How to Reform Politics: What Your Politician Will Never Tell You

Guy DeWhitney's Heretics Crusade: Defendng Western Civilization

You hear it on the Left, you hear it on the Right, you hear it from the Third Parties – Reform Campaign Finance; Reform Congressional Lobbying, Reform Labor Relations and Unions! But, you never hear solutions, at least not solutions that amount to more than “things would be wonderful if those people over there (labor, management, government, you and me, etc. ad nauseum) were not allowed to participate in the process at all!!!“.

And the sad part Virginia, is that the solutions are so damn simple anyone can see it the moment they drop their “but, we have to win”/zero sum perspectives.

How do we reform campaign finance? We can’t, so we don’t.

That is, we don’t reform it, we eliminate it! It is nothing but a source of potential corruption and cannot be “fixed” by any means available to man, so let’s drop it. All election campaigns should be financed from a pool of government funds; if politician A gets X number of signatures qualifying for a place on the ballot for the office of Y he/she would get the same exact amount as every other andidate who qualified for that ballot.

I eagerly await anyone who can show me that this is a bad idea, except for the fact that their side, the good guys, can’t use it against the evil bad guys, their opposition, whoever they may be at the moment.

That takes care of a huge part of the inefficiency and corruption of modern politics at one fell swoop; how about we go after most of the rest with our backhand?

Congressional lobbying, bending the ear of Senators and Representatives, is quite arguably inseparable from a meaningful freedom of speech or a responsive government, so how do we reform what we cannot eliminate? We pass a law making it illegal to pay (in goods or services as well as money) someone to do it for you, that’s all.

Both of these ideas put central the concept that money is not equal to speech;a nonsensical conclusion to anyone who is not desiring to benefit from corruption before it is shut down if I ever eard one!

Think about it Virginia, if Citizen A has 10 dollars his political voice is only ten dollars “loud” but, if Citizen Y, or worse, Corporation M and foreign national R, with ten million dollars have voices that make Citizen A virtually invisible on the political stage; surely this is not what any of our founders
envisioned!

Which brings us to the unions! SO much has changed since the heyday of the teens and twenties of the last century. Remind me again, in this day and age just what purpose do Union Leaders serve… other than their own?

My proposal once again is very simple, organic and even elegant: when a union ends a despite and signs a new contract they immediately disband.

That’s it. If a new issue arises and the workers vote to form a new union to deal with it all is well and good. And when a new contract is signed the leaders go back to work instead of sinking their fangs into the real worker’s necks and riding them until they die, or their industry is killed instead.

Now, take those three, simple changes, all of them unassailable on Constitutional grounds, and project the country past two presidential election cycles; does your mind boggle at the possibilities for real improvement? Does a shiver run down your leg?

Then take it and run with it! The beauty of our system is that no matter how much a pol does not want to do something, if enough people get an idea in their heads the pols have to go along and pray to survive the next election.

All of these changes have one thing in common, reality, they make the government deal with facts and voters, not special interests and corporate funds; and that Virginia, is really all this country needs to be a strong and beautiful as it can be.

Economics 001 a Remedial Course for Modern Monetary Morons

Economics is more than just money

Today there seem to be few people, let alone economists, who actually seem to grasp the basic  ideas of monetary theory upon which they build their roads to whatever fantasy land their prejudices predispose them to believe in. Economists pronounce, politicians spout and pundits pund but, how many of them really grasp, and apply, a basic understanding of what money is; how many have a clue how far everyone has strayed from reality?

Come Virginia, let us begin at the beginning; what is the difference between coinage historically (which is not like coinage in the modern world) and paper “monies“, and just what money really is.

I will be analyzing monetary theory without being bound by any politically oriented school of “economics“, instead I will attempt to put money in the same light that Newton put moving objects; money follows laws that do not respect any political need or opinion and I hope to merely describe what it is and what it is not irrespective of what anyone wants it to be.

Let’s start with coinage, a concept that still holds its place at the head of the parade despite vanishing as a concept by the 1970’s.

Historically, coins were what people now mostly think “money” should be, a portable piece of actual wealth, something “worth” just what its face declares. Don’t forget though that all value is relative, if no-one wants gold, it is “worth” little, if they crave it, it is worth a lot.
Cash monies on the gold standard promised payment in hard coin with value of its own.

At first glance this seems a good system, though it does carry hidden “costs.” If the gold or silver or copper in a coin is “worth” exactly its face value the person or group who minted that coin will lose the amount of “value” (manpower and resources) represented by the minting of the coin from bullion.  No matter how cheaply a chunk of bullion quality metal is turned into coinage that amount of value will be lost to the minter if they receive the “face” value in goods or services in return for their shiny, new coins.

This does not change with banknotes; printing costs plus the cost of the raw materials simply replaces the minting costs; remember, the raw material of a coin is the value of the coin.

