! UPDATE ! Muslim Brotherhood says, "Essam Sharaf has a 'good reputation'..." Essam Sharaf is Egypt's new prime minister.

! UPDATE ! Muslim Brotherhood Plans to Spawn Political Party in Egypt

For those of you who are not very familiar with the middle east or Egypt there is a book which can greatly help you. Will the Middle East Go West is a brilliant book which helps to explain much of what is going on today. Visit this site to read Freda Utley's work.

The Middle East has long been misunderstood and incorrectly portrayed by U.S. media outlets. The average American has no idea what is going on in Egypt. While I don't have all of the answers, I would like to attempt to make some sense of it.

Egypt has been the center of many major historical events which often ended poorly for Egypt. The British and the French dominated Egypt's economy for a number of years.

Freta Utley:

England established her dominion over Egypt, and France hers over Morocco and Algeria, during the same century that China was being converted into a “sub-colony” of the Western Powers. And when, during World War I, the Arabs of the Fertile Crescent won their liberation from Turkey by fighting for England and France, they found they had merely exchanged Turkish for British or French overlords in Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

The Suez Canal has long been a point of contention globally. The global importance of the canal has always effected Egypt's political atmosphere, and more importantly its ability to control its own destiny. The leader of Egypt during the Suez Crisis was Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Nasser was walking a fine line trying to make sure that Egypt remained a sovereign nation while still getting the foreign aid that it needed. During the 50s U.S. foreign policy was geared towards keeping Egypt from becoming a satellite of the Soviet Union. At the time the general position for the U.S., to make it very simple, was that any revolution was bad because it was most likely spearheaded by Russia. Egypt was attempting to please everyone and remain neutral when it came to the U.S. and Russia.

Egypt, unable to protect itself militarily, acquired weapons from the Soviets. Because of Egypt's relationship with the Soviet Union (by way of arms deals) the U.S. withdrew funding for the Aswan Dam project.

Quote from James William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee January 3, 1945 – December 31, 1974:

"The Aswan Dam project was a sound project from the point of view of engineering feasibility and it was a reasonable risk for economic development loans. Sources of capital other than those involved in the offer which was made to Egypt, both private sources and other government sources, were definitely interested in pursuing the project

. . . . it was recognized that the Aswan Dam. . . was vital to the future of Egypt. . . without such a development, Egypt with its increasing population, may be expected to suffer a constantly lowerin g standard of living . . . [causing] social and political unrest in Egypt . . . [and endangering] the unstable peace of the Middle East.

The Administration’s decision to withdraw the offer to Egypt was made against the advice of the United States Ambassador to Egypt, and the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Shortly after; Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company.

On 26 July 1956, in retaliation for the loss of funding and to help pay for the Aswan project, Nasser gave a speech in Alexandria where he denounced Western influence in the Arab world and announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company,[59] and how existing stockholders would be paid off.

Because of the Suez Canal's importance with relation to global trade; Egypt has been primarily controlled by outside forces even to this day. Because Egypt's exports are weak, whoever could supply necessary foreign aid had the most influence. Since the 50s that has primarily been the U.S. Egypt is in the same situation as many other Middle Eastern state. There is a growing population which doesn't export enough to support its population. The end result is a largely populated country with no control over its destiny.

The rioting in Egypt is happening for the most part because of food prices. In the U.S. we spend around 10% of our individual GDP on food and eat three meals a day. To contrast, Egyptians spend close to 50% of their individual GDP on food and eat two meals a day.

Economists and experts in food security have warned repeatedly in recent years that an unbridled rise in food prices could trigger the very kind of explosion of citizen anger that's now threatening to topple the Egyptian government. Such anger is likely to rise elsewhere, too.

A large nation with lots of desert, Egypt must import more than half of its food supply. Since 2008, there's been sporadic unrest there as the cost of staples, from bread to fruits to vegetables, has gone up steadily.

One of those warning about the food prices was Hamdi Abdel-Azim, an economist and former president at the Sadat Academy for Social Sciences in Cairo.

