Reflecting Rage As An American State, The New York Times Calls for Sanctioning Egypt!!

Even a reputable newspaper, like The New York Times slips occasionally in the realm of the absurd. The unreasonable, the ridiculous, the war-like. Since its founding in 1851, its motto has been: "All News That's Fit to Print."

Judging those words by an editorial dated March 26, 2016, that journalistic promise induced in me, not concern. But derision, and contempt. Why?.. It was vacuous, unintelligent, and an advocacy for aggressive meddling in Egypt's internal affairs.

Under the title of "Time to Rethink Relations with Egypt," the editorial called, not only for the unwise, but for worse. The unimplementable. Here are its main false assertions. Followed by rebuttals:

A Faulty Assertion: In the summer of 2013, "the Egyptian military took power in a coup."

A Rebuttal: From June 2012 to June 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood's reign of Islamization and terror was leading Egypt precipitously into a bloody civil war.

El-Sisi's negotiations with Morsi, who presided over that descent, failed to produce a plebiscite. Responding to the call by 35 million Egyptian demonstrators, "a road map" agreed by the national civilian forces, including the Coptic Church, produced an interim secular administration headed by a venerable jurist, Adly Mansour.

By June 2014, El-Sisi was chosen for the presidency over Hamdain Sabbahi, a moderate Islamist, in open and internationally-observed elections. The fact that El-Sisi was, at that time, the Defense Minister, does not stamp his selection, by popular will, by the totalitarian stamp of a military putschist. El-Sisi ascended to the presidency of Egpyt through an orderly transfer of power.

Prior to the instalation of El-Sisi presidency, the Morsi Islamist regime, now recalled by the electorate, clung to the myth of "legitimacy by the popular choice of June 2012."

That legitimacy, originally supported by the neutral might of the Armed Forces, was destroyed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Until now, it still clings to the propagandistic myth of "legitimacy," (Al-Shariyiah). The Brotherhood's unforgiveable sin was to assume power through democracy. Then to subvert that vehicle into an instrument of subverting Egypt into an Islamic province.

When you board a bus, your ticket of admission as a passenger is not a license for hijacking that vehicle. The terms of your purchase are clear: Ride peacefully, or get off. For you are no longer a rider. You are a criminally offending usurper.

So was the status of Morsi and his Brotherhood during their one year as "rough riders." The bus driver, the Egyptian electorate, threw them out of the national bus. It was a Brotherhood self-inflicted wound. Not engineered by El-Sisi. But by the hands of the Brotherhood, presided over by a dictatorial "Guidance Bureau."

One of the Brotherhood's "Supreme Guides" had once declared "To Hell With Egypt." (Toz Fi Misr)!! The nation simply responded: "To Hell with the Brotherhood." "Tahiya Misr" (Long Live Egypt).

From an article in Arabic by Egyptian Ambassador Mohamed Noman Galal, former Ambassador to China, I quote the following: "It is Egypt's brave army which assured Egypt's safety and peace; saving the country from collapse. This is by reason of its being a national army which has deep faith in its homeland. Unlike in other several Arab countries, the Egyptian army is not the army of any president, nor is it a sectarian army, battling for either a tribe or a sect." (Al-Wasat newspaper, March 28, 2016)

A Second Faulty Assertion: "Egypt's human rights abuses became even harder to overlook."

A Rebuttal: And who are you to judge? Egypt is not a US protectorate. With the exception of the crime of genocide, the question of human rights is essentially a domestic jurisdiction matter. It has been globally manifest that outside uninvited intervention in the internal affairs of other States has always backfired. Even if, it was done, as in most cases of American unwanted intervention, by proxy. Proxies either of the internal type, or the external genre calling themselves "human rights civil society organizations."

The New York Times cites what it calls: "Egypt's crackdown on peaceful Islamists, independent journalists and human rights activists." It quotes from "leading American Middle East experts." It warns against "an authoritarian rule, leaving few if any Egyptians free to investigate mounting abuses by the State." It decries "arbitrary imprisonment of tens of thousands of Egyptians ... and extrajudicial killings."

All of the above are reflective of an imperial approach towards the affairs of outside proud nations like Egypt. Egypt is not America's burden. America should simply "Butt Out." And even falling in line with the colonial interventionist approach of The New York Times, the following questions must be raised:

• Were there "peaceful Islamists" at the bloody standoffs, lasting for six weeks (July 3 to August 14, 2013) between the occupiers of two public squares in the heart of the country's capital? Adamantly refusing the entreaties of the forces of law and order to peacefully disband? Through well-publicized exists for safe passage?
• Shouldn't The New York Times judge the reactions to such provocation by the standard of the US authorities crackdown on "The Occupy Wall Street" movement, or "The Black Lives Matter" movement?
• Those battles of August 2013 in the Cairo public squares of "Rabaa," and "Orman" did not have to occur. They were avoidable, except that the overthrown Brotherhood was acting upon its oath which includes "Death for the Sake of Allah is Our Most Cherished Wish." In America, we call this "Suicide By Cop," meaning through goading the police to open fire.

A Third Faulty Assertion: "When President Morsi was overthrown, senior American officials dithered... (hoping) that this would be merely a bump on Cairo's road toward becoming a democracy."

A Rebuttal: Egypt's democracy is on track. The Road Map of July 2013 has now been fully implemented. With the inauguration of the new Parliament in March 2016. It needs no outside evaluator or overseer!! This monitoring is the most obnoxious form of intervention in the internal affairs of States.

Now I take off my hate as an Egyptian residing in America, to don that of an American naturalized citizen. I find today's American democracy the least suitable model by whose parameters other forms of democracy could be evaluated:

• The American voter does not directly select his or her Congressional representative. Between his/her vote and the final selection is a sieve which blocks the one person one vote formula. It is a formula to which Egyptian elections adhere. In effect, since its founding, American democracy is a rule, not by the people, but by a higher oligarchical tier;
• This sieve, now represented by the electoral college, still reflects the fear by the Founding Fathers from a rule by the mob, in favor of the rule by the Select. There are voters, then delegates, then super-delegates, then unbound delegates. A dizzying game of numbers, with the primary voter left at the bottom of the formula.
• Thus in 2000, Al Gore, though winning the popular vote in his presidential bid against Bush II, lost to the latter. Becoming a US president whose leadership was overpowered by a war-monger, Dick Cheney, whose vice presidency led to the catastrophic war of Iraq.
• Would the U.S. tolerate Egyptian authorities telling Washington what to do regarding this stratified system?
• At a historic press conference held by Bush II and Putin of Russia, the U.S. President spoke of democracy, causing Putin to emit a rare laughter of disbelief. Bush said something to the effect that the U.S. is a champion of democracy everywhere. At which point Putin remarked derisively: "Like in Iraq?"
• Money has a determinant voice in the make-up of Congress. In the case Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations were entitled to contribute unlimited funds to their chosen  congressional candidates. Consequently, a bigger campaign budget makes it possible for a candidate, through ads and the support of special interests, to overwhelm an opponent with a smaller war chest.
• Until today, the US judiciary has, unfortunately failed to effect reform of campaign financing.

Under these circumstances, how can America, as per The New York Times editorial qualify for being a paragon of democratic virtues? When its own system is begging for a cure? In fact prompting great American jurists like Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired from the US Supreme Court, of whose Bar I am honored to be a member, to call for amending the U.S. Constitution itself.

A Fourth Faulty Assumption: "Over the next few months, the President should start planning for the possibility of a break in the alliance with Egypt." A war-like call premised on urging the Obama administration to end military aid to Egypt amounting to $1.3 billion.

A Rebuttal: To me, this is the height of absurdity by the so-called opinion-makers of The New York Times. Here are my reasons:

• Those funds, which are largely spent on purchasing US weapons, are integral to the Peace Treaty of 1979 between Egypt and Israel.
• Though Egypt is not essentially dependent on them for its defense, including defending against terrorism from Gaza and chaotic Libya, that paper is advocating tampering with a treaty. A treaty is a contract. Sanctioning Egypt by withholding those funds constitutes a breach to perform by the US towards Egypt. A breach of a covenant that cannot occur without adverse consequences.
• The New York Times advocacy for "Rethinking Relations With Egypt" goes diametrically counter the paper's own admission to the contrary. The paper concedes that: "Administration officials... have cautioned against a break with Egypt saying its military and intelligence cooperation is indispensable."
• Then it pivots away from those expert views to that of a fellow at the Brookings Institution, Tamar Cofman Wittes. In an interview, Wittes opines that "Egypt is neither an anchor of stability nor a reliable partner."

Here this question arises: If such punitive views become official U.S. policy, is America a reliable partner of Egypt? My response is that partnership, if subverted into a master-vassal relationship, shall not stand. There are no American bases in Egypt; only joint exercises and training in the use of US military hardware.

Both the U.S. and Egypt are, in any case, pivoting away from one another. Both of them are eyeing the east: Egypt, for technology and armament; America for trade. Obama and presumably his Democratic successor, see America's interest in having a light footprint in the chaotic Middle East. Even calling an old US ally like Saudi Arabia "a freeloader." Meaning a defense dependency on the US with adverse implications for the U.S.

In this context, Egypt cannot be counted within this pejorative description of "a freeloader." Its economy, though struggling, is not dependent on oil; its defense is native; unlike the U.S., its government is not threatened with partisan shutdowns; and unlike the U.S., its ethos is not racialism which, in the case of America, has been accentuated by the historic arrival of the first Afro-American to the Oval Office.