For a long time banknotes represented actual bullion in a vault, or somewhere in the control of the issuer of the note, while coins represented actual wealth themselves. But, the ability of coiners to debase the metals they used producing coins “worth” less than their face value, and the fact that not all promissory notes represented an honest promise of actual coinage made the system far from perfect.

Enter “fiat” money. Bitterly fought, this is what “money” is supposed to be, though the transition is far from over globally and nationally.

A “currency” based on the exchange of gold and silver etc. is not in fact a real monetary system, it is barely one step up from barter. In barter or specie based economies not only must a person, or society, have the wealth and productivity to fill their own basic needs, they need to accumulate extra goods (coinage) simply to be able to participate in the system that provides those basic needs and services. Then they must accumulate even more if they wish to enjoy a level of “comfort” far below what is consonant with their current efforts to add productivity and wealth to their communities.

Barter ecomonies belong to an uncivilized past. Coinage was a simple, brute force answer to the problem of trusting someone when you have no way of enforcing that trust. Cash on the barrelhead as they said. Hopefully we have grown a bit beyond that, at least in the Western (civilized, modern) world.

Here is the bombshell Virginia, it is so simple that the “intelligentsia” just can’t get it: In a civilized society the function of money is to serve as counters in the games of economics, nothing more, nothing less. Money is not a commodity as it has no value of its own. Money is supposed to represent the wealth and productivity of the issuer only, not to be “worth” anything at all on its own!

Ideally, if a government wanted a bridge built and had the spare raw materials and manpower to build it, all the gov needs to do is print the right amount of money, and pay for a new road.

They do not make anything appear by doing so, they do not cause “inflation”, they just tossed counters in the game that were needed to let the players turn raw materials and idle bodies into a bridge thus creating wealth, not diminishing it! Or not creating as such, but acknowledging, since keeping the money level in balance with the national productivity is the whole goal.

Ideally, within a nation, it should be practical to pay each citizen with new, non-inflated money in tune with any growth in GDP, just like dividends to stockholders in a corporation. Infrastructure improvements (bridges, roads, universities and research facilities, etc.) would only be “unaffordable” if they used so many resources or manpower that they caused a significant rise in prices and wages in the private sector; wouldn’t that be so terrible, we couldn’t build a road one year because there was no unemployment and people were selling what they made as fast as they could make it!

Practically, especially with the current rats nest of insanity that we call economics worldwide, that kind of system would be almost impossible to implement; more the shame on us for letting things get so messed up.

Simply put, we should not be borrowing the money the government has the sole right to print/mint and regulate!!! The amount of dollars in circulation is supposed to be enough, theoretically, to buy all the goods and services produced this year, instead we treat money as though it is coinage and create a pre-broken system that invites inflation, deflation and puts everyone at the mercy of molehill booms and mountains busts.

For Peace, Muslim Public Affairs Council MPAC Has to Show Respect to Reality

Jewish Paelstine Israel as it was supposed to be and should be again

Jewish Paelstine Israel as it was supposed to be and should be again

And over here Virginia we have an excellent example of a seasoned political operative exercising her trade; open-faced, warmly sincere, and accidently self-serving, distortions of basic reality. Also take note of the masterly avoidance of any substantial discussion of the actual text of the speech, or, for that matter the actual reaction of Congress to Mr. Netanyahu’s words. MPAC, the Muslim Public Affairs Council has

It is no wonder Abbas said that Netanyahu’s speech before the joint meeting of Congress was a “declaration of war against the Palestinians.” The “Palestinian Narrative” demands victim status for the proper strategic placement to finally “Solve” the Nakba; Hamas is the historical and ideological heir to the Muftif of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the man who encouraged Hitler to adopt the rabidly innovative new idea for Europe’s “Final Solution”.  Husayni commanded a Nazi SS division of Muslim soldiers, only failing to implement his own Middle Eastern Holocaust because of the decline of Germany’s falling on the defensive and subsequent loss in WWII.

But, after all, Netanyahu’s adherence to the actual armistice agreement from all the way back in ‘48 is hardly a shock; Israel always was supposed to have a negotiated border based on the “Green Line” where, for the most part, troops happened to be when the final ceasefire was called. From ‘48 to ‘67 Gaza was effectively a part of Egypt and The West Bank was part of Jordan; neither country EVER made a single move, or even suggested, that the “Palestinians” needed a state of their own.

Then in ‘67 Egypt illegally blockaded Israeli shipping and sent it’s entire armored force toward the Israeli border while proclaiming to the world that it was the intention of Egypt to eliminate the state of Israel by a genocidal application of military force.

Here is a quote from Judge Stephen Schwebel, former President of the ICJ (International Court of Justice) (italics added)

“The facts of the June 1967 ‘Six Day War’ demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR’s use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF (a UN peacekeeping force “invited” to stand aside, or else by Egypt prior to the massing of the invasion force – Guy DeWhitney). It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”

On to MPAC’s all too commonly disingenuous “analysis of Mr. Netanyahu’s amazingly blunt and refreshingly honest speech…

“Last week, President Barack Obama outlined his vision for the Middle East, rooted in the principle that change is inevitable, and that democracy, human rights and self-determination will continue to ultimately move the region to a better place. For too long, dictators ran the region, many of whom deliberately held the Mid-East peace process hostage for their own personal gain and popularity.”

