did the protesters hope to accomplish? The statement on the Facebook page says, “Donald Trump doesn't think the American people want to see his tax returns, so let's show him that we do in the classiest way possible! Meet at 3:30 PM at Trump Tower, right in front by the riverside. At the crack of 4:00 PM (pun intended), we'll pull down our pants for a whole 10 seconds and send a powerful message to the Washington elites.”

Precisely what the message was is unclear other than that the protesters do not like Donald Trump and think that mooning the Trump Tower will somehow influence him to release his tax returns. This logic is reminiscent of the Underpants Gnomes from “South Park.” Phase one: Moon the Trump Tower. Phase two: ? Phase three: Trump releases tax returns.

At the time of the protest, President Trump was 1,300 miles away at his Mar-a-Lago resort in West Palm Beach. The president was not injured, emotionally or otherwise, by the mooning. The White House had no comment and Mr. Trump’s taxes have still not been released.

No protesters were apparently injured either. It is unknown whether any were injured or murdered as they returned home after the event. The Chicago Tribune reports that 14 people have already been murdered this month in the city.

The protest was a microcosm of the leftist resistance to Trump. The plan was to engage in an utterly pointless and offensive action that accomplished nothing other than make the participants feel better about themselves and allow them to vent their anger.

It did do one other thing as well. It showed the world what the left thinks democracy looks like: A bunch of asses.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Beware of tax protest conspiracies

As we approach April 15, the deadline for filing federal income tax returns for most individual taxpayers, many people question whether Americans are really required to pay an income tax. Scores of Youtube videos featuring people such as former IRS agent Joseph Bannister claim that the federal income tax is illegal and that Americans cannot be forced to pay taxes to the IRS. In celebration of the Ides of April, let us once again don our tin foil hats and delve into the world of income tax protesters.

One claim made by tax protesters is that there is no law on the books that permits a federal income tax. It is true that the original income tax signed into law by Abraham Lincoln in 1861 was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895. This problem was fixed with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913. Some tax protesters argue that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Professor Jonathan Siegel of the George Washington University Law School explains that the 16^th Amendment had the same ratification process as other amendments and really is part of the Constitution.

Another claim is that even though the Constitution permits an income tax, no federal law ever enacted one. Some tax protesters claim that even after years of searching that they have found no law establishing an income tax. In truth, they need look no further than Title 26 of the U.S. Code, commonly known as the Internal Revenue Code. Subtitle A, chapter one, subchapter A, part one legally establishes an income tax on individuals. This part also defines that wages are included in taxable income, debunking another claim by some tax protesters.

The “861 argument” against paying income tax is based on a section of chapter one of the tax code. Section 861 relates to resident and nonresident aliens working in the United States as well as foreign corporations. Section 861 does not apply to U.S. citizens unless they have income that has already been taxed according to Professor Siegel. If a U.S. citizen has paid taxes to a foreign government, the federal tax code allows them to use these payments as a credit on their federal income tax. Otherwise Section 861 does not apply to U.S. citizens.

Tax protesters also cite the names of many people who have allegedly “beat the IRS” in court. What they don’t say is that while these people may sometimes avoid jail time, they are not so fortunate when it comes to avoiding civil penalties and being forced to pay back taxes and penalties. Often tax protesters are sent to jail as well.

Vernice Kuglin, a former FedEx pilot who appears in some online videos as someone who beat the IRS in court, actually was acquitted in 2003 of falsifying W-4 forms and failing to pay taxes. Although she did not go to jail, she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties and had her wages garnished by the IRS according to court documents cited on Tax Protester Dossiers. The Memphis Daily News reported in 2007 that the IRS had filed an additional tax lien against her house for $188,025.

Joseph Banister, the IRS agent who was mentioned in the first paragraph, also escaped jail although he was indicted for conspiracy to avoid taxes. According to Tax Protester Dossiers, Banister was acquitted of the criminal charge, but was disbarred from IRS practice. The California Board of Accountancy revoked his CPA license in 2007. The CBA website cites the cause for discipline as “providing erroneous advice to taxpayers” and “improperly advising them that tax returns were not required….”

Banister’s client in the case that led to his disbarment was Walter “Al” Thompson. Thompson refused to withhold taxes from their wages and file tax documents as required by law. According to etax.com, Thompson was convicted, fined $7,500, and sentenced to 72 months in prison on a variety of charges including filing a false return and failing to pay income and Social Security taxes for his employees.