Prudency dictates that America should mind its own internal affairs, which are sorely in need of a fix.

And from its beginning, America has received a historic advice from George Washington, the father of its independence: "No entangling alliances."

Hence the shame of The New York Times to be giving a boost to the thesis of those who are warring on the honored international rule of "friendly relations among nations."

The very definition of friendship is equality in relationships, giving mutual support to its parties. As a dual citizen of both America and Egypt, I could see in that relational balance the very advantage of inclusive bi-culturalism.

Only the enemies of both America and Egypt can take comfort in that editorial by The New York Times. Egypt is minding its own business. Shouldn't America also mind its own business?

The New York Times editorial savagely attacks Obama's policy towards Egypt for being "moored in  a series of faulty assumptions." It is the editorial policy, expounded in that article, that is so hopelessly moored. Mired in unrealities exposing an unmerited spirit of hegemony.

Thumbs up for the Egyptian Council For Foreign Affairs (ECFA). For its comprehensive response to an Egyptophobic letter addressed to Obama. The letter's author is an organization about which I am hearing for the first time. Calling itself "The Working Group on Egypt." That organization is in lockstep with that New York Times editorial in calling for a US retaliation against Egypt.

For what? On the basis of what ECFA described as "unfounded human rights violations and interference in the independent Egyptian judiciary system." The ECFA rebuttal also offered me a teaching moment. It highlighted the illegal silence of some civil society organizations regarding "foreign funding they received, and which domestic social activities they finance... in accordance with Egyptian applicable laws."

Here ECFA noted that the number of such offending organizations was "a small minority" within "more than 47 thousand" such organizations in Egypt.

Were I, as an attorney licensed in the U.S. to sue either The New York Times or the so-called Working Group on Egypt, I'd lose. Law and fairness do not always intersect. If I plead incitement to violence against Egypt, as my hypothetical client, they would defend on the basis of freedom of expression under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Even if that freedom of expression is inciteful to violence and, thus, contrary to public policy.

Throughout history, nations do not die. But in some of them their civilizations are prone to perish. America the young, and Egypt the old are of the type where civilization is enduring. However, in the case of America, there appear early signs of reversible senility. Examples:

• Storms of rage 
• Revived nativism through non-acceptance of the other
• Return to early Biblical evangelicalism
• Glorification of Trumpism where ignorance and bullying are hailed as virtues
• Saluting the idea of fences between nations as means of international communication
• Replacing diplomacy by a nod to the nuclear option
• Insulting feminism through machoism and misogyny
• Freezing work wages at the level of 50 years ago
• Hailing the equivalent of "America Uber Alles" 
• Creating from old allies new adversaries 
• And calling the use of foul language in public "the New Normal"
• Shutting down the Government? No problem
• Defying the Constitution by the Senate Republicans in not even giving a hearing to a Supreme Court nominee? No problem
• Calling for a ban on Muslims or having their neighborhoods in America subjected to police patrols for intimidation in the name of national security? No problem.
• Doubly demeaning the US President, as well as 1.7 billion Muslims, by calling Obama "a closet Muslim?" No problem.

If not in letter but in spirit, most of the above anomalies are reflected in that insulting editorial in The New York Times. 

Conclusion: The USA is in sore need of a new national program of cleansing rejuvenation. Let us call it "Anger Management." A nation at rage is a nation whose civilizational principles are in disrepair!! Mindless rage is a paralysis of reason and of what is now defined as "mindfulness." An awareness of what you do and of its consequences.

Another conclusion: Sadly, a keen observer of the U.S.-Arab relationships will have to regard this phase of American history as regressive. Regressive into an age of darkness. 

How can America be "mindful" when its millions cheer an aspirant to the presidency, like Trump, calling for Japan and South Korea to go nuclear? And for getting rid of ISIS through the option of using tactical nuclear weapons!! Trump's version of the "New World Disorder."

If the possible Republican nominee for president is envisaging Rakka (Syria) and Mosul (Iraq) as possibly the new Hiroshima and Nagasaki of 1945, it is a measure of American reversion to the dark ages -Dark Ages II. 

With such yardstick, the New Egypt should look upon that editorializing of The New York Times, or the mercenary advocacy of "The Working Group on Egypt" as as an inflammation in the American body politic.

Its consequences shall have no more of an effect on Egypt which is presently under construction than that of an annoying fly being swatted to extinction by the frond of a palm tree in Kanayat, Sharqiah, my old Egyptian village.

A Bridge Linking Between Two Bad Shores: Criminality in Brussels And Contradictions In the Muslim World

In Brussels, where terror struck on March 22, there had been words and arms of welcome to the hordes of Muslim refugees. Fleeing the terror in their lands of origin. Hordes harboring in their midst those who are schooled by ISIS to cut the hand and at times the head, of those who shelter them. An unbelievable criminality. And a denial of the essence of humanity: "Live and Let Live!!"

In the Muslim world, the origins of that poison are active. In various forms. From Wahabbism, where the Quran is given an imperfect interpretation. Especially when it comes to denying legitimate access to worship by adherents of other faiths. Faiths that lie at the roots of Islam itself. To the Muslim Brotherhood which hoists a flag bearing two swords. For a faith whose Book, the Quran, does not even contain the word "sword."

To the avalanche of spin-offs of criminal gangs. Gangs inspired or led by thugs: from Bin Laden (they call him Sheikh), to Al-Zawahri, to Al-Zarqawi, to Al-Awlaki, to the biggest joke of all, the so-called Calipha Al-Baghdadi of ISIS.

Passing through the dirt of Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab. Not to mention the Friends of Jerusalem, ensconced within Gaza, the run-away Palestinian strip lorded over by Hamas, a clear and present danger to the New Egypt. Yet Hamas is vainly calling for easy access to Egypt. Insane!!

This New Egypt, is one third of the Arab world, raising the flag of secularism, fluttering through the gentle winds of Al-Azhar in Cairo.

And in the West, the Muslim Brotherhood, now and belatedly declared by Egypt a terrorist organization, is being enabled by an absurd public relations campaign. Calling the Brotherhood a victim of an Egyptian military coup led by El-Sisi, -a duly elected President, and a nation-builder.

Morsi, from 2012-2013, had sought the glory of a Muslim imperial caliphate. A pipe dream whose only outcome would have been turning Egypt from a State to a Province. Where the Copts are persecuted, Hamas is empowered, and the Muslims who are not in the fold of the Brotherhood are cowed into abject submission. The seat of power would have shifted to the Guidance Bureau.

In only one horrible year of failed Islamization of Egypt, Morsi claimed to have accomplished 480 national projects. Called "Injazat" (Accomplishments). Including a trash conversion factory in one of Egypt's 27 provinces.

But the "Injazat" booklet does not mention that Morsi was elected before the drafting of an Islamic Constitution (now repealed); that in November 2012, Morsi has declared himself above any constitutional limitations; and that for 3 days (June 30 - July 3, 2013) he rejected El-Sisi's attempts to have the Brotherhood respond to the screams of 35 million Egyptians for a new plebiscite.

Adamancy, in the context of Islamic ideologues, is falsely considered "the Righteous Way" (Al-Sirat Al-Mustaqeem). But under Islamic jurisprudence, the welfare of the community comes first. Called the Maslaha jurisprudence. Whatever is in the interest of the community (Ma Yanfao El-Nas), anywhere, and at any time.

In that sense, terrorism in Brussels, or anywhere else, makes a mockery of Islamic law (Sharia). And when some rotten apples engage in that type of genocidal warfare, they give Islam a black eye.

So please do not trouble me with shatter about Islamophobia. It is terrorism that creates both fear and hate for Muslims everywhere.

And don't trouble world history by tracing the roots of terrorism to the days of colonialism. The colonial period is largely gone. Succeeded by a system of Muslim rulership which puts the perpetuation of its rule ahead of national development and the peaceful transfer of power.

Shifting the blame to what happened decades ago, rather than facing the causes of today's realities, shall not be taken as credible history. This is why I look upon El-Sisi's call for a "Religious Revolution" as the right advocacy for moving the New Egypt forward. It is to be here noted that happily Al-Azhar is heading that call.

The tangible proof is to be found in a speech in Arabic by Al-Azhar's Rector, Imam Dr. Ahmed El-Tayieb. Standing before the Bundestag in Berlin on March 15, he addressed many issues of which the following are a selection and a translation of my own. Except for Quranic verses.

