Caution: Zombie Economy Ahead
Caution: Zombie Economy Ahead
By Rich LowryComputer hackers managed to hijack a digital road sign in Austin, Texas, the other day and change its message to "Zombies Ahead."
It was a whimsical warning for that stretch of Texas road, but could have served as a deadly earnest statement about the U.S. economy. "Zombie banks" was the term for Japanese financial institutions propped up by government in the 1990s despite their basic insolvency after a real-estate bubble. These unprofitable banks, in a financial revenge of the living dead, cast a decade-long pall over Japan.
At the time, American officials like Pres. Barack Obama's economic guru Larry Summers urged the Japanese to give up on failed institutions. Instead, Japan pumped 12 percent of its gross domestic product into saving the banks and got a "lost decade" of economic stagnation in return. Economic analysts across the board agree that the Japanese example must not be repeated, even as our lawmakers stumble into repeating it.
Members of the House Financial Services Committee flogged eight banking chief executive officers the other day, apparently without considering that some of them were already dead men walking. The CEOs were grilled about their lending practices and bonuses, when they should have been asked, "Why does your company still exist?" The head of Citigroup, Vikram Pandit, noted he's getting paid $1 a year, which might be $1 too much given the state of his all-but-bankrupt firm.
The awful truth is that the financial system has at least another $1 trillion hole in it. Either the U.S. government has to continue to try to patch it over with massive--and perhaps ever-escalating--injections of money à lá the Japanese in the 1990s, or it has to take the painful, risky step of letting some of the big, irreparably wounded financial players go down.
Neither choice is appealing, which is why Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner trotted out his muddle-through, we'll-get-back-to-you-on-details rescue plan. Obama shows no appetite for grasping the nettle of a problem much more difficult technically and politically than asking Congress to shovel billions of dollars at its favorite priorities in a stimulus bill. In his first prime-time press conference, Obama dodged when asked if it would take another trillion dollars to rescue the financial sector--because a simple "yes" would be just too starkly truthful.
As it stands now, the U.S. government is keeping alive banks that would otherwise go bust at the same time it is hectoring them about lending more money--in other words, Japan redux. "Many banks continued to extend credit to insolvent borrowers, gambling that these firms would recover or that the government would bail them out," writes University of Chicago economist Anil K. Kashyap of Japan in the 1990s. "The Japanese government also encouraged banks to increase their lending to small- and medium-sized firms to ease the credit crunch after 1998." The resulting misallocation of capital smothered growth.
Tokyo short-circuited the natural churning of the capitalist system that is the only way to clear out failed companies and unproductive uses of capital. If the U.S. government keeps alive Chrysler and General Motors or Citigroup and Bank of America when they are no longer viable--and have rendered themselves such through poor business choices and foolish risk-taking--it will create a zombie economy without the capacity for self-renewal.
The financial system, of course, is fragile. We have learned that the uncontrolled collapse of an institution like Lehman Brothers is dangerous. Bankrupt banks that are truly "too big to fail" need to be taken over by the government, broken up until they are small enough to fail and sold off, with government eating their toxic assets for now. This kind of semi-nationalization can clear the decks for new, healthy banks that won't be long-term wards of the government or long-term drags on growth.
During the stimulus debate, Obama often cited Japan's cautionary example. But Japan tried a big stimulus, too, even as it left in place its zombie banks. Will Obama heed his own admonitions?
'Historic' Stimulus Is Egregious Waste
'Historic' Stimulus Is Egregious Waste
Economic Recovery: Congress is confident it will send President Obama a stimulus bill to sign by Monday's holiday. Unless something unforeseen happens, what lawmakers will put on his desk is a $789 billion waste.
The old quip that no one should watch while laws or sausages get made is true — especially with this Congress. America's legislative body has moved away from creating anything of value and instead habitually turns out things that belong in a landfill.
None have ever been more dump-worthy than the spending bill being sold as economic stimulus.
Harvard economist Robert Barro calls the legislation "probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s."