Other tax protesters were also not as lucky as Banister and Kuglin. Sherry Peel Jackson, a Stone Mountain, Ga. resident and former IRS agent, was found guilty on four counts of failing to file tax returns. Jackson appears in some of the internet films espousing tax protest theories. She was sentenced to four years in prison. She surrendered her CPA license to Georgia authorities after her conviction.

Many other tax protesters have gone to jail when they followed their beliefs and failed to file tax returns. Other prominent tax resisters who have gone to jail include Peter Hendrickson, author of “Cracking the Code,” a book of tips on how to avoid paying taxes, who received a 33 month jail term and a $25,000 fine. Larken Rose, a proponent of the 861 argument, received a 15 month prison sentence and $10,000 fine. Irwin Schiff has gone to jail three times for criminal violations of tax laws. He is currently serving a 13 year sentence on tax charges and criminal contempt.

The lesson taxpayers should learn is that if there were an easy way out of paying taxes, nobody would pay them, taxes would not be a major political issue and the Republicans would not put such emphasis on tax cuts. Most obviously, if paying income taxes was not mandatory, people who do not pay taxes would not go to jail. It is not illegal to question the legality of the income tax. It is illegal to refuse to pay taxes or file a return.

Many conspiracy theories are ultimately harmless. Staying inside because of a fear of chemtrails may hamper one’s life, but it won’t ruin it. Believing that that JFK was the victim of a vast conspiracy, that secret forces were behind the September 11 attacks, or that Obamacare requires Americans to receive implants or establishes a secret police force probably won’t cause one to lose their job or family. While it is not against the law to espouse conspiracy theories about the income tax, acting on those theories can cost conspiracy believers years in jails and thousands of dollars in fines and penalties.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/tax-protester-conspiracy-theories-can-lead-to-jail-fines

Occupy Wall Street poses election year liability for Democrats

Occupy protesters celebrated May Day, the traditional labor and communist holiday, with spasms of violence across the country on Monday. According to Buzz Feed, “Black Bloc” protesters in New York, the cradle of the Occupy movement, attacked photographers and tried to take their cameras. The New York Daily News reports that the NYPD arrested 86 protesters on charges “ranging from disorderly conduct to assaulting cops.”

On the West Coast, there was even more violence. In Oakland, police used tear gas and “flash bang” grenades to break up demonstrations and arrested at least 25 protesters according to CBS News. In Seattle, the violence seemed to be the worst as Occupiers dressed in black broke windows, vandalized cars, blocked traffic and did extensive damage to the federal courthouse MSNBC reports.

In Cleveland, protests were canceled after five members of Occupy Cleveland were arrested by the FBI for plotting to blow up bridges. The Plain Dealer reports that the men are anarchists who were part of the Occupy encampment on Cleveland’s Public Square. One of the men had been arrested with others in the Occupy movement for disrupting a Cuyahoga County foreclosure sale in March.

As the Occupy movement reawakens, it is becoming more of a liability for Democrats. A Quinnipiac poll from November 2011, the end of last year’s protest season, found that registered voters disapproved of the Occupy movement by a margin of 39 to 30 percent. A further 30 percent were undecided, but if the violence becomes more pronounced it is likely that more voters will turn against the Occupiers.

The problem for Democrats is that President Obama and many other prominent party members have backed the movement since its inception. Democrats have defended the movement as similar to the Tea Party, which has been linked to virtually no violence, and expressed support for the Occupiers and their goals. Democratic support for the movement continued even after protests turned violent in New York and elsewhere across the country.

In an ABC News interview from October 2011, President Obama responded to the protests saying, “The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded.”

The president also noted in the same interview that “In some ways, they [Occupy Wall Street] are not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party.  Both on the left and the right, I think people feel separated from their government. They feel that their institutions aren’t looking out for them.”

On another occasion, after being heckled by Occupy protesters, President Obama responded “Families like yours, young people like the ones here today — including the ones who were just chanting at me — you’re the reason that I ran for office in the first place.” A video of the incident is linked by the Weekly Standard.