• On the new Muslims in Europe: "I say to my co-religionists who now live in Europe... Observe the high values of the societies in whose territories you now live."
• On Islam's Respect for Diversity: "You ought to present similar perceptions of Islam and its tolerance. Perceptions which respect the other, regardless of religion, sect, or ethnic origin."
• On Abhorring Combating The New Societies: He called for the framing of the following Quranic verse: "With regard to those who have not fought you in the cause of Religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not forbid you from being considerate and dealing justly with them. Surely God loves the just." (Chapter 60, Verse 8)
• On the Organic Links Between Islam and Other Faiths: Dr. El-Tayieb told the Bundestag: "Islam is a faith with organic links to other revealed faiths. As Muslims we believe that the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran are all purveyors of guidance and light."
• His Quranic Evidence: Quoting from Chapter V, Verse 46): "And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus the son of Mary, confirming what was before him of the Torah, and gave him the Scripture in which was guidance and light, and confirming what was before it of the Torah, and a guidance and an admonition for the pious."
• On Women In Islam: He raised Al-Azhar's voice in defense of gender equality. "In Sharia, women are equal to men in both rights and obligations. So please do not think that the marginalization of women of the East is attributable to Islamic teaching. This is a misconception. In truth, women suffering is the result of divergence from Islamic teaching regarding women. Arcane tradition and worn out custom, with no relation to Islam have been ascendant."
• On ISIS and Similar Other Armed Movements: Dr. El-Tayieb declared: "ISIS and its affiliates murder, destroy, cut heads off. All in the name of God and of Islamic law... Acts which are antithetical to Islam. Let us bear in mind that no faith would be immune from the charge of violence and terrorism, if it is evaluated from the perspective of the few perpetrators amongst its adherents."
• On Al-Azhar's Role In Revamping the Islamic Discourse: "Al-Azhar is continuously concerned with revamping its message and educational curricula... Everywhere, its scholars confront wrong concepts. Concepts which distort Islam's message. Exploiting it for the advocacy for a blind insurrection, for blood-letting and countries destruction."
• On Inclusiveness Between All Religions: "Al-Azhar, in December 2014 held a conference attended by Muslim Sunni and Shii scholars, heads of churches, eastern and western, and representatives of the Yazidis of Iraq. Its final communique condemned all armed sectarian groups and militias which pursue violence, terrorism, and assault the lives of peaceful citizens... Any violence perpetrated against Christians and others in the name of faith is contrary to the ethos of Islam."

The gulf is indeed wide between the voice of true Islam, as expounded by Al-Azhar's Grand Imam, and the voice of death heard loudly in Brussels. Confronting jihadist ideology through the voice of Dr. El-Taiyeb is the starting phase in what promises to be a protracted struggle.

For despite the centrality of the voice of Al-Azhar, as the premier citadel for Islamic learning, the divergence in Islamic practices throughout dozens of Muslim countries and cultures makes that voice carry less volume.

But hope springs eternal. The Quran, Muhammad's tradition (Sunnah), and ijtihad, as the brain activated for interpreting those texts should undoubtedly come on top. The world of today has heard the pain of Belgium!!

But how could Al-Azhar deal effectively with this generational battle against rogues pretending to be Muslims?

The needs of the Al-Azhar's "Religious Revolution," initially called for by President El-Sisi, are myriad.

Among those needs is adequate funding and staffing whose main expertise is communication in main languages to pass on the great message delivered at the Bundestag.

That call for a "Religious Revolution" by El-Sisi is a historic game changer in the world of Islam. Still a Cairo TV anchor woman, Azza Al-Hinnawi called El-Sisi on the air "a do-nothing president who speaks like Hitler." A below the belt stupidity, even for a person like her with a contribution to the New Egypt that does not exceed a microphone in her hand, coupled with a foul mouth, joined to an empty head that does not even retain the recent inauguration by El-Sisi of Suez Canal II.

Judging by the follow-up on that message of the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, I am left with this feeling: The Al-Azhar's counter-attack against the kind of murderous ideology which led to the Brussels massacre, and was about to lead to the possession of "a dirty nuclear weapon" is lacking of some basic tools.

These include good translations from the classic Arabic, which are still woefully lacking. And Al-Azhar points of strategic and effective communication throughout the world. Staffed by experts who do not take a holiday!! Failure in uprooting ISIS and its sister organizations is no longer a viable option. This is a fight to the finish!!

Let us keep in mind the emblematic treatise by a great predecessor of Sheikh El-Taiyeb, as a Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Al-Shareef. That was Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltoot. One of his books is entitled "Islam: Faith and Law" (Al-Islam Aaqeedah We Shareeah), published in Cairo in more than 24 editions.

Sheikh Shaltoot ends that book by saying:

• "The fatwas are not binding statements of law;"
• "The views of Al-Caliphah, the Imam, or the judge are not immune from being fallible;"
• "Interpreting Islam is not the exclusive prerogative of any one;"
• "The titles of Sheikh Al-Islam and the Mullah are only but scholarly titles with no binding consequences;"and
• "Ijtihad is more authoritative when arrived at, not individually, but collectively."

Through this freedom of religious thought there appears, through the present fog, another bridge. Detouring all of us, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, to an existence better than that of a constant fear from a pretended Islam that in fact does not exist!!

A Mega Bully In A Mega Pulpit: Trump's Mobocracy In An Annotated Selected Glossary

A: Anchor
A media person whose quality is determined by the kind of questions he or she addresses in public to the Chairman. If hostile and a woman, such a person has "blood oozing from everywhere." Clear reference to the menstrual period. Stamped the Chairman as "anti-feminist."

C: Convention
A formal assembly, usually based, since the 17th century, on tacit consent by its members. When not favoring the Chairman being its nominee for US President, then a hostile take-over is necessary for voiding the popular will as defined by the Chairman.

D: Debate
An ugly form of verbal warfare in which only profanity, misogyny, vulgarity and dishonesty are permitted. Drowning your opponent's voice and trouncing the moderators for reminding you of your time limitation. For the Chairman, these are debating skills and a propensity to lead.

Demagogue
A political agitator appealing to the prejudice of the masses. A term fully applicable to Chairman Trump. He has voiced heated opposition to "political correctness," to "the establishment," to organized political practice, and to the principle of compromise. All peaceful tools in the service of the national good. His vain rhetoric is the very language of the Tea Party, one of whose symbols is Sarah Palin.

Deportation
The forceful expulsion by authorities of individuals accused of violation of immigration laws. Chairman Trump is set to deport 11 million persons falling in this category, within 2 years of his presidency. Requiring 30 jumbo-jet flights for 730 days. This explains why Chairman Trump hates media questions about immigration. Such as those posed by Jorge Ramos, a Latino spokesman physically removed from his rallies.

F: Foreign Policy
Generally defined as a State's approach through diplomacy and other means to relationships with other States to maximize national interest. Chairman Trump, nonetheless, has redefined American foreign policy. Made of sound bites typical of his own brand of raucous disparagement of nearly all foreign powers. Examples: China is "ripping off" America on trade and stealing jobs; Mexico is flooding the southern border with migrants and drugs. As to Japan, "we are getting absolutely crushed on trade." Salvation is through the Chairman.

H: Hand
Terminal part of human arm. For the Chairman, its size determines the Chairman's genitalia. In this department, the Chairman has declared that he was "well endowed." Nature and destiny are on his side!!

Hero
An illustrious warrior who has fought for his country or his cause. But if captured, like in the case of Senator McCain, loses his luster. Chairman Trump put it succinctly when he declared: "I like persons who don't get captured." As if the victim has a say in falling captive.

I: Immigration
A term which, for the Chairman, refers only to skilled foreign workers. On guest worker visas coded as H-1B. Fit for work in Silicon Valley. Chairman Trump is calling for all others to be herded on buses for forcible deportation. But the Latino empire of millions of new Mexican voters is striking back. Denying Chairman Trump, with his blond hairdo, their vote this Fall. The revolt of those vilified are systematically described by Trump as "drug traffickers and rapists."

Islam
The faith of 1.7 billion people, based on two principles: the onness of God, and the surrender to God's will. One of the three Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Chairman Trump, in Florida on March 9, intoned another Islamophobic declaration: "Islam hates us." A cunning reversal of his Trump coinage of: "Ban Muslims entry into America." Even the Florida Governor, Rick Scott, endorsed that savage call by Trump.

M: Marco Rubio
A one-term Senator from Florida with a Cuban ancestry. Now out of the race for Republican nomination for President. Described by Chairman Trump as follows: "You know that in Florida they hate little Marco Rubio so much because of the fact that he never votes...He has conned the people of Florida into voting for him." The Chairman, in a humane gesture towards his then opponent Rubio, also said: "I didn't want him to get hurt hitting his head going down."

Mobocracy
Originally Latin for "mobile vulgus," meaning excitable crowd. Now refers to the lower order of a promiscuous assemblage of persons whom Chairman Trump targets for his venomous rantings. Trumpism has a close proximity to being a pied piper, a strolling musician, leading children over a hill to nowhere.

Muslim
A human being believed by Chairman Trump to be so reviled as a terrorist or potential terrorist. His or her presence in, or admission to America is a clear and present danger to the established Trumpian order. The plan by Chairman Trump to rid the world of ISIS must remain under wraps. It shall be executed by the US military, not in accordance with the laws of war. But by the laws of Trump. "This is what a leader is all about," so declared the Chairman.

N: New York
A state in the northeast of the U.S. That is where Chairman Trump has multiple towers. Also where he is adored by the New York City Real Estate Board. Winning New York for Trump is declared by the Chairman a foregone conclusion. Thus he forcefully told his supporters in New Orleans: "We have a shot at winning New York. Can you imagine what would happen if we win New York? New York loves Trump."

O: Outsider
A term in the uneducated language of today's American politics. Meaning someone with no political experience. No part of the so-called "establishment." Meaning all those chosen through the democratic process to represent the populace. Chairman Trump is riding the wave of rage through pushing the fiction of "the Outsider." The Tea Party, the evangelicals who believe in "the end of time," the white blue collar workers are united in the cause of defeating "experience." Trump, promises that he, as an outsider, is the answer.

P: Palin
The last name of Sarah Palin, former governor of the state of Alaska. An empty-headed invention, ill-chosen by Senator McCain as his running mate in his failed presidential bid against Obama in 2008. Known for her ridiculing facts and knowledge, now a side kick for Chairman Trump as he seeks to energize his ultra-conservative supporters. Famously described by a French poet as "a bad joke."