"I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money," he said in an interview with the Atlantic. "I don't think it will expand the economy. . . . I think it's garbage."
Rep. Tom Cole, Republican from Oklahoma, was a bit more refined but no less biting in his commentary. Borrowing from Winston Churchill, he wryly observed from the House floor Thursday morning that "Never have so few spent so much so quickly to do so little."
Lest anyone think that Barro or Cole is guilty of overstating the situation, consider what's in this monster:
• It overflows with pork — $2 billion to ACORN, an anti-capitalist "community" group that's been accused of voter registration fraud; $30 million to restore wetlands and save the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse in the San Francisco Bay Area (a Nancy Pelosi project); another $1 billion for a Prevention and Wellness Fund for education programs on sexually transmitted diseases.
Tens of billions will be spent on high-speed rail lines, which will be of little practical use but of great political service, and projects to expand high-speed Internet access in rural areas.
There's so much special-interest spending in the bill, says House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner's office, that the dollars left over for direct small-business tax relief amount to only "about one-third of 1% of the total bill," a mere $3 billion out of a $789 billion package. Yet small businesses do most of the hiring in this country.
• The bulk of the spending comes not right away when the economy needs a boost, but in future years. This is typical. Legislative attempts to rescue the economy have been late in the last eight recessions going back to October 1949, when Congress passed an anti-recession bill just as the country was emerging from a 12-month downturn.
• By releasing $800 billion in new welfare spending over the next decade and undermining current work requirements, it will largely undo the successful 1996 welfare reform. Once again, Washington will be paying bonuses to states that expand their welfare rolls. In what world is increasing dependency on government a stimulus for the private economy?
• States that have spent recklessly for years will get bailouts when they should instead suffer the consequences of their actions. The compromise bill includes $54 billion to hand out to state and local governments, a perverse reward for elected officials who can't control their spending.
What's missing from the legislation is just as significant as what's included.
There are no tax cuts to boost investment, just a trifling $13 in tax relief per week that will appear on paychecks in the spring.
There's no real effort to boost energy production.
There's no meaningful defense spending.
Tax cuts initiated at the White House gave life to struggling economies in the 1960s, 1980s and earlier in this decade.
Rather than take money out of the private sector and sift it through Washington, from where it is doled out through the political process, it's more effective to let Americans keep more of what they earn. Tax relief spurs the investment that fuels business expansion, drives productivity upward and feeds job creation.
Helping almost instantly would be an increase in domestic energy production. If Washington were to enact public policy that allowed for more oil drilling and additional natural gas output, the markets would quickly react by cutting prices even more.
Also absent from the package is the stimulative effect of defense spending. Funding the research, development and production of military ware at private companies creates jobs, advances technological innovation and strengthens the security that's necessary for continued economic growth and improvements to the quality of American life.
The entire mess will eventually cost not $789 billion but $3.27 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that figure by including $744 billion in debt service and $2.527 trillion in spending over the next 10 years if the bill's 20 most popular programs are permanently extended, which seems likely. There's nothing in the history of government programs that indicates that won't happen.
History, though, is the most ignored subject in Washington. Not just American history, but history abroad.
How else could lawmakers rush into this effort? Right in front of them is the lesson of Japan, which made a series of unsuccessful attempts to stimulate its stagnant economy. It spent $6.3 trillion on infrastructure in the 1990s and into this decade, and in doing so amassed the largest debt ever known in the developed world.
Yet all that spending failed to pull Japan from its slump.
But like their Japanese counterparts, American lawmakers soon will return to the trough, demanding more taxpayer cash because, well, they just haven't spent enough to revive growth.
However, as they do, lawmakers might find taxpayers in a foul mood.
Rasmussen reports that 67% of Americans, when polled about the stimulus, say they "have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress," while 58% agree that "no matter how bad things are, Congress can always find a way to make them worse."