Well, we all know how willing the Arab states have been to sit down and hammer out a settlement, right? The following undisputed quotes paint a different picture of the Muslim attitude on the ground I am afraid…

“You understand that we  plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by   psychological warfare and population explosion….I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews.”
Yasser Arafat speaking to an Arab audience; Stockholm, Sweden 1996

“Whoever thinks that the intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon’s visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong. This intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton.”
PA Minister Imad Falouji, 2001

“We may lose or win [tactically], but our eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal, namely, to Palestine from the river to the sea. Whatever we get now cannot make us forget this supreme truth.”
Faisal Husseini, PA minister & Jerusalem PLO representative, 2001

Peace Partners, Obama said? “Not by the hair of my chinny, chin, chin. said the Little Pig”. Back to MPAC’s demonstration of psychological projection…

An important component of the President’s address was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The President did not offer anything novel regarding the conflict, but rather re-stated long-running U.S. policy regarding the 1967 borders, which both the Clinton and Bush administrations saw as a starting point for negotiations.

In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat in the White House alongside Obama and called the President’s remarks on the 1967 borders “indefensible” and “throwing Israel under the bus”.  Netanyahu not only questioned President Obama’s intelligence in a 12-minute rambling diatribe in the Oval office on the history of the Middle East, but at the invitation of the congressional Republican leadership, he went so far as to rebut the President’s speech in front of both houses of the United States Congress this week.

And, it seems that much of Congress was receptive to this fresh, almost shocking openness and return to honesty in that sacred chamber. The MPAC fantasy continues…

“Unfortunately, this type of political grandstanding is nothing new from the Republican leadership in Congress. In November 2009, after meeting with Netanyahu in Israel, Republican House Majority leader Eric Cantor (leading a 25-person Congressional delegation), said that he would act as a check to the President’s policy in the Middle East. This statement was an unprecedented rebuke by a member of Congress, of an American President on foreign soil. No matter what one’s views are regarding the conflict, it is distasteful for members of Congress to volunteer themselves as theater props in order to discredit the President of the United States.”

A member? hardly; MPAC’s spin-meisteress forgot to add that 30 Representatives and 17 Senators were chosen/volunteered by the VICE PRESIDENT and Speaker of the House to be Netanyahu’s “Escort of Honor”; and yes Virginia, it was a totally bi-partisan group, including BOTH Democratic Senators from California! Oh, and then there were the 27 standing ovations, most of them loud and obviously sincere; there is an element on the Left that claims the entire U.S. Congress is so terrified of Israel that they do not feel they can be SEEN to NOT be enthusiastic, Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght! Oh, we should also note this little piece from the Washington Post: Democrats join Republicans in questioning Obama’s policy on Israel

“No matter how long such political theater continues, the status quo will not move either side forward. Both sides have entrenched themselves.  From the Israeli side, the separation wall continues to be built on Palestinian land and illegal settlements continue to grow. The Palestinians have recently signed a unity agreement, yet there does not seem to be much movement towards a national platform for peace and the use of violence in Gaza continues to set them back.”

What a tribute to the Imagination and genius of the Republican “political theater” staff; twenty seven standing ovations from both sides of the aisle; no less enthusiastic at the end, after Congress being gently slapped in the face with reality,  than at the beginning.

“President Obama cannot produce a peace agreement on his own…”

Of course not, and if he tried I think that this same MPAC writer would likely claim that the U.S. had no right to do any such thing!

“…And while pressure is on Palestinians to make more concessions, the reality is that the Israelis can end the stalemate now if it wanted to have a peace deal.”

This is the first time I have seen “peace deal” used as a euphemism for national and ethnic suicide; given the adamantly stated goals of the Arab nations and the Palestinian “leadership” no other definition can be entertained by the sane and sober.

Here are some more historical quotes to dash a little cold water on this fantasy called the “Palestinian narrative”:

“The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it an open sore, as an affront to the UN and as a weapon against Israel.”
Ralph Galloway, Director of UNRWA, 1958

“All the Arab countries want to keep this problem looking like an open wound.”
Ana Liria-Franch, UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ regional representative to Cairo, 2003

“If Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.”
Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egyptian President, 1961
“The demand for the return of the Palestinian refugees…is tantamount to the destruction of Israel.”
As’ad Abd-Al Rahman, Minister of Refugee Affairs – Palestinian Authority, 1999

The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians… but, instead they abandoned them and, forced them to emigrate and to leave.”
PA President Mahmoud Abbas, 1976

“We will smash the country. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”
Prime Minister of Iraq Nuri Said, 1948

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”
Haled al Azm, Syria’s Prime Minister, 1948-1949

“The fabricated atrocity stories about Deir Yassin were our biggest mistake…Palestinians fled in terror.”
Hazem Nusseibeh, editor – Palestine Broadcasting Service’s Arabic news in 1948