"If the rise in food costs persists, there will be an explosion of popular anger against the government," he told the IPS Inter Press Service in mid-November.

A few weeks earlier, political opponents of President Hosni Mubarak had rallied to protest rising prices and to demand price ceilings on products to protect Egypt's poor.

Soaring food prices aren't the only reason that Egyptians took to the streets to try to topple their long-serving president. But they're a significant factor, and a steady surge in global commodity prices reminiscent of 2008 is sure to bring new battles over food security this year.

Food security isn't something that many Americans even consider.

Egyptians are sick of being ruled by a puppet government who really doesn't do much other than "just enough" to pacify the general population.

There is no easy answer to what is happening in Egypt, but there are definitely dire consequences if the country slips under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Chaos is the perfect driver for extremist groups to grab hold of power. Keep in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood is behind a lot of the rioting, funny how that works. All The Muslim Brotherhood would have to do when they come into power is call off the dogs, so to speak, and they'll look like heroes to the Egyptian people. Remember if it gets bad enough people will want ANYONE to stop it; whoever can stop it. If that becomes the case the world will definitely regret the poor decisions made on behalf of the international community.

Political decisions all too often result in kicking the can down the road indefinitely. When you leave office it's someone else's problem right?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

UPDATE: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) found to be unconstitutional by Florida Federal Judge.

Click here to see a copy of Judge Roger Vinson's ruling.

Obama's entire premise for health care reform, as stated by him, was that health care will bankrupt the country. His answer; the 2000-plus page health care bill.

OK let's look at this logically. If the cost of health care is the issue at hand --the current premiums are too high. How is a bill which mandates higher levels of coverage at current premium rates going to lower cost? The answer plain and simple; it won't.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Not only is the health care legislation not going to lower costs and force people into new plans. It's going to jeopardize coverage for many people who currently have coverage. Take a peek at the list of companies that have been granted waivers (from the law) so they can continue to provide insurance for their employees. There is a total of 733 waivers granted for 2011 so far.

Helping Consumers Keep their Coverage

The Affordable Care Act is designed to provide Americans with affordable, high-quality coverage options – while ensuring that those who like their current coverage can keep it. Unfortunately, today, limited benefit plans, or “mini-med” plans are often the only type of insurance offered to some workers. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act will end mini-med plans when Americans will have better access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance plans that cannot use high deductibles or annual limits to limit benefits. In the meantime, the law requires insurers to phase out the use of annual dollar limits on benefits. In 2011, most plans can impose an annual limit of no less than $750,000.

Mini-med plans have lower limits than allowed under the Affordable Care Act. While mini-med plans do not provide security in the event of serious illness or accident, they are unfortunately the only option that some employers offer. In order to protect coverage for these workers, the Affordable Care Act allows these plans to apply for temporary waivers from rules restricting the size of annual limits to some group health plans and health insurance issuers.

Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage. In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy.

If these 733 companies can only afford the "mini-med" plans now in 2011, how are they going to afford more expensive plans in 2014? You can't increase coverage and decrease cost. That's simply not possible. Insurance companies can't take on increased liability (resulting in more payout) without increasing rates.

Also consider; people who have health insurance which doesn't meet the new minimum requirements will not be able to keep their current coverage. The mini-med plans don't meet the requirements. There are also regular insurance plans which won't meet the new requirements. Nearly every insurance plan has an annual limit. The law mandates no annual limit. Do you see where this is going?

Not only will people not be able to keep their coverage, it is far more likely that many employers will simply drop coverage all together.

I don't think I'm the only one who has figured this out. I'm pretty sure the people who authored the Obama-care legislation knew this as well...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I want everyone to pay very close attention to the use of the words "invest" and "spend". I went over this two years ago, take a peek...

Here are some of the examples of Obama’s use of the word SPEND.