Proving that an economic downturn hasn't caused them to abandon their sense of humor — nor their insight — 44% said they believe a group chosen at random from the phone book "would do a better job addressing the nation's problems than the current Congress."
Obama should study those numbers and consider the "consent of the governed" before he puts his name on this bad bill delivered by Congress. It would be good for both the country and his presidency if he sent the bill back to lawmakers and told them to listen to what the country is saying.
Geithner's Cash For Trash
Crankonomics
Geithner's Cash For Trash
Susan LeeWhy no honest write-downs for bad debt?
 |
| |
He came. He spoke. The market tanked. He went. The market tanked some more. Such is the power of Treasury Secretary Geithner.
My spirits pretty much tanked, too. On the No. 1 problem--valuing toxic paper--no details were offered. Instead, Tim Geithner talked about some sort of vague public-private thingie from (or in) which the paper will appear having been miraculously priced. The cost of this mysterious process? Maybe $1 trillion, maybe more.
OK--we don't really need details to know that at the end of the day the plan will involve some variation of cash for trash. So let's move on to the main questions unanswered--how much trash, whose cash?
How much total trash is out there?
Estimates run anywhere between $600 billion to $4 trillion. Toward the higher end if consumer loans and commercial real estate are included. And, if the high-end estimates are correct, then the entire banking system is pretty much insolvent.
The problem is that nobody knows for sure. Prices for toxic paper have been entombed on bank balance sheets--impervious to write-downs.
True, some banks have taken write-downs. But they've been very tiny, almost dainty. Banks that use mark-to-market accounting have put their bad paper mostly in levels two and three--also known as mark-to-make-believe, where computers spin dross into gold. And, for the stuff not marked-to-market, writing it down would require bigger reserves. And so write-downs are nowhere near the level that accords with reality.
Why has the banking industry refrained from taking the widespread and realistic write-downs it so obviously must? No incentive.
No one would knowingly take a giant blow to the gut if it could be avoided. This is especially true if you're presiding over a bank where write-downs would force you to recognize, um, a condition known as insolvency.
Why do anything if you expect the government to bail you out? To guarantee your trash or remove it and put it into a public-private thingie. In short, the banksters have been waiting to see what kind of deal the government will offer.
Not that they admit to waiting. Instead, the industry and its henchpeople have advanced a ton of technical-sounding excuses:
"Gee, we'd like to take write-downs but the market is moribund; price discovery isn't working." This is pretty weak. Players say that there's enough information in the market to reasonably price most of these securities. The problem is that the price which would be discovered is too low. Or what bankers like to call fire-sale prices.
"Gee, we'd like to take write-downs, but the economic environment is so unsettled right now; future valuations are so unknowable." This is lame. Yes, value comes from the cash flow and cash flow depends on lots of variables: interest rates, unemployment, foreclosures, bankruptcies, home values and so on. But few had difficulty predicting these same variables a couple of years ago when banks absolutely, positively knew that the economic environment was sound and getting sounder.
"Gee, these securitized assets are hard to price in any case because they are so individual and unique." This is just plain annoying. Of course the paper isn't uniform--that was the point of aggregating and separating and aggregating again.
But if this uniqueness didn't create an unsolvable riddle when demand was strong, it shouldn't now that demand is weak. Figuring out the value of any one piece of trash will take work, sure, but it's the kind of painstaking work that should have been done the first time.
Whose cash?
Mr. Geithner was crystal clear. Not shareholders. Not bond holders. Not management. Only--surprise!--taxpayers.
And here it's not so clear how cleanly our pockets will be picked. If the private-public thingie prices the trash too high--which the banks want--the taxpayer subsidy will be huge. And these inflated values would bail out the banks, their shareholders, bondholders and executives, while taxpayers would bear the loss when the government can't recoup what it has financed or guaranteed via its private-public thingie.
A dispassionate look at the banking mess suggests one and only one solution: have all financial institutions take honest write-downs of bad debt. The result would be unpleasant in the short term, but consider:
--The (newly revealed) insolvent banks would fail.