And now Virginia, back to our regularly scheduled Islamist Apologetics demonstration…

“But Netanyahu’s condescending attitude to our President and by extension our country has to end.  Jeffery Goldberg in an article entitled “Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don’t Speak to My President That Way”, in the Atlantic Monthly, said, “…he [Netanyahu] threw something of a hissy fit. It was not appropriate, and more to the point, it was not tactically wise…”

Twenty. Seven. Standing. Ovations. Clearly Congress failed to realize they were being insulted. Myself I thought Netanyahu showed them respect, by simply telling the truth and not playing games with an issue that is of existential aspect to Israel. Look at this bit from…

THE WASHINGTON POST

PETER WALLSTEN

Top Democrats have joined a number of Republicans in challenging President Obama’s policy toward Israel, further exposing rifts that the White House and its allies will seek to mend before next year’s election.

The differences, on display as senior lawmakers addressed a pro-Israel group late Monday and Tuesday, stem from Obama’s calls in recent days for any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians to be based on boundaries that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, combined with “mutually agreed swaps” of territory.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and other Democrats appeared to reject the president’s reference to the 1967 lines in his latest attempt to nudge along peace talks, thinking that he was giving away too much, too soon.

White House officials say Obama’s assertion did not reflect a shift in U.S. policy. But the president’s comments touched a nerve among pro-Israel activists, drew a rare Oval Office rebuke from Is­raeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and instantly became a litmus test in domestic American politics.

Now Obama — whom critics often accuse of employing a play-it-safe governing style in which he waits for others to take the lead — is largely isolated politically in raising the issue of boundaries…

Read It All

The MPAC writer, who, I think, must have slightly less sense than my char-lady, concludes thusly…

“It is not only the left who has been taken back by Netanyahu’s disrespect to the Oval office but even among the conservatives there is criticism of the way he has demeaned the office of the President of the United States.For peace to be a reality, respect for the White House by Netanyahu must be the first condition to any legitimate process.”

Well Virginia, I do not know why I feel disappointed, after all the whole piece up to that point was also nothing but lies, why shouldn’t the conclusion be more of the same? Here is a link to a compilation of CONGRESSIONAL comments regarding the speech… MPAC has to hate it when people actually go to the SOURCE to refute their propagandistic spin-meister/meistress.

Here is a link to the speech itself… Love it!

Congressional Muslim Staffers Association (CMSA) Hides Website after Stonewalling on Board Elections Then Calls for Republicans to Hire CMSA Members

CMSASeries

Today the CMSA (this link goes to the now defunct “public face” of the association) declared its support for the Diversity Initiative in a Congress faced with many new hires as Democrats depart and Republicans arrive; they hope the new Senators and Representatives continue to hire its members despite the changes in political balance. Yet the CMSA itself has never revealed the details of how their controlling members got and keep that control.

Paradoxically they declare that every one working for Congress who self identifies as a Muslim is eligible for membership but, they also claim to represent all “Muslims” including those who DO NOT publically identify; I can’t help think that the only point of this dual stance is to allow Muslims to pretend to the public that they are not Muslim while privately convincing the CMSA board that they are and exercising stealthy voting rights in the assoc. Is this a religion or a political movement?

Heretics Crusade has investigated this and several other aspects of the CMSA and its leadership, making public their opacity and associations; other blogs have done likewise; but the CMSA still arrogantly demands its “right” to influence the Senators, Representatives and other people of power on The Hill in the name of an amorphous group whose numbers are inflated to augment influence while their leadership seems to answer to no law or office willing to reign them in.

Today, as citizen as well as a “pundit” I sent this email to the Committee on House Administration, who purportedly have jurisdiction over organizations of this type.

Good day; I have a question concerning the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, which operates under your office’s jurisdiction. For the last two years the CMSA has refused to disclose, or even comment on, the elections their charter demands they hold for the executive committee.  No slate of candidates has ever been released nor a tally of votes received by each candidate; yet the board has not changed a single member since 2008.  This has been documented in several posts / articles on the Heretics Crusade website (http://hereticscrusade.com/series/cmsa/) as well as others such as The Jawa Report and Jihad Watch.

My question is this: I would like to know if this is usual conduct for an association of Congressional employees; and if it is not, what will this office be doing to remedy the situation?

I realize that little is likely to result from this email; however I intend to send this post to several moderate and conservative blogs and writers; but, it only takes the right pebble to start an avalanche if a boulder or two gets nudged just right; I have been tossing pebbles for two years, I do not intend to stop now.

bugs

CMSA in the News; Praying With Al Qaida Gimme that Ole Time Religion

gotmuslims2

It seems that the MSM has finally caught up with the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association.  I have been writing about them for a couple years now; their biggest problem seems to be with transparency… as in revealing who votes for what candidates and who got how many votes in the election for their executive board… whose members stay the same, year after year… maybe now I will get those 12 articles on the CMSA some coverage!