Similarly, Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview quoted on Talking Points Memo, ““What is the core of that protest, and why is it increasing in terms of the people it’s attracting — the core is the bargain has been breached with the American people. The core is the American people do not think the system is fair or on the level….. That is the core of what you’re seeing on Wall Street.” Biden went on to compare Occupy Wall Street with the rise of the Tea Party.

Even congressional Democrats stated support for the Occupy Movement. Senate majority leader Harry Reid said that “the gulf between rich and poor… has motivated thousands to occupy parks across the country and make their voices heard” according to Politico. Former house speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News “I support the message to the establishment, whether it's Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest that change has to happen.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee posted an online petition supporting Occupy Wall Street. The website says that the petition is a response to Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) comment that he was “increasingly concerned by the growing mobs” of protesters. The petition begins, “As Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters, ‘The message of the American people is that no longer will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street….’”

The Occupy movement has not returned the Democratic love. Anger at President Obama’s corporate bailouts has been a central pillar of the Occupy movement since its inception. An informal survey of Occupy Atlanta protesters last summer on Examiner.com revealed that more were aligned with Ron Paul than with Barack Obama. As noted earlier, Occupiers also harassed and heckled President Obama at speeches. When Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) tried to address Occupy Atlanta last year, he was turned away because the movement was “not about one individual” and recognized “no hierarchy” according to Creative Loafing.

All of this puts Democrats in a difficult position with respect to the November elections. The Democrats have publicly aligned themselves with a movement that is physically attacking businesses and spawning domestic terrorists. As the movement becomes more overtly violent, it is likely to lose even more support among the American people.

If the Democrats continue to stand with Occupy Wall Street as it becomes more violent, they risk alienating independent and moderate voters. If they reject the Occupiers and their violent tactics, they risk alienating the left-wing Democratic base, which is already unhappy with many of the president’s policies. To win their elections, President Obama and threatened Democrats in the senate need to win the majority of independent voters while maximizing the turnout of their base.

Much of the damage to the Democratic base may already be done. A video posted by the Washington Free Beacon shows Occupiers in New York expressing their dissatisfaction with President Obama this week at the May Day gathering. The protesters say that President Obama betrayed them and call him a liar. One man (not on the video) said, “I feel that Obama, especially on the civil liberties perspective, has raped me in the a–.” Another says that he will “never again vote for a Democrat for anything, not even dogcatcher.”

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/occupy-protests-pose-election-year-liability-for-democrats

Occupy Atlanta back in Woodruff Park

Four months after Atlanta police evicted Occupy Atlanta protesters from Woodruff Park, they are back. With apparently little to no fanfare, a small number of Occupiers and less than ten tents have again taken up residence the downtown Atlanta park.

The new encampment is a far cry from the group that was evicted in October. In mid-October, the activists had set up a thriving hamlet within the confines of what they called “Troy Davis Park” in a nod to the convicted cop-killer who was executed by Georgia in September. At that time, the activists in the park easily numbered more than 100 and scores of tents filled the park. There was a “free store,” a medical tent, and a “free child care” tent. Signs proclaiming “we are the 99 percent” littered the grounds of the park. Visitors were welcomed at tables under a large canopy. The sound of drums permeated the air and protesters marched up and down the sidewalks at intervals. (View photos from the October occupation here.)

In contrast, the new encampment consists of only a handful of tents and three visible occupiers, all men. Two occupiers talked while another played with his dog on the grass. The only sign in evidence, other than scribbled notes on the tents, was one with a rambling message about a “Jewish rebel,” an apparent attempt to link the encampment to Jesus Christ.

One of the occupiers said that he had been a protester during the Vietnam War. The man said that he believed that the U.S. did “need to be in Afghanistan,” but offered his belief that that the City of Atlanta discriminated on the basis of economic status as justification for the presence of the protesters.

As justification for this belief, he said that an Atlanta police officer allegedly arrested him for jaywalking while he was dressed shabbily and had his long hair down. He said that he later did the same thing in front of the same police officer while wearing business clothes with his hair tucked under a hat. On that occasion, he said the officer simply waved at him.

The man said that he had been camping in the park for several months although he did not live there full time because he “like[s] to be indoors.” He did not offer a specific date for when the protesters returned to the park after the Mayor Kasim Reed had them evicted in October. He did say that the current group was very different from the idealists who inhabited the park in the fall. He said that fights now occurred frequently. In October, both police and protesters said that there was no trouble from the Occupiers.