--The banks that are "merely" illiquid could look the private capital markets in the eye and potential investors would have a much clearer idea of the risks.
--The banking sector would shrink swiftly and efficiently.
--Best of all, new banks would be allowed to spring up. Ones that would behave themselves (at least for a while) with their leverage under control, attentive to transparency and mindful of pricing risk.
--And, most satisfying, stupid, incompetent, greedy bankers would join their fellow citizens on unemployment lines. Also, shareholders and those who hold bank debt would get a drubbing. Sad, yes, but that's why companies have shareholders and bondholders in the first place. And taxpayers wouldn't have to bear the full and monumental burden of the banking failures alone.
Postponing the reckoning rarely produces good results. There's ample evidence of this--most recently from Japan where zombie banks were allowed to roam around, dragging the economy with them, for over a decade.
What Mr. Geithner should have said is that it's time for financial institutions to man up and take those write-offs. Right now. This minute.
Strike Three!
Strike Three!
Charges of conservatism sink Obama commerce nominee.
JAMES TARANTO
Has President Obama broken the record for most cabinet nominees withdrawn in a new administration? The count currently stands at three: Gov. Bill Richardson (commerce), whose administration in New Mexico was the subject of a federal grand jury investigation; Tom Daschle (health and human services), who failed to pay taxes on his limousine; and now Sen. Judd Gregg (also commerce), who turns out to be a conservative Republican. We're leaving out Nancy Killefer, the White House's would-have-been chief performance officer, since that was a staff rather than a cabinet position.
The U.S. Senate Web site has a list of withdrawn cabinet nominations (just below the list of those that were voted down), but it is incomplete. It lists Daschle but not Richardson; it also lists Zoë Baird, Bill Clinton's first failed nominee for attorney general, but not Kimba Wood, his second one. (Both Baird and Wood hired nannies who lacked proper immigration papers; Baird also failed to remit payroll taxes on her nanny's employment.) Presumably Richardson's and Wood's nominations had not been formally submitted to the Senate before their withdrawal.
Still, as far as we remember, Baird and Wood were the only Clinton nominees to go down in the early days; and Linda Chavez (who merely befriended an insufficiently documented immigrant) the only one of President Bush's early nominees to be withdrawn.
It also seems that the phenomenon of cabinet nominees withdrawing over matters of ethics or other personal behavior is a new one. Before the Clinton administration, the last withdrawn nominee on the Senate list is Robert Wood, tapped by Lyndon B. Johnson as secretary of housing and urban development--on Jan. 9, 1969, 11 days before LBJ left office. The Senate never bothered to act on Wood's nomination. Prior to Wood, the most recent ex-nominee on the list is from the Grant administration. (We can think of at least one other omission, though: President Reagan's 1987 nomination of Bob Gates, now defense secretary, as director of central intelligence. Although this is not technically a cabinet post, Clinton's withdrawn 1997 nomination of Anthony Lake is listed on the Senate site.)
One could take the withdrawal of so many cabinet nominees as a sign of the Obama administration's high standards--except that the cabinet already contains at least two members with documented tax problems: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. And Rep. Hilda Solis seems on track for confirmation as secretary of labor despite her husband's having failed to pay off tax liens as much as 16 years old until last week.
Gregg apparently paid all his taxes, and was not accused of any violation of ethics or law. According to a statement he issued yesterday, he discovered while being vetted for the commerce post that he is a conservative Republican:
It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.
Politico reports that "the White House--where some aides were caught off guard by the withdrawal--initially responded harshly to Gregg's announcement, portraying the New Hampshire Republican as someone who sought the job and then had a 'change of heart.' " But the administration surely bears at least part of the blame for this foul-up. If Gregg is a conservative Republican, presumably there is some evidence of this on the public record. He has been in Congress for nearly a quarter-century; didn't he amass a voting record during that time? And in the course of four campaigns for the House and three for the Senate, didn't he make any public statements that might have tipped someone off about his ideology?