It seems the MSM has finally noticed that the CMSA associates with some… questionable… Imams and “moderate” Muslim leaders; folks like:

Anwar al-Awlaki, the notorious Al Qaeda cleric believed to be hiding in Yemen and the lone American on the U.S. government’s capture or kill list, who conducted a prayer service on Capitol Hill shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. 

Randall “Ismail” Royer, a former communications associate for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who confessed in 2004 to receiving jihadist training in Pakistan. He is serving a 20-year prison term.

Anwar Hajjaj, former president of Taibah International Aid Association, which was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and U.N. in 2004.

Esam Omeish, the former president of the Muslim American Society, who was forced to resign from the Virginia Commission on Immigration in 2007 after calling for “the jihad way,” among other remarks.

Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who was forced to step down from a national terrorism committee post in 1999 for pro-terrorist comments.

Nihad Awad, CAIR executive director, who attended a Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 that was wiretapped by the FBI.

Johari Abdul Malik, Dar al-Hijrah imam, who made statements in support of convicted and suspected terrorists who attended his mosque.

Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim scholar banned from the U.S. for six years beginning in 2004 for his alleged ties and donations to terror groups. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lifted Ramadan’s ban in January. 

—  Abdulaziz Othman Al-Twaijri, the head of a division of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, considered a foreign agent by the U.S.”

Oh and Hey, Assad (Akhter) Who ran in the board elections this year? How many voted and who got how many votes? Hmmmm?

CMSA – Images of Muslims in America Q and A Analysis

CMSASeries

The question and answer session at Assad Akhter’s CMSA panel on “discussing” the present situation for Muslim Americans as well as the “Park51 controversy” got off to a wonderful start with the moderator Suhail Khan lobbing a straw man gently underhand for Zogby to pretend to answer. 

It seems Suhail can’t understand why, in the ten years since 9/11, the mood of the average American toward Islam and Muslims has changed; fear not Dr. Zogby has the answer:

“there is a general mood afoot in the country, it is part and parcel of the broader social, unraveling I think, that is taking place. umm, we had, we saw it begin last summer, um, I think some of it has to do with the fact that we have elected an African American president and some folks just can’t ingest it. There is No Question I think, that the economic distress, and the social dislocation that has occurred is part of it. Umm, and, I think at the same time that, that 8 or 9 years of, umm, disinformation has taken the toll. But if the social conditions weren’t there, if the unraveling weren’t there, I don’t think we’d see it. Uh, in exactly the same way. It is classic, uh, xenophobic nativism; we’ve seen it in our history before…”

The multiple attacks and attempted attacks in the US by America Muslims had nothing to do with it at all Zog-man? Okaaay, moving on, Salam puts in his two scheckles worth on the subject of why Americans are less trusting of Islam in 2010…

After a sycophantic salute to Dr. Zogby, Salam veers off the question to a specific and divisive attack…

“…think we are at a crossroads in our society, in terms of what, how we define America. Is America an exclusive club? Or are we going to live up to the stand, our values of pluralism.  And when people start questioning the Christianity of our president, I think that is a form of religious nationalism. I think they’re using religion to say even religion now, in America, is part of an exclusive club.”

And here I thought that pretty much all religions except, Unitarianism, were in one way or another exclusive clubs! Or am I misunderstanding Salam; maybe I can declare myself Muslim without changing a single belief and he will say, “Welcome to Islam Brother”; but, somehow I doubt it.

“And so this exploitation of the truth that is used also for political purposes, since this is now an election year coming up to the November elections. And the fact is, Muslim Americas, they are an easy punching bag for this because we… “

I have to stop and tell you to hold on to your lunch, this is the baldest lie you have ever heard on The Hill…

“…don’t have the reach, we don’t have a lobby, we don’t have a PR infrastructure.”

Got that? Maj. Hasan went his merry Jihadist way in the Army because his colleagues were afraid to be labeled by the PC police as racists; but American Muslims have no reach.

The CMSA itself is openly a lobby; Then we have Salam’s own organization MPAC, and a couple dozen other active, influential lobby groups specifically for Muslim Americans, and Muslim Americans of various ethnic extractions and national origins; but American Muslims are a punching bag because they have no lobby!

And the last, biggest lie; American Muslims have no PR infrastructure; Check out Daniel Pipe’s web site for all the refutation of that Big Lie you could ever desire; but do not forget today’s Pravda: American Muslims have no PR Network.

Tell the Big Lie with a sincere look on your face, then repeat it as though it were gospel, over and over and over again until the sheep buy it; this seems to me to be the gospel according to Salam.

“and so, while we are responding to the, to everything, the other side obviously has the microphone. It’s really the other side of extremists.”

Wow, he actually mentioned Islamic extremists, obscurely and in passing but, he mentioned them! He must be an Islamophobe!

Other than Salam telling an obscure but rather bigoted anecdote this ended the “let us lob around a softball, while ignoring the woman, and pretend it is part of the  and A” part of the program.