A downtown ambassador wasn’t sure how long the Occupy Atlanta encampment had been back either. He confirmed that the new group was not as peaceful as the original encampment. According to the ambassador, 80 to 90 percent of the new Occupiers were homeless people who spend their time in the park drinking. This often leads to violence. The larger encampment in October prohibited the use of alcohol and drugs. The ambassador did not know if the mayor plans to order the new Occupiers evicted from the park as well.

A spokesman for the mayor was not aware that Occupy Atlanta was camping in the park again. He stated that the group was allowed to be in the park until it closes at 11:00 p.m., but that no overnight camping is allowed. He planned to have Atlanta police officers investigate.

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/occupy-atlanta-back-woodruff-park

A visit to Occupy Atlanta

Protesters on Peachtree (David W. Thornton)

As Occupy Atlanta entered its second week, I decided to see for myself what was going on at Woodruff Park. With my three-year-old daughter in tow, I set out for downtown Atlanta to find out if the local occupiers were as rowdy as the Occupy Wall Street crowd in New York.








My first brush with the activists occurred as I was driving down Peachtree St. toward Woodruff Park. Appropriately enough, as I approached Peachtree and Wall St., I heard drums and saw marchers parading up the sidewalk, accompanied by a bicyclist who was somewhat reminiscent of Grizzly Adams. I snapped a couple of pictures as they passed by and then continued toward the main encampment.







Woodruff Park, a small green space located in the midst of downtown Atlanta, was mostly quiet early in the afternoon. As I approached, the site of scores of tents was contrasted with a light jazz music that seemed to be emanating from speakers around the park. The activists, who probably numbered between one and two hundred, were almost equaled by curiosity seekers and locals enjoying the tables by the fountains or playing chess with oversized pieces. There were also a number of people who appeared to be homeless and may or may not have been connected with the occupiers.



A large tent at the entrance to the park beckoned visitors. Another sign proclaimed the rules: “Love everybody, no alcohol, no drugs, [and] no weapons.” An American flag fluttered in a tree behind the welcome tent. Other facilities including a tent offering free child care, a first aid tent with a sign on the adjacent trash can warning “do not pick from this trash can it is right by the medic station.” A “free store” was a large tarp in the center of the encampment with a few clothing items arrayed. Wal-mart, it wasn’t.







In contrast to reports from other cities, Woodruff Park was not covered with litter. There were protest signs scattered on the ground, but the area seemed clean otherwise. A number of porta-potties were set up on a street beside the park. Police officers and downtown ambassadors, both of which were present in force, said that the protesters had not caused any trouble.







There seemed to be relatively few activists around. Many were sleeping or lounging in the shade. One played plastic bucket drums. On the other side of the park, another activist painted designs on more bucket drums. One small group sat under the trees listening to a young man strum a guitar. Few seemed to pay attention to the sight-seers wandering in their midst.







One of the first activists that I spoke with was a black Marine Corps veteran. He offered one of the few concrete reasons for taking part in the protest. He was upset that his mortgage rate was over seven percent after Congress had given trillions of dollars to bail out Wall St. investment firms and provide capital for banks. Even after President Obama’s mortgage modification program was enacted, the man had still not been able to get his loan refinanced in spite of being charged numerous fees to apply for a new loan.







One man, Logan, held a sandwich board that read, “Close your account now.” I asked what he suggested that people do with their money after they closed their accounts. “Try a credit union,” he suggested. That’s hardly radical. I am a longtime credit union member myself. Mainstream consumer activists like Clark Howard and Dave Ramsey would probably approve as well.







Another sign that the activists were not totally sour on corporations and capitalism was the presence of an ice cream vendor just outside the encampment. Although not exactly doing a brisk business on the pleasant afternoon, Bo, the operator of the stand, said that the occupiers were friendly and recognized that he worked for a small, local company. One might wonder how big and successful or in how many cities a company must be before it becomes evil and greedy.







Signs hinted at a smattering of progressive causes. A hand-lettered sign proclaimed the park to be “Troy Davis Park,” a reference to the convicted cop-killer executed by Georgia recently. Another sign said “MARTA cop killed Joetavius Stafford.” Yet another decries “four years of education [and] ten years of debt.” Anti-war messages were sprinkled throughout the encampment, as were signs requesting donations.