Politics
Used to be defined as "the art of the possible." Now reversed to be "the art of appealing to the prejudice of the masses." Perfected by Chairman Trump in his bid to "Make America Great Again." Hence "a politician," which the Chairman is not, is someone who plays by the rules usually ridiculed as "political correctness."

Putin
The man of the hour for Russia whose strength and practices in his country, and in its "near abroad," are admired by Chairman Trump. A reflection of the Chairman's admiration for strong leadership. Now seen by him as the cause of American decline. Reversible only under a president who does not apologize and does not reward America's adversaries, like Iran, by "very bad deals."

R: Rally
To rally is to get together again. Rousing to fresh energy. In the rallies for Chairman Trump, the theme rallying his crowds is to "get tough," to consider a protester an enemy. Thus the Chairman calls on his private army of bouncers to kick out anybody protesting his theme of hate. The emphasis in Trump's message is not on the First Amendment (guaranteeing freedom of speech). It is on magnifying hate into a creed. Forcing the protesters in Chicago to shut down his rally. "Throw them out," yelled Trump to his bouncers. "Trouble-makers," he described protesters. The result: An atmosphere of hate, violence and divisiveness that has become "the new normal" for the Chairman's electioneering.

Rambling
An incoherent, irregularly non-planned speech by the Chairman. Stoking anger of the mobs assembled to watch his show.

Republican Party
A 162 year old party which should be demolished through either a Trump take-over, or a split through a contested convention intended to deny the Donald the historical advantage of being the chosen one to defeat the Democratic nominee for president in November 2016.

S: Schizophrenia
A psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with the environment. Also contradictory or antagonistic attitudes. Chairman Trump exhibits these symptoms of dysfunction. In his rallies, he calls for his supporters right to free assembly. A First Amendment right. But denies it to those protesters attempting to exercise the same right, by calling them "villains against whom I shall press charges." He declares love for the Chinese, the Japanese and free trade. But simultaneously he calls for 35% surcharge over products imported to the US.

State Department
The department of the U.S. Government that conducts foreign affairs on behalf of the U.S. President. Under Chairman Trump, the lines are already drawn up. All in terms, not of interaction, but of rage, conflict and enmity. In their turn, those foreign powers are adjusting to a possible Trump presidency. Mexico's President says: "His language is reminiscent of Hitler and Mussolini." The British Parliament debated barring Trump from entry into the UK for his "hate speech." China and Japan are distressed. Iran is laughing at him in its bazaars.

Swear
Invoking the name of a sacred being in an oath. It is the highest form of asserting a promise. Chairman Trump, in Florida, the home state of his then competitor, Marco Rubio, resorted to extracting an oath from the enthralled multitude. "Do you swear to vote for me?" And their hands and voices were raised "yes." Reminiscent of the Nazi "Sieg Heil" (Victory To the Savior!) A true mobocracy!!

T: Taxation
A contribution levied by an established authority on persons, property or business. For the purpose of supporting government's programs on behalf of the entire population. "No taxation without representation" was a call  to arms by the 13 American colonies rebelling against Great Britain. So with the position of Chairman Trump. He believes that the conservative and the billionaires causes are not sufficiently represented in American governance. His payment of limited taxes in accordance with the law should not entail making his tax returns public knowledge. The Chairman says: "It is too complicated."

Truth
Truth has consequences. Especially for a billionaire who has captivated millions for being a non-establishment politician. Best characterized by a 60-year old property investor who idolized the Chairman in these words: "He has no gain in this -he doesn't need the money, he doesn't need the fame, he doesn't need the power." Because of this, "the establishment is ganging up on him." When somebody is being persecuted constantly, that means they're speaking the truth!!

U: Unifier
An adjective earned by Chairman Trump in his bid for the Republican nomination for president. Part of the process of energizing his base of conservatives, evangelicals, white, black, Latinos, working classes and monied classes. In a massive surge of support for their idol. Trumpese is a language springing from the street through which these multitudes surge. Propelling him as the front runner in this brutish campaign between Republicans and Democrats. For the Chairman believes that before you build, you should first demolish, as per his practice in real estate. The demolisher, to Trump, is the unifier.

V: Violence
It is the unlawful exercise of physical force. Also intimidation by the exhibition thereof. The rallies, recently called by Chairman Trump, have begun to be marked by violence. Especially in the industrial Midwest. The Chairman, in a direct way, has nurtured that tendency as his way to "Making America Great Again." To him, the protesters against him are "violent;" the Muslims, "most of them hate us;" "Mexico shall be forced to pay for a wall" on the common border; and the US military "shall do what I tell them to do" (including torture).

W: Wall
Not to be confused with "Wall Street." It is a beautiful structure projected by President Trump to be built over a 2000 miles length. Between the U.S. and Mexico. Costing $20 billion. Chairman Trump has determined that Mexico, which rejects that idiotic concept, shall be forced to pay for it. How? As punitive damages for sending Mexicans to America as unvetted illegal immigrants. Through welshing on America's debts to Mexico. The Trump wall, as promised by the Chairman, is expected to surpass in grandeur the Great Wall of China.

War
A state of open hostility between nations, conducted by the force of arms. Waged, in the opinion of Chairman Trump, as the first option to failed negotiations. For the Chairman, the initials U.S. must always stand for "Unconditional Surrender." In conformity with the call by President Franklin Roosevelt, prolonging World War II against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Chairman Trump has always declared "I don't settle."

White House
The name of the residence of the President of the United States. Located in a federal district, called Washington, D.C. Presently occupied by Barack Hussein Obama. Considered by Chairman Trump as "a closet Muslim," with no valid US birth certificate. In the words of Chairman Trump "Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States." If Chairman Trump moves into the Oval Office in January 2017, he may attach the name Trump to the facade of the White House. Renaming it Trump House may not be out of order.

Z: Zee End. An Epilogue
A fitting ending, by remembering President Ronald Reagan. This is on the sad occasion of the passing on March 6 of First Lady Nancy Reagan. She, throughout his tenure as President (1980-1988), was his primary advisor. Though the leader of the Republican party, Reagan looked upon the cold war in a diplomatic way. America's role, he believed, was not to win it. But to end it. And it peacefully ended in 1989. That was the GOP of Reagan. Not the GOP of Trump.

From Ronald to Donald?! What a precipitous descent for the Grand Old Party, the party of Lincoln.

From The Womb of Trump's Fascism Emerges A Chaotic American Spring

The man is an impostor. An impostor in the village. The very title of my novel in Arabic: An Impostor In The Village. Published in Cairo twice. Once in 1948; the other in 2014. And Trump's village is America.

From his lips gushes bombast and abuse. The adage says "loose lips sink ships." Trump's lips has sunk the Republican Party. The Grand Old Party (GOP) of the great liberator, President Abraham Lincoln. At the age of 16, I travelled to Lincoln. Spiritually from my Egyptian village, Kanayat, Province of Sharqiah.

That was through trudging in 1944 for 3 miles to the provincial capital, Zagazig. Headed to the public library to read in English a thin book on Lincoln. Captivated by that bearded and humble man who managed to free the slaves in America, through a bloody victory of the North over the South. Then assassinated in 1865.

So with his party today. Where his assassination is repeated, but this time on his party, the party of Lincoln. By a buffoon called Donald Trump. Whose fascism is worn on his sleeves. Through:

• calling for the building of a wall between the U.S. and Mexico;
• ridiculing blacks, women, and minorities;
• calling for a ban on Muslims from entering the US, even if they were returning citizens;
• using his book The Art of the Deal, the way Hitler had used Mein Kampf;
• accepting, through avoiding clear disavowal, the endorsement of David Duke, the former head of the Klu Klux Klan;
• calling for bombing the families of suspected terrorists to avenge terrorist attacks;
• praising Mussolini as an effective leader; and
• calling Obama an American hater, an alien born outside the U.S., and a non-Christian/a closet Muslim.

The list can be much longer. Trump is a mob inciter whose calls for "let us make America great again" is nothing but a call for a Spartan America whose wars are endless, and her grab of the natural resources of other States (oil as an example) is the fruit of "winners take all." 

Through content analysis, one finds in Trump the making of a dictator, an anti-Republican quasi conservative. And a man who has succeeded in turning his own party against him. Here are samples of his bombast reflective of his sense of vaunted superiority.

• About Hillary Clinton, the prospective Democratic nominee for president: "She's been there (in Washington) for so long. If she hasn't straightened it by now, she's not going to straighten it out in the next four years."
• "Mexico is sending to America its criminals and rapists across the borders;"
• He wants to torture people accused of terrorism;
• Former Senator Norman Coleman of Minnesota declared: "You've got a con man and a bully who is moving forward with great speed to grab the party's mantle  to be its standard bearer. That's almost incomprehensible."

