The sine qua non of the Egyptian unrest is more of the active participation of Al Azhar and the Muslim Brotherhood, religious and radical Islam fundamentalists anti-Western revolutionary organizations that have always been agitating for a power-grab since the signing of the Arab-Israel peace treaty following the 1967 desert war where Egypt's and Syria's joint invasion forces almost conquered Israel, but not quite, when Israel successfully counter-attacked and had almost taken both Cairo and Damascus had the UN not intervened and saved those beleaguered Arab capitals.

The point I am driving at is, it is quite myopic if not irresponsible or even more condescending and less discerning, to attribute the massive demonstrations now going on there, to Egyptians starving or getting hungry and angry due to the rising prices of food or attributed to the folly of the U.S. Federal Reserves as this remotely connected innuendoes appear in this written article. This published distortion is a misnomer, which is misleading and deluding the public, and the motive behind it is definitely clandestine or in Greek mythology a public conjuring as evil as Hades, the husband of Persephone.

Obama is for Islam-instigated reforms that he hopes would quickly sweep Egypt without bloodshed. As a maverick for change that we have as president, there is no doubt that to Obama our economic and political commitment to Egypt written and signed in a scrap of paper is less important than his religious commitment, since his childhood in Indonesia, to the fundamental teachings of Islam that he was baptized with and must uphold in his life at all times.

After a 30-minute meeting with Obama in the White House, poor Mubarak – the father of modernized Western democratic Egypt now threatened by a fundamentalist power-grab -- was no longer sure of his own political fate, but what was more dreadful to the threatened president of Egypt was what holds for the future of Egypt while pro-Islam Obama sits in the Oval Office.

Mubarak saw the enemy of Egypt right there in the White House !!!

If the States start picking up their authority, and start REALLY testing the laws and treaties of the United States against the authority that it (the U.S. Government) supposedly had to make them, we might find that LOADS of laws and treaties are invalid, and never had the authority of law or treaty in the first place.

Why might the States start doing this kind of testing? The States are much closer to the people than the Federal Government. So it will be the people doing the testing of the U.S. laws and treaties. The Federal Government just might be found to have far less authority than it has assumed.

Most of this thinking is based on the idea that people NEVER make an agreement that they believe will harm them. People do not elect officers to governmental positions because they want to get hurt. Rather, they elect them to fix the problems. Because of this, people in Government better have a GREAT BIG GIGANTIC excuse for allowing something like all the housing and money problems that exist right now. If they don't, they just might be in danger of being found guilty of treason.

Did Government officials in good faith accidentally allow the problems to happen? Or did they allow them to happen because of bribes or neglect... i.e., bad faith?

Breaking trust with the people can be a dangerous thing.