Still, whatever the shortcomings of the White House vetting team, we suppose Gregg of all people should have known where he stood. The Associated Press quotes him explaining his mistake:
Gregg said he had always been a strong fiscal conservative, and told the Associated Press: "For 30 years, I've been my own person in charge of my own views, and I guess I hadn't really focused on the job of working for somebody else and carrying their views, and so this is basically where it came out."
So in a sense it's the Geithner story all over again: Gregg was caught in an error that stemmed from his being self-employed.
And before you beat up on the president for the Gregg fiasco, just remember that whereas Obama almost let a conservative Republican slip through, George W. Bush actually had several of them in his cabinet.
Flattery Will Get You Nowhere
Minnesota Lawmakers are hoping to win one for science, the Pioneer Press of St. Paul reports:
Legislation requiring manufacturers and dealers to sell cleaner-burning cars and trucks in Minnesota ran out of gas at the state Capitol last year.
But advocates are back and hope for more success this time around.
The Minnesota Clean Car Act, directing the state to adopt tougher state-based standards for tailpipe emissions, was introduced in the Legislature this week. It would be phased in over several years, beginning with 2013 vehicle models, and would lead to lower emissions of greenhouse gases, soot and smog.
Rep. Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, and Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, are the chief sponsors.
"We live in a world that has been famously described as hot, flat and crowded, and, as state leaders, it is up to us to take actions to make it less hot than it could be,'' Hortman said at a Capitol news conference.
As important as it is to make the world less hot, a victory here may prove pyrrhic unless lawmakers also act to make the world less flat before we all fall off.
The Cultural Contradictions of Keynesianism
"The folks at Associated Bank can forget about packing their bikinis and Bermuda shorts," reports Daniel Bice, a columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
They won't be getting their midwinter party in Puerto Rico, after all.
Battered by heated reaction from shareholders, politicians and the general public, CEO Paul Beideman on Thursday abruptly nixed a planned five-day excursion next week to a posh Caribbean resort for 100 top-performing staffers.
The trip was to come just three months after Associated's parent company accepted $525 million in bailout funds from the federal government.
"Based on feedback that we have received today, I have made the decision to cancel the recognition trip," Beideman said, backpedaling from his earlier defense of the trip.
The planned trip draw harsh criticism from, among others, Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat, who told the Journal Sentinel: "I am very disappointed. . . . There have been other violations, as you know, of companies that received funds or applied for funds, or did things not considered to be very smart or very proper. And I would put this in that category."
We can certainly see his point; we too are inclined to begrudge anyone who gets our tax dollars any luxuries they spend them on. But we've been hearing for the past few weeks that saving the economy requires a gigantic infusion of government money to get people spending again. It seems dubious for the people who tell us that to be denouncing companies that actually do so.
It is of a piece with President Obama's warnings that we face Armageddon unless Congress passes the so-called stimulus bill--and then expecting the bill, when it does pass, to restore confidence in the economy. When a crook points a gun at you and says, "Your money or your life," opting for the latter is the safer course. But even if you survive the whole experience, you will not end up feeling safer for it.
Why Can't Johnny Read the Conference Report?
This afternoon, by a vote of 246-183, the House passed the conference report on the so-called stimulus package. Senate approval is expected soon, which will send the legislation to President Obama for his signature. So what's in the bill? According to U.S. News & World Report's Paul Bedard, hardly anyone knows:
We're receiving E-mails from Capitol Hill staffers expressing frustration that they can't get a copy of the stimulus bill agreed to last night at a price of $789 billion. What's more, staffers are complaining about who does have a copy: K Street lobbyists. E-mails one key Democratic staffer: "K Street has the bill, or chunks of it, already, and the congressional offices don't. So, the Hill is getting calls from the press (because it's leaking out) asking us to confirm or talk about what we know—but we can't do that because we haven't seen the bill. Anyway, peeps [people] up here are sort of a combo of confused and like, 'Is this really happening?' "
It's that damn Republican culture of corruption again! This will all change if the Democrats ever win control of Congress.