A former Republican presidential contender, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts went on the attack. Spear-heading a belated Republican effort, to stop the Trump express. Called Trump "a phony, a fraud, and a con man." Using the street language of which Trump is a master. Romney was on point:

• Trump University is a fake institution. Graded by its student at 98%. But by serious evaluators at D-;
• Trump resorts are claimed by him to be for everyone. But can everyone afford $100,000 in annual membership dues?;
• Trump's foreign policy is summed up by him in one phrase: "military might so great that no one would dare mess with us." Asked about who advises him on foreign policy, his answer was evasive. Ended up by saying: "It is I who shall decide;"
• He was pressed on dealing with foreign leaders if he became president. His response boiled down to the limited language of the real estate broker that he is. "I deal with all kinds of people. Nobody can close deals like Donald J. Trump."
• Yet he is oblivious of central facts. Dealing with foreign leaders requires circumspection, in-depth knowledge of the issues on the table, and versatility in the art of compromise. Of all this, the fascist Donald is innocent. Especially in connection with expertise in the art of getting to "Yes." An admission unknowingly made by his protruding lips: "I do not settle;"

Thus on establishing peace between the Arabs and the Israelis, he looks at it through only one prism: that of Mr. Netanyahu. Largely due to the clear fact that  Trump has no expertise in foreign policy. About it, he is not a learner, let alone a practitioner. Never mind that Trump had made a sizable  segment of his fortune in the Gulf.

Trump's barrage of attacking the problem of America's trade deficit and/or imbalance denies Japan, China, India, and even Mexico their sovereign right. The right to put national interest above other considerations, except whatever is required by the rules of free trade.

The Trump bogus claim that the entire world, except the U.S., has leaders who are smarter than Obama. Racism and chauvinism wrapped in one package. "I shall bring back to America the jobs off-shored back to America!!" A Trump claim which is not backed by "How?"

Calling Trump a fascist is fully vindicated by the very definition of that term. Fascism defines a political philosophy or a movement or a regime that puts race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader. One of its basic characteristics is the forcible suppression of opposition. Trump is all of the above:

• He describes his supporters "a movement;"
• He calls his opponents like Marco Rubio of Florida "little Marco" and "a liar;" Ted Cruz of Texas "a choke artist."
• To him Hillary Clinton might be incarcerated for using a personal server for her emails, some of which "might have been classified while she was Secretary of State;"
• He threatens Paul Ryan, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, As President, he, Trump shall "make him pay a heavy price" if he stood in the way of his governance. Upon hearing this, the Speaker laughed aloud in his office. And he has reasons for that. Impeachment proceedings against an errant President begin in the House of Representatives.
• The Trump supporters are mainly the enraged lower than middle class. Under-educated ("I love the not-so educated," Trump screams to thunderous applause), angry at the so-called Washington establishment;
• Anger and rage fueled both fascism and Nazism. Another quote from Trump in this year of the angry American voter, aching for the emergence of "a strong leader." He claims: "Our country is being run by incompetent people. And I won't be angry when we fix it. But until we fix it, I'm very very angry."

On anger, professor Jennifer Finney Boylan of Barnard College, Columbia University, hits the nail on its head. She laments "I see a land where to be a citizen means to specialize in the venting of spleen...Apparently it's vitriol itself, rather than any particular strategy for the future, that's propelling the electorate." Then she concludes by stating:"We seem to be mistaking petulance for righteous wrath."

Coming back to my introducing the theme of "An Impostor in the Village." 

• Trump plays on the theme of fear. His call for transformation is nothing less than "TRANSFEARMATION;"
• Conspiracy is his conduit to presidential politics. He speaks, not the language of establishment politics, but the language of the gutter, a proximity link to the "Know Nothing" multitudes. So the theme shifts nearly daily, to whatever the street can absorb. From "Making America Great Again," to placards carried by beautiful young women proclaiming "The Silent Majority Stands With Trump."
• He denies science, climate change. Even claims that he knows a 2-year old who immediately developed autism from a vaccination."
• His hatred for Muslims is pervasive. Even publicizing gleefully an Internet false rumor about a U.S. general executing Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pigs' blood.
• So was Trump's false assertion that Muslims in New Jersey cheered from rooftops the fall of the World Trade towers 

Such is Trump's danger to the security of the U.S. that the stalwarts of his own party, the party of Lincoln now in the process of collapse, are in a stampede to "Stop Trump."  The Impostor, in my novel, uses faith for sordid ends. So with Trump. Using democracy for sordid ends. 

A showman selling snake oil for healing. A chaotic American Spring is upon us. Results unknown.

By Whose Hands Was Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali Robbed of a Second Term?

This is not investigative reporting. These are legal forensics revealing the hands that robbed him of a second term. And these hands are not what is publicly peddled. Not by the Clintonites. But by a UN Charter full of gaps and contradictions.

Looking at the Charter, you discover that it is not what we teach at law schools. At Fordham Law (New York) I focus on the words. Analyzing not the provisions. But why those provisions drafted in 1945 belong to a museum. Not to the world of 21st Century. Since 1965, Boutros-Ghali and I discussed this at length.

First, the term "peace-keeping" does not appear in the Charter, a Second World War document. In San Francisco, the allies of the war were believed to maintain their cooperation in the post-war years. They did not. The cold war inherited that world. Completely nullifying Article 47 which provides for "a Military Staff Committee." You cannot pool your military expertise with your adversary.

That vacuum was provisionally filled by Dag Hammarskjold. That was his response to the tripartite aggression on Egypt by Israel, France and Great Britain in 1956. The "Blue Helmets" were born not in the Security Council Chamber, but in Port Said. The helmets were painted blue, the UN color, in Italy.

Expanded in the Congo of 1960, "the Blue Helmets" was a huge flop. Across one of the rivers, an Italian contingent was massacred by Lumumba supporters. Calling for help by an Irish contingent a few miles across that river, the Irish did not respond. Not because of cowardice. But because the Italian signal could not be understood. Why? No pre-planned training in peace-keeping, including signal unification, could be held. Until today.

That chaos resulting from Charter dysfunction reached the shores of Yugoslavia as it was breaking up. It also engulfed Rwanda. The Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina were ethnically cleansed. A million Tutsis were massacred. Security Council resolutions, as expected, proved to be hollow moralizing.

Second: Not only was the Security Council failing in its Charter-outlined duties. It was ironically expanding its jurisdiction in areas prevented to it by other Charter provisions. Article 2, para. 7 prohibits intervention in "matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State." Fine. Although each State decides those matters as it pleases.

Now here comes the kicker!! Later the same provision regarding respect for sovereignty takes a turn to a dead end street. It says: "But this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII (i.e. on sanctions)."

Guess who decides on sanctions?! A no veto by any of the Big Five (US/UK/France/Russia/China) plus 4 non permanents (total non-permanents is 10). So you now have a system where the 5 permanents agree on selecting a State to be sanctioned (couldn't be one of their proteges). World justice disappears when you have selectivity. Inequality before the law. Easy to sanction an Iraq or a Libya, or an Iran or a Sudan. No Big Power umbrella. No powerful uncle or Godfather.

With no hope in reforming the Security Council, the Council turned its gaze to individuals within sovereign States. Came up with "the travel ban" on individuals without serving advance notices. Also without hopes of reviewing the list of banned individuals. Creating islands of Guantanamo-style preserves without the torture additive.

So you now have two UN systems in one: the General Assembly (akin to a House of Commons), and a Security Council (akin to a House of Lords - the Permanents). But the GA resolutions are a mere wish list -no enforcement mechanism. And the House of Five Lords is the only body which can take decisions. But selectively. Pick and choose. If there is a tie, say an Afghanistan, then a new non-Charter mechanism called "a Presidential statement" has been put in place. Does not even have the teeth of an executive order.

In the thick of this mess, stands the Secretary-General. The most neutral body in the world organization is the UN Secretariat. I have served there for 32 years. The Secretariat is on duty 24/7, serves all UN Member States on an equal footing, and provides data and mission reports for guidance of the SG and, through him, to the entire membership.

But speaking of the Secretary-General, you have to be careful which SG you mean. There are two of them in the same body: An executive SG and a political SG. The former is covered by Article 98; the latter by Article 99.

And within Article 99, I find the problems faced by Boutros-Ghali. That article is the real separator between the League of Nations, and its presumed continuity in the UN of the San Francisco Charter. Better to quote here its text:

"The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."

Thus the political Secretary-General is born through the mid-wifery of Article 99. Armed with the big word "MAY" -meaning "discretion." Theoretically this is a form of power-sharing. A power sharing expressed by Boutros-Ghali in what he inadvertently called "The Sixth Veto." You see, Boutros-Ghali was not a politician; he was a lecturer in international law. Ministering to a collection of rowdy States which, especially the U.S. resented his threatened intrusion into their power preserve.

He was conscious of the political pitfalls. But deeply felt that the Charter, though deficient, could be reformed through "political ijtihad" -interpreting broadly, through common sense, the existing text which cannot be easily revised.

His honeymoon with the Clinton administration was brief. And Afghanistan, not ex-Yugoslavia or Rwanda, was the issue that unleashed the venom of Albright, the then America's UN Permanent Representative. Those were the early 1990's. With both Clinton and his rivals, the Republican Robert Dole, finding in the UN an easy target to prove a nationalist point. That America shall not be legislated to by an UN where anti-American feelings ran high.

French support for Boutros-Ghali could not match a Clinton administration that saw in Boutros-Ghali an advocate of a UN which is not subservient to Washington's diktat.

The great theoretician Boutros-Ghali who was a close friend of mine for 50 years, lost. Through its fossilized nature, the Charter favored the Clintonite politics. That iconic thinker lost the battle for a second term. And was succeeded by a politician, Kofi Annan, who had no problem staying for two terms.

Kofi Annan was chosen to appease African UN membership for jettisoning an African -Boutros-Ghali. From the Big Powers point of view, an appeaser, Annan, instead of a confrontationist Boutros-Ghali. A manager in the place of a thinker. A typical play within the play!!