Obama:

But given the problems that the financial bailout program has had so far -- banks not wanting to talk about how they're spending the money, the AIG bonuses that you mentioned -- why do you think the public should sign on for another new sweeping authority for the government to take over companies, essentially?

And -- and so what we're trying to emphasize is, let's make sure that we're making the investments that we need to grow to meet those growth targets, at the same time we're still reducing the deficit by a couple of trillion dollars, we are cutting out wasteful spending in areas like Medicare, we're changing procurement practices when it comes to the Pentagon budget, we are looking at social service programs and education programs that don't work and eliminate them.

Now observe Obama’s use of the word INVEST.

Obama:

It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest.

We invest in reform that will bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses and our government.

But it is -- it is going to be an impossible task for us to balance our budget if we're not taking on rising health care costs, and it's going to be an impossible task to balance our budget or even approximate it if we are not boosting our growth rates. And -- and that's why our budget focuses on the investments we need to make that happen.

And so what we've said is, look, let's invest in health information technologies.

See the difference? The truth, on the other hand, is the only way for any government to “invest” is to spend money. Funny how that works, isn’t it? We are currently borrowing and spending. Show me where the government is saving anything!

Polling data shows that people have a negative reaction to the word spend. People have a much more positive reaction to the word invest.

On a side note. I played a drinking game a few years back during a presidential debate between Bush and Kerry. Every time Kerry would say, "I have a plan" you had to take a shot. Needless to say, I couldn't really continue on the path I had set out. I beleive that the use of the word "invest" is going to be the "I have a plan" equivalent during this State of The Union Address.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I find this to be an interesting subject. I find this screen shot of this website to me much funnier.

"A behaviour that has become typical may still express the problems that once caused us to see it as pathological," MIT professor Sherry Turkle writes in her new book, Alone Together, which is leading an attack on the information age.

Turkle's book, published in the UK next month, has caused a sensation in America, which is usually more obsessed with the merits of social networking. She appeared last week on Stephen Colbert's late-night comedy show, The Colbert Report. When Turkle said she had been at funerals where people checked their iPhones, Colbert quipped: "We all say goodbye in our own way."

Turkle's thesis is simple: technology is threatening to dominate our lives and make us less human. Under the illusion of allowing us to communicate better, it is actually isolating us from real human interactions in a cyber-reality that is a poor imitation of the real world.

Of course you are reading about this on the internet. And if you notice in the screen shot, you can send your friends links to this article on Twitter, Facebook or by email! It might just be too late for them though.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

This is another transparent attempt to confuse people.

Traditionally, Democrats and Republicans sit on opposite sides of the House Chamber for the speech, but this past week, Colorado's Sen. Mark Udall suggested the parties integrate the seating.

It's not a rule that parties have separate seating arrangements, Udall tells Weekend Edition's Liane Hansen, it's just a custom.

"It's a custom that's in some ways understandable," he says. But given the tragedy in Tucson and the elevated rhetoric of the last couple years, Udall thinks it's time for lawmakers to come together — at least symbolically.

First of all, no Republican should sit next to a Democrat based on the terms stated. Doing so would lend credence to the false allegations about political rhetoric being the cause of the Tucson shooting. The Tucson shooting had nothing to do with political rhetoric.

Aside from Democrats trying to make something out of nothing; none of this makes any sense at all. Unless you consider this; Obama is going to have to talk about health care during his State of The Union Address. Why, you might ask? The White House has said that the speech is going to focus on jobs and the economy right? Well Obama's entire pitch for health care reform was based on health care bankrupting the country. health care is going to be mentioned in the speech. The democrats don't want to go on record (in any way) when it comes to health care. We know that no democrats ran in support of health care during the most recent November elections.

Democrats want the seating to be staggered so that people tuning in to the speech won't be able to tell who is standing and who is sitting, Democrat or Republican. The obvious idea is to skew any response related to health care so that it appears that more people are in favor of it than really are. It will also blur the line so that most people won't know which side is for or against any particular subject.

If you ask me; this seating idea is so easy to see through that no Republican should fall for it.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.