The End of History: Part II
"Lawmakers Say All Issues Settled in Stimulus Bill"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 12
'But the Industry Needs You!'
- "Phoenix Says 'No Turning Back' on Quitting Acting"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 12
- "Obama Bringing Stimulus Push to Phoenix"--headline, Phoenix Business Journal, Feb. 12
The Cure for What Ales You?
- "Obama to Big 3: Craft Plan That Works"--headline, Detroit News, Feb. 12
- "The Feds Ordered Sixpoint to Shut Down 'Hop Obama' "--headline, Brownstoner.com, Feb. 12
Life Imitates 'South Park'
- Officer Barbrady: "Here you go, Mr. Rancher. I got your cattle back for you." Rancher Bob: "Oh. Well, it doesn't matter now." Officer Barbrady: "What you do mean?" Rancher Bob: "You see, in the six days since the word 'veal' was officially changed to 'little tortured baby cow,' the market has gone dry. Seems that people see 'little tortured baby cow' on their menus, they don't feel like orderin'." Butters: "Really?" Rancher Bob: "Yep, damn things ain't worth spit now. I'll let 'em live outside with the other cows and live a normal life." Kyle: "Do you hear that, Stan? It worked! We've shut down the veal industry!"--dialogue from "Fun With Veal," aired March 27, 2002
- "Veal Gains Valuable Playing Time"--headline, Daily Camera (Boulder, Colo.), Feb. 12, 2009
Hopefully Not Doing Its Own Stunts
"Pakistan Sees Terror Role"--headline, The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 13
The Plot Has a Lot of Twists and Turns
"Casting Seems Best for Severe Ankle Sprains"--headline, HealthDay.com, Feb. 12
'I Hear She's Not Really a Virgin'
"Rival Urges Scrutiny of Virgin America"--headline, Financial Times, Feb. 10
He Can Say That Again!
"Bishop of London Says Redundancy Is Good for the Soul"--headline, Times (London), Feb. 12
We Know a Caterer Who Would Do It for Half That
"N. Shore Mom to Pay $2.5 Mil. for Underage Drinking Party"--headline, Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 12
Someone Set Up Us the Bomb
"US Finds Nigeria Bribes Case Groups"--headline, Financial Times, Feb. 12/
Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control
- "Dutch City Fears Loss of Pornography Archive"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 12
- "Scientists Flabbergasted by Speedy Birds"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 12
- "Transit Chief Blaring the Doomsday Siren"--headline, Metro (Boston), Feb. 13
- "Second-Grader Brings Hand Grenade for Show-and-Tell, Triggering Evacuation of Euless School"--headline, Dallas Morning News, Feb. 12
- "Cars Capable of Making a Political Statement"--headline, Detroit News, Feb. 11
Breaking News From 1
"Roll Call: Details Emerge on Madonna's Jesus"--headline, OMG.Yahoo.com, Feb. 13
News You Can Use
- "Want to Find Your Happy Place? Try 'Flower' "--headline, MSNBC.com, Feb. 12
- "Women's Faces 'Are Windows to the Soul' "--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), Feb. 11
- "Why You're Likely to Marry Your Parent"--headline, CNN.com, Feb. 11
- "Dying for Love? Brain Cocktail Might Help"--headline, MSNBC.com, Feb. 12
- "Make Sure 'Stimulus' Doesn't 'Sting' Women"--headline, USA Today, Feb. 13
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "When Sharks Don't Attack"--headline, Slate.com, Feb. 11
- "Cure for the Common Cold? Not Yet, but Possible"--headline, New York Times, Feb. 13
- "Belarus Absolutely Uncertain About Its Future"--headline, Pravda, Feb. 13
- "Canadian Industry Waiting for Its Ship to Come In"--headline, Financial Post (Canada), Feb. 12
Heart Attacks
Tomorrow is Valentine's Day, and not everyone is happy about it, Jennifer Graham reports in The Wall Street Journal:
There's increasing grumbling about Valentine's Day, a vaguely defined occasion that forces people, at arrow-point, to declare their deepest emotions, and maybe even to manufacture some that aren't there. Some call it FAD, "Forced Affection Day." True, there are those who bemoan the commercialization of Christmas, or the seemingly contrived nature of Mother's Day or Administrative Professionals Week. Yet Valentine's Day is the only American celebration with a resistance movement. It comprises singles who resent the incessant emphasis on romantic love, parents who resent the necessity of procuring 24 Disney princess cards with red lollipops attached, and devoted couples, married and not, who resent the compulsion of it all.