A tall, black man who wore a paramilitary uniform drew my attention. I recorded a video of him talking to several people and explaining what the activists believe. Later, he said that his name was Wilgeens Rosenberg. Rosenberg said that he was general in Haiti Sovereignty Initiative, which opposes U.S. and U.N. involvement in Haiti. Indeed, a common thread among all the activists was an isolationist bent, opposing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.







I asked Rosenberg, the most outspoken of the activists, if he knew the origin of the occupier statistic that one percent of the population controls 99 percent of the wealth. He acknowledged that there was probably no factual basis for the claim, asking me what agency would compile such data for the U.S., let alone the world, but said that he believed it nonetheless because it seemed “obvious” from “what you see.”

The Atlanta occupiers seem somewhat more moderate than their Wall St. counterparts. Two signs seemed to capture the mood. One said, “I’m not against corporation[s] just greed.” The other read “separation of corporation and state.” Most of the activists that I spoke with did not seem to be angry at capitalism itself. Rather they were angry at the collusion of government and capitalism, what John Stossel calls “crony capitalism.”

The activists were not campaigning for Obama. In fact, most of them seemed to feel disappointed in President Obama. They were aware of Obama’s numerous connections to Wall St., and did not seem placated by his health care reform, which was not even mentioned. To my surprise, more often than not they expressed interest in Republican candidates for president in 2012. In particular, several seemed interested in Ron Paul and Herman Cain.

I only witnessed one altercation while at the encampment. This was between a conservative visitor and another man who identified himself as a Democrat. Much of the exchange was captured on video. Even this was not violent, but merely a spirited discussion.

On economic issues, the activists at Occupy Atlanta seem to hold views similar to the Tea Party. On social issues they remain left of center, which probably explains the fascination with Ron Paul. Paul melds conservative economics with libertarian social policies, which are similar to leftist positions in many cases.

By and large, the occupiers are not a pro-Democratic Party group. Their existence is symptomatic of the failure of the president’s policies to resolve the economic crisis. While they are a left-leaning group, many of them seem open to new ideas and new faces. Even though many, perhaps most, of the occupiers will vote Democratic, the occupation movement signals dissatisfaction among the Democratic base and is a harbinger for the party of problems to come.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/a-visit-to-occupy-atlanta

Slideshow of pictures from Occupy Atlanta:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/occupy-atlanta-picture-1

Occupiers vs. the Tea Party

The recent movement to “occupy” Wall St. and various American cities is being likened to a progressive Tea Party by many on the left and in the media. There are important distinctions between the three-year-old Tea Party movement and the three-week-old occupations.

The most obvious is that the Tea Party is a right-wing movement made of conservatives and libertarians. These are people who do not normally take part in demonstrations. Conversely, the left-wingers that make up the occupation movement will typically demonstrate at the drop of a hat. Over the years there have been leftist demonstrations to save the whales, encourage a nuclear freeze, end global warming, save the spotted owls, and end whichever war is going on at the time, among many others.

Along the same lines, the Tea Partiers go home. Most of them have jobs and families to go home to. Many of the occupiers seem to be young people who recently graduated and have not been able to find jobs. This explains why they are able to stay in their occupation zones for so long. The occupations started on September 17, approximately three weeks ago, and they show no signs of going home.

The Tea Party also offered concrete ideas for reform in contrast to the occupiers, who don’t seem to know what they want, other than to rail against Wall St. and capitalism. The Tea Party advocates cuts in government spending and a return to a more limited role of government. In particular, they opposed the passage of Obamacare and press for its repeal.

The occupiers have yet to find a voice, however. The Occupy Wall St. web site itself contains a discussion titled “Occupy Wall St. demands are abstract.” The “about” section of the site says that “our species and our world are in crisis” and that the “U.S. has an important role to play in the solution,” but it doesn’t say what they imagine the solution to be.

Ominously, another difference in the Tea Party and the occupiers is the propensity for racism and violence. Arrests at Tea Party events were rare if they happened at all. Already, however, there have been arrests at the sites of many occupations including Wall St., Des Moines, San Francisco, and Seattle. Although there is an Occupy Atlanta encampment in Woodruff Park, thus far no arrests have been reported there.