I will continue with the REAL Q and A, assuming they allow any real questions, in the next post.

CMSA – Moderate Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow or Just Another bunch of “Moderates”?

CMSASeries

Today Virginia I will be taking another look at the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association. This group came to my attention (see the first post in this series) when the director of CAIR dragged out their name while creating clouds of smoke to obscure his own group’s activities.  I decided to take a closer look; what I found was not reassuring to say the least.

Despite an almost, kind of, sort of gesture at communication by one board member (subject to permission from un-named elder “leaders”, apparently never extended) this group has stonewalled all attempts to obtain information due the public.

To date they have had two elections of board members, but can’t seem to agree on when they hold their elections, nor will they reveal who stood for election to each post or who got how many votes!  It should be noted however that the board was re-“elected” in toto last year; assuming the elections are yearly and not following the congressional cycle as I was told at one point.  Either way a new election should be upcoming; hey Assad, can I see the ballot of candidates this time?

I have also looked at the sources, resources and speakers they promote; I found them to be fairly representative of the pseudo-moderate Jihad-Apologist class of Islamist rather than representative of what I call the Muslim-of-the-Real-World.

Then I saw the video of the CMSA get together called Image of Muslims in the U.S on C-Span; the conference was what you would expect, but Assad Akhter, the CMSA president, said some things that did not sound like the usual blanket victimology of the pretend moderates.  Of course he parroted the usual lines about “near Ground Zero” and such, but he also admitted that while a majority of Americans did not want a Mosque at Park51, they did not mind a Mosque in their own neighborhoods; such an admission from a Muslim spokesman is unusual.

but is this proof of anything real? Let us continue to watch the show…

Next up was the selected moderator Suhail Kahn, the single Republican who allows the CMSA to exist as a “bi-partisan organization in Congress…

From the start Khan sets the definitions in his favor (which is why it is so vital for the opposition to seize back the terms) with “Park51 Community Center in Lower Manhattan” (like Pamela Geller on Hannity we must STOP and hammer the point, Park51 IS Ground Zero), “construction of a community center in Lower Manhattan.”

There was a moment of hope when he spoke of confronting things that had started to be talked about, Islam and women, Islam and terrorism and other things that had been out of his ken but no longer “on the fringe, maybe in chat rooms on the internet, [it] has surfaced and bubbled up to the mainstream conversation”!

But, he was speaking of confronting the Islamist’s favorite straw man, “Islamophobia”; and you thought he spoke of confronting the Islamist radicalism that bubbled up first?  Silly Girl, Virginia, silly girl!

272812main_image_1171_1600-1200

Because you see, in the world according to Khan the fringe of Islamophobes have so bubbled their way into the national perspective that “mainstream politicians are ACCUSING Muslims of SOMEHOW being a fifth column”; somehow, try CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Financed radicalist literature and triumphalist Mosques on the site of Islamist attacks?

Hagia_Sophia

In response Mr. Khan has assembled this panel to define truth as myth, patriot as pervert and to defend the stealth Jihad against all comers; And, We’re Off!

The first speaker is Salam al-Maryati, the president Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); he is the general Muslims-America apologist.

He hits the right points of the Big Lie right off the bat; “Park51 controversy“, “not at ground zero“, “can’t even see it from there“; that last ignores the fact that the MOSQUE at the top floor of the proposed building WOULD have a wonderful overview of the official Ground Zero site!

Oh, and the project is “a community center that was intended to develop interfaith understanding”; I just realized that this is a totally true statement, the success of this project WOULD communicate to the Western world an understanding of what was expected of them by their ethical, spiritual and physical master, Islam.

After reiterating how the Ground Zero Mosque title was fabricated by un-named sinister forces Salam pulls back and adds another layer of lie to his cake of deceit; he declares the GZM controversy to be causing “protests against Mosques and Muslims around the Country” but also seems to declare these protests unrelated; of special interest to him is “burn the Koran day.”

His religious hypocrisy is now at full throttle, no ranting, sweating fundamentalist preacher on Jackson Square on New Orleans ever exceeded the double-faced, judgmental tribalistic stupidity of Salam’s next diatribe:

“.. a reverend, a religious Christian leader, who will sponsor “Burning the Koran Day”, this is obviously a major issue for us”

it is? we have flag burnings, effigy burnings and protests all the time, rude? yes. Crass? Yes. Obnoxious? Certainly. A Big  Deal? Nope

Summing up:

al-Maryaki believes that only Christian ignorance of how the Quran talks about Abraham and Jesus and Moses and Mary makes people interested in burning Qurans as a political gesture; never mentioning of course that the Muslim view of Abraham and Moses is radically different from the Judeo-Christian mythology and their view of Jesus and Mary just as Heretical from virtually all Christian points of view; this is why Jews and Christians are not allowed to be open in their faith in Muslim lands, if they were TRUE Jews and Christians they would recognize that they were actually born Muslims!

al-Maryaki also believes that Americans have a responsibility to conduct their affairs so as to not produce any
“images” that might be used as “recruiting material” for al Qaeda et al!  I have a question for the spineless (at least the American part of this Muslim-American) “citizen”; just what aspect, image or ideology of Western Civilization, and America in particular, could NOT be used as “recruiting material” by al-Qaeda?

