Egypt Pursuing Criminal Charges Against Obama and Hilary For Aiding Muslim Brotherhood?

Is there any truth to this?

From the Conservative Tribune:

President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took great care of the Muslim Brotherhood while the terrorist group was briefly in charge of Egypt following the Arab Spring. 

Though the group is no longer in power, as they were ousted by the Egyptian military, Egypt hasn’t forgotten the aid and comfort Obama provided the terrorist group during their short reign. Egypt has officially charged both Obama and Clinton with conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood. 

These serious charges aren’t a stretch, as Obama has been seen protecting the group in various ways, including placing them on a “hands off” list to allow entrance into the United States and even an invite into his own administration. 

While the group controlled Egypt, Obama made sure that they had plenty of weapons, including tanks, light and heavy arms and even planes — to the tune of billions of dollars. 

The Muslim Brotherhood is all about implementing Shariah law in Western countries, and the United States is no exception. They wouldn’t hesitate to harm or kill any Christian or Jew who aren’t willing to accept or share their radical faith. We’ve already seen several examples of Shariah spreading to the West — and it’s only getting worse. 

Egyption lawmakers charged Obama and Clinton in two separate complaints with the conspiracy charge. For the first complaint, Obama was officially named as “an accessory to crimes committed by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.” 

The charge is serious, with specific details about his accessory role, that said he, “cooperated, incited, and assisted the armed elements of the Muslim Brotherhood in the commission of crimes.” 

The other charge, against Clinton, accuses her of working with Naglaa Mahmood, the wife of the ousted Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi, in an attempt to overthrow General Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi, the current leader of Egypt (H/T Western Journalism). 

Mahmood has since admitted that she’s worked closely with the Clintons, dating back to the 1980s — including numerous phone calls between the two since then, hundreds of which she has recorded. 

Perhaps the most serious charge against the two involves their attempted bribe to the tune of $8 billion which was an attempt to sway the Brotherhood to open up part of the Sinai Peninsula to Hamas groups to make it easier to attack Israel.

Global Warming And Confirmation Bias

From the Belmont Club:

None of the scientists who have “come out” as climate skeptics allege a massive conspiracy by scientists, any more than there is a massive liberal conspiracy in Hollywood. What you have is a self-emergent, self-organizing bias. I hope I can illustrate it briefly.

I work in academic science (check my IP address if you wish). Scientists are, in general, uncompromising idealists for objective, physical truth. But occasionally, politics encroaches. Most of my work is funded by DoE, DoD, ONR, and a few big companies. We get the grants, because we are simply the best in the field. But we don’t work in isolation. We work as part of a department, which has equipment, lab space, and maintenance staff, IT, et cetera. We have a system for the strict partition of unclassified/classified research through collaboration with government labs. The department had set a research policy and infrastructure goal to attract defense funding, and it worked.

The same is true in climate science. Universities and departments have set policies to attract climate science funding. Climate science centers don’t spontaneously spring into existence – they were created, in increasingly rapid numbers, to partake in the funding bonanza that is AGW. This by itself is not political – currently, universities are scrambling to set up “clean energy” and “sustainable technology” centers. Before it was bio-tech and nanotechnology. But because AGW-funding is politically motivated, departments have adroitly set their research goals to match the political goals of their funding sources. Just look at the mission statements of these climate research institutes – they don’t seek to investigate the scientific validity or soundness of AGW-theory, they assume that it is true, and seek to research the implications or consequences of it.

This filters through every level. Having created such a department, they must fill it with faculty that will carry out their mission statement. The department will hire professors who already believe in AGW and conduct research based on that premise. Those professors will hire students that will conduct their research without much fuss about AGW. And honestly, if you know anything about my generation, we will do or say whatever it is we think we’re supposed to do or say. There is no conspiracy, just a slightly cozy, unthinking myopia. Don’t rock the boat.

The former editor of the New Scientist, Nigel Calder, said it best – if you want funding to study the feeding habits of squirrels, you won’t get it. If you wants to study the effects of climate change on the feeding habits of squirrels, you will. And so in these subtle ways, there is a gravitational pull towards the AGW monolith.

I think it the most damning evidence for this soft tyranny is in the work of climate scientists whose scientific integrity has led them to publish results that clearly contradict basic assumptions in AGW modeling. Yet, in their papers, they are very careful to skirt around the issue, keeping their heads down, describing their results in a way obfuscates the contradiction. They will describe their results as an individual case, with no greater implications, and issue reassuring boilerplate statements about how AGW is true anyways.

For the field as a whole, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s the unfortunate consequence of having a field totally dominated by politically-motivated, strings-attached money. In the case of the CRU email group, well, the emails speak for themselves. Call it whatever you want.