The hacker group Anonymous has threatened to attack financial company computer systems on behalf of the occupiers after violence between protesters and police broke out when the occupiers decided to stop traffic. There have been more direct threats of violence as well. Politico reports that state legislators in New York received an email message that threatened to “kill the wealthy.” The email, which contained talking points from the Occupy Wall St. movement such as the claim that one percent of the population controls 99 percent of the wealth, said that if New York did not renew the surtax on millionaires that “I’m going to pay a visit with my carbine to one of those tech companies you are so proud of and shoot every spoiled Ivy League [expletive] I can find.”

Racism at Tea Parties was an oft made charge, but there was very little evidence to back up the claim. On this the occupy movement is also different. Several videos have surfaced of occupiers making anti-Semitic comments and voicing conspiracy theories about how the “Jews control Wall St.”

There may be racism against some minorities as well as anti-Semitism. At the Occupy Atlanta encampment, the protesters refused to allow John Lewis, a U.S. congressman and hero of the civil rights movement, to speak. In fairness, this might not have been racism as much as disenchantment with the political process and political parties in general. Regardless, the video of the incident, with occupiers repeating the words of each speaker en masse, is amusing to watch.

In general, while the Tea Party is largely mainstream in their composition and beliefs, the occupation movement is made of left-wing radicals that most Americans would find out of the mainstream. While Tea Partiers typically say the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the “Star Spangled Banner,” the occupiers seem to feel ill at ease in America. This is an obvious explanation for the phrase “occupy Wall St.” They are in the midst of an ideological war against the rest of the country. This includes the current Democratic administration, which is probably fooling itself if it thinks that the occupations will help its reelection campaign.

Oh, and by the way, about that claim that one percent controls 99 percent of the wealth? It isn’t true. You can look it up for yourself here.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/occupy-movement-vs-the-tea-party

Is the Egyptian revolution good or bad?

http://www.flickr.com/people/81043308@N00

As the people of Georgia watched the Egyptian crowds rallying in opposition to Hosni Mubarak, many probably wondered what will come next and what it means for the rest of the world.  While Georgians from Egypt Community in Effingham County to Cairo in Grady County likely are happy for the newfound freedom of the Egyptians, it is equally likely that they profoundly hope that it does not lead to further violence that will require American involvement.

As the protests in Egypt turned increasingly violent today, many in this country and around the world are asking what comes next.  The answer to that question largely depends on who comes next.  At this point there is no credible leader to replace current Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.  Mubarak recently bowed to public pressure and announced that he will not seek re-election in national elections this September.

Elbaradei (iaea.org)

The most visible candidate for the job is Mohamed Elbaradei.  Elbaradei, who recently announced his openness to running, is the most visible opposition leader.  Elbaradei served three terms as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  During his tenure at the UN, Elbaradei faced US opposition because of his belief that Iran was not working to build a nuclear weapon.  The big question today is whether Elbaradei backs the democracy movement or the Muslim Brotherhood.  Many observers, including Middle East expert Joel Rosenberg, believe that Elbaradei is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. 

The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamic organization founded in 1928.  The group was founded by Hassan al-Banna, an admirer of Adolf Hitler.  The Brotherhood espoused Wahabism, the same form of Islam touted by Saudi financier and terrorist Osama bin Laden.  Wahabbi Muslims believe that jihad should be used to spread Islam throughout the world.  The Muslim Brotherhood has long been banned in Egypt because of its insistence on enacting sharia law (although some Brotherhood members were elected to Egypt’s parliament as independents).  Members of the Brotherhood assassinated Hosni Mubarak’s predecessor, Anwar Sadat, in 1981 in retaliation for Sadat’s decision to sign a peace treaty with Israel.  It was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who helped form Egyptian Islamic Jihad and became a leading al-Qaeda cleric. 

Emblem of the Muslim Brotherhood

If the Muslim Brotherhood were to take over Egypt, the country might well become another Islamic theocracy like Iran or a terrorist state like Gaza, where terrorist group Hamas won democratic elections.  On the other hand, some in the West believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is capable of becoming a peaceful political organization.  Disturbingly, the Obama Administration has hinted that there might be a place for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in the new Egyptian government.  Today there is no charismatic leader of the Brotherhood akin to Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini which might help to prevent the group from seizing control of the country.  Likewise, the Egyptian uprisings seem to be spontaneous, secular, and democratic rather than inspired by religious fundamentalism.  The Brotherhood has admitted that they are not responsible for the uprising, although they are a dominant part of the opposition to Mubarak’s regime.