At this point we should note that other than the mentioning of the name al-Qaeda there has been not one word about what Muslims themselves do, are, or believe; everything is about OUR misconceptions, accusations and Islamophobia.

The best, or most disgusting part, is when he declares that Anti-Muslim feelings in America are a mirror of Anti-American feelings in the Muslim world; sounds right doesn’t it Virginia? Did you spot the catch; America is the one in control, we initiate unfounded anti-Muslim tantrums, then the innocent Muslim world helplessly responds with childish, but understandable anti-American feelings. And not only that Virginia! Somehow this is more of an influence on global Muslimhood “undermining our efforts” than any Local-to-the-Muslim-world issues; yep, in Salam’s world Bangladeshi Buddhists are dying because a preacher in Fl wants to burn a Quran!

Money quote #1

“Islamophobia has to be viewed as an American Problem, not just a Muslim problem”

Umm, when did he admit it was in any way a Muslim problem?

He quotes a Pew study that says 70% of Americans either have no opinion on or an unfavorable view of Islam; according to Salam this is because the extremists can tell their “story” much better than the Muslim community can tell their “story”; this despite the faux-moderate Muslims having had almost exclusive control of the mainstream media for ten years; that must be some quality story-telling, why aren’t more Hollywood screenwriter’s Wahabi’s?

In trying to disassociate the Islamist leadership in America from the “radicals” abroad Salam accidently tells some truth:

“the story of the American Muslim has not yet been told”

In part because you, and others like you, will not allow them to stick their head up above the sea of brotherhood affiliated “moderates.

Next is Azizah al-Hibri, an expert on Shariah law and also an “advocate for Muslim Women.”

Azizah starts off talking about how she discovered the buried Islamophobia in American history after coming to America; she even mentions the…

“attempt at regime change in Tripoli”

A rather vague reference to America sending in the Marines to kick some butt when the U.S got tired of hearing them explain that it was their right as Muslims to take ships and ransack them and sell the passengers as slaves.  But to Azizah this was a sign of a “misunderstanding” between the two worlds!

Summed up she managed to very charmingly say almost nothing of substance; isn’t that a job description now in DC?

Next up, the venerable apologist Zogby his own damn self!

Summed up: Snide, condescending and completely unwilling to address the actual issues; You have to love the money quote:

whatever the outcome [of the Cordoba Project due to their ideology] if these guys [the anti-Ground Zero Mosque crowd across the board] win, America won’t be America anymore!”

Oh joy, now we get to see the question and Taqiyya session! Oh Assad, are you really down with all this victimology and disingenuousness?

The Q & A is another 45 minutes, I might get to analyzing it and I might not; go see for yourself and make up your own minds

Congressional Muslim Staffers Hold “Moderate” Victimology Session on Capital Hill

CMSASeries

The Congressional Muslim Staffers Association(CMSA) is holding the next in their moderate Muslim Taqiyya session at the Rayburn Building in DC; from their twitter account…

"Muslims in America: Myths and Realities A discussion on faith Tuesday, August 31 10:00 – 11:30 AM Rayburn House Building – Room…"

And there the tweet ends… is this a tactic to confuse and delay critics who might attend? Or just poor twittering?

CAIR – Partisan Over Religion – Religious in Their Partisanship

CMSASeries

Today on Hussam Ayloush‘s personal website (Hussam is the executive director of the los Angeles CAIR affiliate) I found this post from a piece on the Huffington Post … Oh my Virginia, what is the world of “Holy Men” coming to?

There is a quote whose source I have not been able to track down that goes something like this:

A true Holy Man[or woman] is known in spite of their religion, not because of it.”

This means Virginia, that the thoughts, and feelings, and actions of the truly holy can be recognized across the lines of dogma and doctrine and other man-made fantasies meant to bolster ego more than help people to grow closer to God. In this day and age no where is this more evident than in the realms of Televangelism, Creationism, radically militant Hassidic Jews and mainstream Islam.

Articles exposing the philosophies and excesses of the first three abound across the media from the Leftist to the moderate to the almost conservative; this piece is about a new wave of holy disingenuousness rising across the Western and Eastern worlds.

Let us introduce Kamran Pasha and his piece from Huffington Post as echoed by our good friend Hussam and my response:

clip_image001

You are very imaginative Sir; have you ever considered a career writing fantasy? Or maybe creating advertising copy for cigarette companies would be more to your taste?

The ADL, which was founded in 1913 as a powerful voice against religious discrimination in America, has over the past decade become increasingly xenophobic toward the Muslim community, which its leaders seem to view as a threat to Jews due to its lack of support for Israel.”

That is very interesting. I would imagine though that their attitude comes more from the steady rise in anti-Semitism worldwide, especially in Israel, in those same ten years.