In Boutros-Ghali's failure to gain a second term, I find a strong echo of Dag Hammarskjold. Their commonality of approaching the Charter is clear. Hammarskjold stood his ground in 1960; had Khrushchev bang his shoe on the table at the General Assembly. Shouting to the S.G. "IRHAL" (Leave). And a year later, in 1961, the white regime of Rhodesia was suspected of causing his plane to fall from the sky.

Boutros-Ghali also stood the same grounds. Advocated reform of the Security Council and ran afoul of Washington. But he kept his promise to his own convictions: idealism not reflected in the political world of rough and tumble in the world of the Glass House by the East River, in New York.

In 1992, in his office on the 38th floor, he privately asked me: "Do you wish to return to serve? Haven't you enjoyed 6 years of retirement?" "No, Boutros," I said. "I have left this cage. Now breathing freedom on the outside. Lots of options."

His silent but approving smile guided me to the exit. It is difficult, in fact impossible, to forget neither his ideas and ideals. Nor that quiet but knowing smile and innate wisdom. A second term was a passing episode in a life which shall always enrich the world he left behind.

And there is more. More to the Boutros-Ghali saga. The media say that he lobbied for the post. Dead wrong. Africa lobbied him for the post at an African summit. Mobutu, then Congo (Zaire) President, motioned to him and whispered: "The Anglo-phone Africans want to nominate one of them. You are our Franco-phone candidate." 

Taken aback, Boutros-Ghali responded: "What would President Mubarak say?" Mobuto winked and said: "I shall call Mubarak!!" And he did. Then the game was on. How do I know that? From the lips of Boutros-Ghali in Mexico City. He had invited me to join him there for personal and confidential consultations. That was before Mitterand, as President of France threw in his heavy political weight, tipping the scales for Boutros-Ghali as UN SG.

Yet through the debacle of the Clinton animosity, forged in the crucible of an old and tattered UN Charter, the process of nominating a UN Secretary-General is at long last about to change. The effort is aiming at breaking the strangle hold of the Big Five on that closed medieval method of nomination. A method whereby the General Assembly is a mere rubber stamp for what the Big Five agree upon in private consultations.

That is the process which sank the ship of nominating Tanzania's Ahmed Salem, in the early 1980's, to replace Kurt Waldheim of Austria. Waldheim, later found to be a former Nazi operative in Greece, was running for an unheard of third term. Salem was his opponent.

America vetoed the Salem nomination. His sin? Dancing in the GA aisles upon the the admission of mainland China to its rightful seat at the UN.

China vetoed Waldheim. And the deadlock continued. For 16 ballots. Salem, in our frequent meetings, would laughingly say "Waldheim has no chance. The process is broken." Finally De Cuellar of Peru was called from a beach resort to occupy the post as a final compromise. Boutros-Ghali followed, in spite of early American misgivings.

In his book "Unvanquished," Boutros-Ghali stressed what the Charter could not accommodate: dedication for being a Secretary-General who dared defy a big power armed with a veto. And no meaningful reform of the council is at present possible.

If I were to write an epitaph for Boutros-Ghali, I would say: "HERE LIES A LEADER WHO SACRIFICED A WORLDLY POSITION FOR WORLD'S PRINCIPLES." Rest in peace, my friend.

May his soul rest in peace. His Egypt bade him farewell in the most celebrating manner -A military/State funeral. For he was a true combatant for his motherland, and for the cause of a universal Rule of Law.

Thinking Out of the Box: Framing A Theory On "The Egyptian Mind"

Political Theory is a unique specialization. One of my areas of concentrations. Primarily it teaches you two things: Thinking "out of the box;" and framing your arguments for possible durability. People remember ideas longer than they remember events.

With this said, here is the framing of a theory. A theory on "The Egyptian Mind." Like all theories, it cannot be perfectly encompassing. And it usually provokes lots of pros and of cons. The grist that may in future produce better flour.

I begin with an apology to the great Greek historian Herodote (or Herodotus). Born in 485 B.C., and died in 425 B.C. That is nearly five centuries before Christ. Visiting Egypt, he coined a memorable phrase. "Egypt Is the Gift of the Nile." True. But, from my perspective, and on my way to a possible theory on "The Egyptian Mind," this is only one side of the coin.

The other side is: "The Nile Is the Gift of Egypt." Through worship of natural resources; great engineering throughout its 6500 kilometers length from Lake Victoria to Damietta and Rosetta; unity of its people, especially from the Sudanese borders to the Mediterranean; and ready acceptance of what tomorrow will bring, either a high flood or a low flood. The most important predictors of 10,000 years of Egyptian recorded history is not "weather forecasting," but Nile forecasting.

Noting the above, I was galvanized to embark on this theory, because of one recent historic event. I heard that Egypt is concerned about the beard of King Tut.

In August 2014, someone touched King Tut's beard. At the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, the mausoleum of Egypt's DNA. The King's gold mask suffered. The beard detached. Panic struck. The soul of Egypt was bruised. Egyptian museum officials, incompetently tried to glue it back on. A botched repair. Eight Egyptian museum officials were carted off to appear before Egypt's Administrative Prosecutor.

A trial is expected. With direct testimony from Egypt's Heritage Task Force -an initiative to protect the nation's cultural heritage. A heritage for which a mammoth Grand Egyptian Museum, under construction near the Giza pyramids, shall in 2018 replace the Museum at Tahrir. To the cost of nearly $1 Billion.

This is an aspect of "The Egyptian Mind" at work. Egypt is not Syria, where Palmyra is destroyed. Not Iraq, where the mobs in 2003 carted off the treasures of great Mesopotamia. Is not Afghanistan, where the Taliban destroyed the Bamian Buddhist temples.

When the January 25 Revolution ignited from Tahrir in 2011, calling on Mubarak to leave, the Egyptian Museum was about to be attacked by the mobs.

Egged on by the Muslim Brotherhood after the Camel Battle of January 28. For the Brotherhood, Egyptian antiquities are mere idols, non-Islamic. Then we saw the Egyptian mind in full drive: The army which stood silently to protect the Revolution swung into action at the Museum. So did the Museum's employees. For that was the House of Egypt -a gift to the whole world.

So what makes Egypt tick? What is the make-up of "The Egyptian Mind?" What goes into it, and what comes out of it? What are the tentative elements of this attempt at a theory? Let us here try the notion of a rectangle -with all four sides equal.

First: Belief in a Super Being, without exclusions;
Second: A spontaneous commitment to the State and its security;
Third: An ingrained belief that adversity can only be temporary; and
Fourth: An ethos of "Egyptianness," not to be commingled with Arabism. -a sense of exceptionalism reflected in national folklore.

First: Belief in the Almighty is the first fabric in Egypt's historical tapestry. As a tapestry, it is woven from multi-color threads. Reflecting the unique geography of Egypt as a connector between 3 continents. When that fabric is disturbed, Egypt goes back to smooth it all over again.

The hand that smooths that fabric is guided by the principle of the oneness of God. In Islamic terminology, it is "Tawheed." Didn't begin with Islam, but with Akhenaton -Father of King Tut. The multiplicity of deities was replaced by one. How did this faith reflect itself? In the monuments. The obelisk, that monolithic pillar that terminates in a pyramid, tells us something about The Egyptian Mind. Though the pyramid building age was gone, the pyramid could not be abandoned. The soul of Egypt lives on, though in a different manifestation.

For Egypt, eternity is not a hope. It is a creed. Moses was an Egyptian; the holy family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph sought refuge for four years in Egypt. From the Delta to Cairo to Wadi el-Natroun. Then up the Nile, south to Mallawi and Asyut. With the arrival of the Muslims in the middle of the 7th century, the first Executive Order was issued from Medina by the Caliph Omar, to his general, Amr. "Don't touch their churches. Don't seek conversion."

Those instructions held fast. The Amr capital in the Cairo area was called Fustat, founded in 641 AD. Fragments from Fustat give glimpses of a cosmopolitan old Cairo. Polyglot, multi-confessional, and prosperous.

Centuries later, the Muslim Brotherhood (2012-2013) toyed with that fabric. Under the guise of Islamism, they caused the Copts great anxiety. They lost, and El-Sisi, as President, was seen, on January 7, at the St. Mark Cathedral celebrating the Orthodox Christmas. In 2015 and again in 2016. How assuring!!

Contrast this to the Islamists injunction: "Don't even say Merry Christmas!!" This is while the Quran refers to Jesus as born of immaculate conception. And the only woman glorified in the Quran is the Virgin Mary. Her apparitions continue to attract thousands of Egyptians, of whatever faith, to inspirational moments of adoration.

Except for Lebanon, Egypt is the only country in the Middle East which has the Coptic Christmas a national holiday. The only country in the world which has a mass political party, Al-Wafd, hoisting its symbol of a Crescent hugging the Cross.

Even the name of the country has its origins in faith. Tradition holds that its origins are Greek. With due respect and love for Graeco Egypt, it is not the case. The term "Copt" originated from the soil of ancient Egypt before passing into Greek.

It refers to the temple for the ancient Egyptian god, Petah. The most revered among all other deities. Petah had a location. The city of Manf, the first capital of ancient Egypt. Th term "Copt" was later given to the whole country. The Europeans read it as "Agyptus." Guided by the Greeks, the Arabs chose the shortened, but authentic, term "Copt."

Second: The second side of the rectangle of "The Egyptian Mind" is a spontaneous commitment to the State and its security. With the multiplicity of religious roots comes a secular faith called "The State."  The slogan "Tahya Misr" (Long Live Egypt) was not born as of January 25, 2011. It goes back 10,000 years ago, though at that dawn of Egyptian history, not voiced in Arabic.