But if the Muslim Brotherhood lacks a national leader, so does the democracy movement.  Like the American Tea Party, the Egyptian protests seem to be a grass roots movement made possible by the internet and modern telecommunications.  It can be a drawback, as well as a strength, of such movements that they have no national leader.  The Tea Party had an established national opposition party to work with, but Egypt’s democracy movement will be starting from scratch.  A popular uprising can throw a dictator from power, but a country cannot be run by a mob.

The final major player in the coming Egyptian history is the army.  The army could have cracked down on protesters as the Chinese did at Tiananmen Square in 1989 when the People’s Liberation Army killed thousands of protesters.  The Egyptian army has been involved in politics for decades since overthrowing the monarchy in 1952.  After being involved in several disastrous wars against Israel, it is likely that the army would want to preserve Egypt’s secular government and act to prevent the country from becoming a radical Islamist state.  The army might also eventually move to restore order if the violence between opposition and pro-Mubarak protesters becomes too prevalent.

At this point, no one knows where the future of Egypt will lead.  What is indisputable is that the country is at a crossroads.  In one direction lies the prosperity and freedom of a democracy.  In the other lies the possibility that an Egyptian equivalent of the Taliban or another strongman will spin the country into more auth

Freedom or stability in the Middle East?

Kormin

In the past few weeks, Georgians have watched as two Arab nations were rocked by spontaneous uprisings.  First, the Tunisian people rose up against Ben Ali and threw the dictator out of the country.  The spontaneous revolution occurred without the support or aid of Western democracies.  In contrast, US presidents have long been friendly with the Tunisian regime.

The Tunisian revolution started after a street peddler set himself on fire to protest unemployment.  The protests spread throughout the country and four weeks later Ben Ali, who had ruled the country for twenty-three years, fled.

Now, the people of Egypt are taking to the streets against the one-party rule of President Hosni Mubarak.  Three protesters have already given their lives to push for an end to the regime as police and security forces crack down.  The ultimate outcome of the Egyptian protests is still in doubt.

What has fueled these unprecedented revolts?  For years, most of the Arab (and Muslim) world has lived under authoritarian regimes.  For the past half century, these leaders have marshaled their people against Israel.  The Arab people were convinced that they had to sacrifice in order to throw the Zionists out of the Middle East.  Every problem of the Arab nations, including shark attacks, was and is blamed on Israel.  Fifty years later, all the Arabs have to show for it are thousands of dead and impoverished economies. 

The first two true Arab democracies are less than ten years old.  Afghanistan had its first free election in 2004.  Iraq followed in 2005.  These elections are the result of the heroic efforts of American soldiers and the tenacity of President Bush.  Although many Muslim leaders condemned the United States and other countries participating in the War on Terror as waging war on Islam, it was American soldiers and other members of the Coalition who sacrificed their lives to free Muslims from the despotic rule of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. 

Perhaps, the people of Egypt and Tunisia were tired of listening to the empty promises of their leaders.  Perhaps they were inspired by the images of Afghan and Iraqi voters standing in opposition to the terrorists as they chose their own leaders.  Perhaps they grew to believe that the central control of a nation and its economy was not a viable path to prosperity.

The Middle East is at a crossroads.  For decades, American policy has been one of pursuing stability.  Stability means that the present authoritarian governments will stay in power.  Stability means no change.  Tunisia was unstable, but it is now free. 

Do we want to promote stability or freedom in the Middle East?  Freedom is messy.  Freedom is not stable.  Nevertheless, free Middle Eastern nations may be the best road to peace in the Middle East.  If the people of the Middle East throw off the shackles of their tyrants, it is more likely that their nations will grow into vibrant economies.  With strong economies and lower unemployment, governments will have fewer reasons to use propaganda to demonize Israel.  Peace might actually be possible.

The absence of stability means the possibility of short term violence and war, but there are worse things than war.  Freedom is never given freely by tyrants.  It is won with the blood of patriots who are willing to give of themselves so that their children can be free.  Our own country would not exist without our war of independence and the willingness of our forefathers to fight to be free.  As we Georgians celebrate the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, let us applaud and support the people of the Arab world who are fighting for their freedom.