Lack of support”? Is that what you call Muslim leaders, spiritual and political, spouting genocidal rhetoric and fake history as they train their children to be robotic martyrs to the cause of eliminating Israel? Are you under the impression, Sir that no one can read Muslim news sources, or listen to Muslim leaders speak; or see records of Friday sermons declaring Israelis inhuman and all the hateful rhetoric of a nascent fascism?

MushroomCloud2

“As a Christian friend who works in the Obama Administration lamented to me recently, the ADL has in essence become the “Pro-Defamation League” when it comes to Islam and Muslims.”

Does the same obviously bigoted friend of yours walk up to his Jewish friends, and tell them that CAIR is unfortunately almost exclusively anti-Semitic in its slant on everything? No? Why ever not Sir?

Here is where it really starts to get good!

The recent comments by Abraham Foxman, National Director of the ADL, against the proposed Muslim community center in New York are the latest in a long line of incidents where members of the ADL have promoted bigotry and discrimination against Arabs and Muslims.”

This is the iron skillet calling the almost new aluminum pan black! Let us look at some actual data, instead of opinion shall we Virginia?

6,489,000 Jews in US more or less; 2.2% of the population – CAIR claims that there are 7 million Muslims in the US for, about 2.2 % (is that why the CAIR number is much higher than all other estimate, to equal the Jewish presence? Just a thought.)

So then, Virginia, all we need to do is compare the anti-Islamic crime with the anti-Jewish crime 1 to 1 for us to see who is getting the short end of religious bigotry:

  Incidents Victims Offenders Percentage
All anti-Religion: 1,519 1,732 632 100%
Anti-Jewish 1,013 1,145 353 66%
Anti-Islamic 105 130 85 7%

 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html

(Addition 8/11; Please take note Virginia that the anti-Islamic crimes were comitted on average by only 1.2 persons per crime while the anti-Jewish crimes were more often group efforts with an average of 2.9 offenders per incident!)

Even if we use the figure for Muslims in the US given by the American Religious Identification Survey of 1.3 million (about a fifth of the CAIR number) gives a weighted comparison of anti-Jewish = 66% and anti-Islamic = 105 incidents times 5 for weighting = 525 out of 1,519 incidents equaling 35%, barely half of the anti-Semitic rate! Q.E.D.

“In 1993, the ADL illegally spied on American citizens who had spoken out in sympathy with Palestinians, generating a watch list of 10,000 names of private citizens and over 600 groups, and then selling the list to South African intelligence agents…

“Do not do unto others what you would not have others do unto you.”

clip_image005muslim-holocaust israel-swastika antisemitism01 MEMRI-ArabCartoons cartoon_20080603 protocols8

Good advice!

“To Mr. Foxman and the rest of the ADL leadership, I ask if in your hearts you would want people to accuse innocent Jews of being enemies of the state?

Would you want Jews to accept vilification of their entire religion if a handful of Jews ever did something wrong? Would you want Jews to tacitly accept the lies that bigots had projected on to them? And finally, would you want Jews to be forced to shut down their synagogues because of the misguided passions of a mob?

Would you want this done to Jews?

If the answer is no, then I ask as your Muslim brother that you follow the wisdom of Rabbi Hillel and the sages of Judaism.

Do not do the same hateful thing to my people.”

Pretty words Sir, but… By their fruits shall ye know them…

clip_image003clip_image007clip_image00820b mo2d stoned  burkastylegownap8 Muslims Gone Wild  6a00d8341c60bf53ef0120a63508a0970c-600wi converter paleochildjihadist normal_BARBARIC%20eng

Political Parties Exist to Subvert Instead of Enable the Voice of the Individual.

heretics-crusade,guy-dewhitney,partisan

My Life for Ze Party und Ze Leader!

Why is it again that, in 2010, political parties still exist? Well, other than for the implimentation of the control of a few who claim the voice of many, I don’t see much reason; member voices are given more lip service than respect from the party’s “leaders”. And, while we are attacking preconception, why a party “leader”? Would not an “impementor” be a more appropriate term for the desired function of the office.? Someome trusted to make the will of the members of the party heard effectively?

But how is that again? A party is supposed to make the voice of its X number of citizens louder than this other bunch’s equal number of voices?

Do you people out there ever completey agree with every part of “your” party’s platform? If one election cycle you do happen to agree with it all have you ever in your life seen the party hold to each and every plank after the election?
Remind me again Virginia; just WHO these parties claim to serve?

A Modestly Heretical Proposal

Get rid of the parties. No labels to hide behind, no pols in pocket of biz or party, pols un-electable without personal support from the community, pol has to listen on every issue and best of all, the most important, the pol would be judged more by accomplishments and record than by their associations.

Today there is no practical reason not to elect individual candidates directly.

Not sure you like the idea? Think about this: neither. Obama nor Palin would have ever been nominated without an agenda following party forcing them upon their supporters. Think about that for a while…

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.