The pyramids stand today for the concept of State stability. Not an epitaph for the Pharaohs. But as eternalizing the State as a builder, an innovator. Hard stone structures, the first of their kind in the world, stood and continue to stand for durability. The sun always sets on them. But rises again. Also symbolizing the first social welfare in the world (the peasants engaged in construction received daily rations); the technologists (the engineer was the royal consultant); and the temples stand below -separating between the State and religion.

With Egypt located between three continents, security became paramount. The country's armed forces are revered: standing for cohesion, safety, security, and individual sacrifice for the nation. Especially when engaged on national soil, such as in the October war of 1973, and in combating today's terrorism. Can't forget the last words of a dying soldier in Sinai: "This is for you Egypt!!" (Alashaaik Ya Misr).

These very words are a decisive rebuttal to those who have made a name for themselves attacking the armed forces. The social media did not make the two revolutions of January 25 and June 30 a success. The armed forces did. Under the leadership of SCAF, the Supreme Council of Armed Forces, headed by Field Marshal Tantawi and General Anan, the military guns in Tahrir stayed silent. A silence that roared higher than the chants of a million civilians.

And in June 2014, El-Sisi came to power, not on top of a tank. But through the ballot box. That is after failing to convince Morsi in June 2013 to abide by the national will and face new elections. Reason why The Egyptian Mind discards attacks on the authenticity of Egypt's choice of leaders. As it rejects the falsehood that the armed forces have their parallel economy -imputing unaccountability.

My words here are borrowed from the World Bank as corroborated by other sources of fact-checked statistics:

• The military's economic share is less than 4% of the gross national product. In Egypt, the farm land is mostly private ownership. But most desert land is owned by the State. In food production, the military have a limited role, mainly confined to subsidized handouts to the poor. An Egyptian version of America's food stamps for the needy. In construction, publicly-owned firms hold 11.5% market share. The private sector holds 88.84%.
• Of course, there are, as should be, strategic exceptions. Connected to security and national stability considerations. The prime example is the construction of the second Suez Canal. Inaugurated in August 2015, but funded entirely by subscriptions for shares spreading the ownership throughout the populace.
• And under the stewardship of former Prime Minister Hazem Al-Beblawi, certain infrastructure projects were allocated to the military. For reasons of quick execution at a low cost. Total value reached 5.5 billion Egyptian pounds ($1=LEG 7.83) A figure constituting only 10% of public investment in fiscal 2014-2015.

No wonder that "The Egyptian Mind" values a security State. Not that it is ruled by a security apparatus, but its peace is guaranteed by the army, the police, a diplomacy of peace, and a new leadership which exalts development over ideology. After America was attacked in 9/11, it created the Department of Homeland Security (180,000 employees), nurtured 50,000 security companies; created Guantanamo and suspended the Geneva Conventions. Egypt is targeted by hostile acts from outside at nearly all times.

Third: The Third side of the rectangle of The Egyptian Mind is an ingrained belief that adversity can only be temporary. Resilience, not advocated, but deeply felt. National catastrophes, like the war of 1967 when Egypt's air force was totally destroyed by the Israeli attack, was recorded as "a setback." Six years later, the score were made even. And when the food riots erupted in February 1977, as a result of withdrawal of government subsidies for basics, the International Monetary Fund was debunked. And nearly 20 years earlier, when the U.S. and the World Bank reneged on premises to fund the Aswan Dam project, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal company.

On the matter of the Aswan Dam funding, Egypt did not nationalize the Canal as uninformed world press asserted. The Canal is sovereign territory, meaning that you do not nationalize what you own. The company was a different matter. Yet nationalization of the company cost the share holders, mostly foreign, nothing. Those shares were fully compensated by Egypt at their fair market value.

And here emerges another facet of resilience as an impulse of "The Egyptian Mind." Respect of treaties. In March 1979, a peace treaty was concluded in Washington, D.C. between Egypt (one third of all Arabs) and Israel. Nearly all Arab States retaliated by isolating Egypt. The League of Arab States, moved its headquarters from Cairo to Tunis. But Egyptian resilience had a voice. In Sadat's voice, the response was "Egypt is a country which isolates; it is not subject to isolation." A few years later, the Egyptian peace theory prevailed. And the League was back to its birthplace.

It is challenging to attempt a listing of factors for that belief that adversity can only be a passing cloud. But a few of these factors may be highlighted as a framework for resilience:

• An ancient cradle of civilization
• Many Egypts from the Mediterranean to the aquatic Red Sea; to the sacred heart of Egypt at Luxor; to Egypt's front garden at the Fayoum oasis
• Moderate climate
• Vast desserts east and west ready for reclamation
• Readiness to do with fewer amenities. Lunch could be a loaf of bread, a piece of cheese, an onion, and a glass of sweet tea
• And the Nile shall always flow regardless of hydropolitics in eastern Africa. If not the Blue Nile, then the White Nile in cooperation with the Sudan. What can go wrong?!

Fourth: Completing the rectangle encompassing "The Egyptian Mind" (with spaces to be filled by the reader) we have Egyptianness. A living mode of exceptionalism. Not haughty, but seductively humble and urbane, and smiling.

Four Egyptian languages: Arabic, Coptic, Nubian and Berber (in Siwa). An early children teaching that "you are part ancient Egyptian, part Arab." An educational system, though ineffectual, but still clings to teaching English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and as of late, Russian. Farsi and Hebrew are also taught. Diverse cuisines, from Molokhiyyah (green soup), eaten by Ancient Egypt, to grilled meat kebabs and kofta, and of course, falafel.

And a bewildering array of dress, from that of a mayor (Omdah) to a western-looking young woman pilot of Egyptair. Together with a focus on protecting the most vulnerable borders -the coastline, of 1555 miles on the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Exceptionalism is also prominent in song, dance, films, the theater and the arts. All protected by constitutional provisions of the secular document of 2014. Including the popular song for the Armed Forces on July 3, 2013: "May God Bless the Hands of Our Armed Forces." A failing attempt to negate it by the Muslim Brotherhood "May the Hands of Our Armed Forces Be Paralyzed." Antagonism and non-belonging to "The Egyptian Mind." 

And the head of the Coptic Church, Pope Theododros II of Alexandria was a pharmacist. While the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb, is a graduate of the Sorbonne in France.

We cannot exit this text without reference to the sense of Egyptian humor. Especially when quoted from a President and an Egyptian Coptic Pope:

• Sadat was once told that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was hurling accusations at Egypt. His laughing response: "What do you expect from an ugly looking woman?" Later was a topic of laughter in 1977 between the two leaders.
• The great scholar, the late Pope Shenouda III, and hailing from southern Egypt (Al-Ssaaeed) put this question to a group of his listeners (including me): "Do you know why God created the Egyptians of southern Egypt?" No answer from the audience. The Pope provided the humorous answer: "For comic relief!!"

"The Egyptian Mind" encompasses more than the above. The fact remains that Egypt is a special place. For where else in the Arab and Muslim worlds would you have "the Prince of Poets," Ahmed Shawki (1868-1932), a Muslim, writing a poem of praise about Jesus. Conveying true inclusiveness, it reads, through my translation from Arabic into English:

"Upon Jesus birth, so was mercy born;
good deeds, heavenly guidance and eternal life.
No threats, no temporal might, no revenge;
no sword, no invasion, no blood.
In his love and adoration; 
great disciples bowed their heads." 

"The Egyptian Mind" retains the adage "Misr Umm El-Donia" (Egypt Is the World's Mother.) It also retains the Coptic prayer inherited from the Saints "Blessed Be My People - Egypt." And how would it forget that the Quran mentions Egypt by name 5 times in no less than 4 Chapters. Including a verse which greets all of arrivals at the Cairo International Airports: "If God pleases, enter Egypt in safety." (Chapter 12, from verse 99.)

From faith, we conclude with high diplomacy. Indicative of "The Egyptian Mind." An exchange between two giants, not yet reported before anywhere.

Concerned about Egypt's professional representation at the UN Secretariat, the great Foreign Minister, Dr. Mahmoud Fawzi went in the early 1950s to see the best-ever UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold. The S.G. asked: "Mahmoud: How do you qualify an Egyptian fit to serve here." Without hesitation, Fawzi responded: "Regardless of faith or affiliation, or gender, that individual should intimately reflect Egypt as a unique civilization."

An example of "The Egyptian Mind" in full view on the world stage. As defined by Mahmoud Fawzi, the Godfather of the Egyptian School of Diplomacy. A school that suffered no interruption since 1922, come "Hell or High Water!!"

A Mini Interpretive Dictionary of American Elections Vocabulary. Here Follow A Text As Well As A Sub-Text

There is nothing more boring than dictionaries. They are not for bedtime reading. Learners reach for them only when obliged to verify a word. This blog posting is ipso facto boring. But necessary to explain, selectively, the American lexicon in this year of electioneering. Here follows my mini political dictionary of American elections oratory.

"Live Free or Die:" It is the motto of the State of New Hampshire. A liberal state, known as a "blue color State." Were it conservative, it would have been categorized "a red color State." Like most of the southern states which still call "the Civil war," the "war between the States," with a capital letter (S).

"The Hawkeye State:" Reference is made here to the state of Iowa. A rural state in the Midwest. Where 64% of its inhabitants are evangelicals. You might as well call the evangelicals the near equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood. Except that they do not engage in physical violence. That is where the primary elections for both the Democrats and the Republicans are first waged.

"The Primaries:" Are intended as boxing matches and are held between the multiple candidates of the two main parties. Determining the viability, meaning "the electability" of a candidate. Leading the winner to be the party nominee. Weeding out the political chaff from the wheat. Like giving the American voter a test run of a new car before committing to buying it.

"An Establishment Candidate:" Is someone who had prior political experience. As a senator, a governor, or an ambassador. This year, if you are an establishment candidate, you are not a favorite of those newly -participating in the elections process. Call it a generational gap; an educational gap; or a regional gap. Gaps here are the sluices (sliding gates) where rage about government pours out. This year in America, is definitely a year of rage.

"A Future To Believe In:" A mantra by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Fashioned after Obama's winning political motto of 2008 "Yes We Can," and "Change You Can Trust." Reference is to the general perception that "Government lies." An innuendo about the CIA fabricating the news about Saddam's ownership of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

"Projecting High Turn Out:" Refers to total uncertainty about the percentage of those eligible to vote casting their ballots. In Iowa, the percentage of youth (defined in America as between the ages of 18 and 30) who stayed at home in recent elections ((caucus) days) was a whopping 84%.

"A Razor-Edge Margin:" In the American system, a fraction of one percentage of voters for a candidate satisfies for putting the winner on top. Winner takes all. Avoids the Italian or French fractional representation. At the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton won by 49.8% caucus-chosen delegates; her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, got 49.6%. A razor thin difference. To cover that defeat, Sanders called it "virtual tie." Made the Hillary camp laugh saying: "There is no such term. A win is a win is a win."

"Caucusing:" A special form of politically choosing through a meeting of an elective party committee. Caucuses are all about local politics. Giving the nation a pre-warning of what might emerge through national elections for president this November. A form of participatory democracy.

More on "Caucusing:" Is it fit for the Arab world? Such as in Egypt of Tunisia? No!! Primary reason: America began from localities; the Arab States began from centralism.

"Identity Politics:" Refer primarily to age, not race. Identity is with issues, not with minority interest and majority interest. Determination by age keeps America on a consistent political course, regardless of the changing demographics. This helps political stability, since by 2030, the whites in America shall slide downward to 45% of the populace. "Equality Before the Law," as based on the enduring Constitution with its amendments, is America's governance safety net.

"Conservative versus Liberal:" Terms primarily used by contenders for the Democratic Party nomination. Now, with the elimination process, it is between Hillary and Bernie. Pushed Hillary to the left, forcing her to call herself "progressive centrist." Whatever this means. Her new appellations are not in her favor. Sanders has stayed, for the past 20 years, his ideological course for "a socialist revolution." But causing the Clinton camp to accuse him of "sloganeering." Bill Clinton came to his wife's rescue saying: "Talk is cheap. America needs Hillary. She gets things done."

"A Socialist Revolution:" A political description of Sander's political message. Used against him by the Clinton campaign. In essence, the Sanders message is nothing but continuity from the days of Franklin Roosevelt. It means no turning away from the system of social security and of strict banking regulation. But Sanders pushes the envelope further. In the direction of free education for all. (In Egypt, this is called the Taha Hussein philosophy: "Education is as essential as water and air." 

"Robotic:" A robot is pre-programmed. Nothing comes out except what is put in. An insult addressed to Hillary (by the Republicans), and to Marco Rubio (by his Republican opponents, and democratic haters).

"From Day One:" A cliche promise by Republican contenders, promising swift action once in the Oval Office. Too impractical for implementation; provides high expectations which threaten the credibility of a new president. The occupant of the Oval Office is not a push-button executive. Hemmed in by checks and balances and by precedents.

"With all due respect:" Watch out!! Your opponent is about to tear your views apart. It is only a facilitator to a determined denial of the accuracy of what that political opponent stands for.

"My competitor would make a great vice president:" A put down by an opponent seeking the presidency. Wanting to say: "My adversary comes below me in authority and stature. I am way ahead."

"This is an awesome non-answer:" A description of the alleged stupidity of an opponent. Generally used in political debates, or for a refusal to answer a question from the media.

"Make America Great Again:" A mantra used by Trump to explain that he is ready to use non-conventional means to conventional American ends of supremacy in a turbulent world. So even when defeated in the Iowa caucus, he prided himself on being new to the game of politics, but ready to rule the U.S. as an accomplished "deal maker." His book, "The Art of the Deal" has been made by his campaign as equivalent to Chairman Mao's Red Book. Yet when defeated in Iowa, the Iowa newspapers headlined: "Dead Clown Walking."

"Donald Trump Isn't Real:" Headlined David Brooks, a nationally-acclaimed New York Times writer. Here are his words against Trump, the champion of banning Muslims from America:

"Trump's whole campaign was based on success breeding success, the citing of self-referential poll victories to justify his own candidacy. How does he justify a campaign built entirely around his own mastery? Can an aggressor like him respond gracefully in the days ahead to self-created failure? His concession speech was an act of pathetic self-delusion."

"You Can't Be a Moderate and a Progressive:" Personally I don't perceive a big difference between the meaning of these two terms. But this is what was said by Sanders in an attack on Hillary Clinton's political philosophy. In the now contested state for a primary win in the liberal state of New Hampshire. Sander's territory where he has what is called in American political lingo "neighborly advantage, home state advantage." Sanders is from Vermont, but his home state borders New Hampshire to the west. Constituting one of "the blue states" of the great region north east of the US, called "New England." With a city in New Hampshire called "Lebanon." 

"I am not a politician:" Stands for freshness, innocent of grid-lock chaos in Washington, D.C., and of lying to the public. Fury against the so-called establishment politics has shaken the 2016 races. The New York Times of February 2, headlined: "Electorate Divided in deep disaffection."

"Some of my friends are Muslims:" watch out for what follows. Islamophobia. That is where leadership steps in. For the protection of American values of diversity, and also for concern for American security. On February 3, President Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore mosque. Warned Americans not to be "bystanders of bigotry."

What Does All the Above Mean? Democracy has no universally agreed definition. It is a product, that  sprouts in various flavors out of the soil of culture. Hence the variables in its political expressions. As evidenced by the foregoing. By the way: Iowa is an American State. Not equivalent to the Egyptian word meaning OK!!

These are doctrinal differences. But there are other differences of a structural nature between an American model of democracy, and, say, an Egyptian model.

In Iowa, Jeb Bush spent $5200, per elector. These are not direct payments. They are largely the cost of staff by the thousands and of media ads.

It is impossible for an Egyptian candidate for public office to spend that kind of money. An Egyptian candidate might offer a pound of fresh meat or of sugar. And for that little gift to a needy public, his Egyptian opponents and media would scream "corruption."

Furthermore, it is unthinkable for an Egyptian candidate to have his family, including wife and mother to join him or her publicly on the stump. Again to Jeb. His mother does, to the point of the media spelling his "momentum" as "momENTUM." And Hillary has her husband, former President Bill Clinton next to her behind a microphone.

Which of the two parties are expected to get the Oval Office as of January 2017? The Democrats. Hillary, not Sanders. He is too shrill, a bit too far to the left. The American electorate tends to be at the center. Hillary, a woman who is expected to follow Obama. From the first ever black President, to the first ever woman President. The voice of both experience and continuity.

Why did I embark on the perilous journey of putting together this mini dictionary? Perilous, because every paragraph supra is subject to challenge. But it is worth it. Because it has an ideological sub-text. Namely that "democracy" cannot be one single paradigm.

Like "The Seven Veils of Eve," you cannot measure democracy outside America by an American yardstick. Applicable also to measuring the observance of human rights in the New Egypt. For the New Egypt is still at: "Sorry For Your Inconvenience, We Are Under Construction." Democracy, including various forms of respect for human rights, is the product of its own environment.

For the purpose of understanding through the study of contrasts. Here are two examples: American media has for long become enamored with severely criticizing Egypt's security forces clearing the sit-ins in public squares in Cairo (Rabaa and Al-Nahdha).

That was in August 2013, following the removal (in fact the recall) of the Muslim Brotherhood reign of Islamic fascism. Compare this to the removal by American federal forces of the illegal occupants of the prairies of Oregon. And remember that Rabaa and Al-Nahdha are not prairies. They are public squares in a very crowded capital of 12 million citizens.

And while you are it, why not examine the way the Egyptian prosecution and judiciary are handling the opposition to the State of law and order of El-Sisi government? In that examination, compare it to an America rightly stressed by 9/11. Erecting the infamous Guantanamo, where the Muslim victims of that dragnet benefited by no due process!!

As Americans, let us never forget: At Guantanamo, the great American values were submerged under the flood waters of two contrived fictions: That Guantanamo is not American soil!! Really? So why do I see on it flying high, not the Cuban flag, but our American flag?

And that at Guantanamo, the Geneva Conventions are considered obsolete and, in any case, not applicable to those Muslim detainees!! You must be kidding!! So why do we recall those conventions when a group of American sailors lost their way recently in the Gulf, were arrested in Iranian waters, and videotaped by their Iranian captors, prior to their release?

Please get real!! The world is one!! So should be the word!! Because words have consequences!! Globally speaking!!

Life lessons are recalled if taught through contrasts and comparisons. Someone said: "The evil in this world is the creation of those who make a distinction between the self and other." Quoted by David Brooks from a nameless another.