That's nothing. The Arab News reports that in Saudi Arabia, opposition to Valentine's Day has the imprimatur of the state:
The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice intensified its vigilance over flower, chocolate and gift shops to confiscate items related to Valentine's Day, a perennial crackdown on a holiday perceived by many to be both Western and immoral.
These do not sound like the actions of a civilization confident in its own superiority. In a speech transcribed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, Egyptian cleric Hazem Shuman sounds even less confident:
Imagine that the Prophet Muhammad is standing before you, and so are the Jews and the Christians. The more you celebrate Valentine's Day, the more the Jews and Christians are happy, and the more the Prophet Muhammad is sad. The more you do this, the more the Jews and the Christians gloat at us, while tears flow from the Prophet's eyes. Do you want to make the Prophet sad and the Jews and Christians happy?!
He makes the prophet sound like Sexual Harassment Panda. He continues:
People, if Muhammad Ahmad Ibrahim holds a party, and George Mikhail whatever holds a different party, [Muhammad the Muslim] will wear the same clothes as [George the Christian], both will buy dresses for their wives from the same shop, both will seat their wives on the stage for all the people to see, both will book a hall in the same club, both will invite single men and women and have them intermingle, both will hire a band, musicians, and female singers and dancers, and both will have crowds intermingling outside the club. If you are invited to Muhammad's party, how would you distinguish it from George's party?
The more important question is, how do we get invited?
Warfare means business
Warfare means business
Blackwater Worldwide’s days of roaming Iraqi streets with impunity are over. The State Department decided against renewing the government’s contract with the notoriously trigger-happy mercenary force last month after the Iraqi government announced its revocation of Blackwater’s operating license. Considered the epitome of America’s reckless exploitation efforts in post-war Iraq, Blackwater’s infiltration into the war effort is symbolic of America’s rampant privatization efforts of the past quarter-century.
Before the current economic collapse, nearly every aspect of American life was placed under siege by privatization efforts – schools, social security, health care, prisons and even the military. Tasks inherent to a nation-state were outsourced to private firms that accumulated millions in taxpayer funds and turned Iraq into their own personal sandbox.
Once an obscure paramilitary company based in North Carolina, Blackwater became infamous when a handful of its employees allegedly opened fire on a congested Baghdad traffic intersection without provocation. The incident left the corpses of 17 Iraqi civilians bleeding in the streets and strained U.S. relations with Iraq.
Despite the best efforts of the Pentagon to create a legal loophole for defense contractors, five of the Blackwater employees involved in the bloody shootout were indicted by a U.S. federal grand jury last December. Each indicted member is facing 14 counts of voluntary manslaughter and 20 counts of attempted manslaughter.
Critiquing the recourse of the Blackwater guards will accomplish nothing. Iraq is a “shoot first and ask questions later” place. Instead, Americans should be alarmed by the menacing iron triangle – the policy-making apparatus consisting of the bureaucracy, legislative committees, and interest groups – that turned Blackwater into Bush’s Praetorian Guard.
In the eyes of the Bush administration, Iraq was an incredible success. They turned the American war machine into a profitable industry, and Blackwater was at the forefront of this capitalist nexus. Chronicles of America’s imperial folly in Iraq are as numerous as they are diverse, but Blackwater’s meteoric rise and fall in Iraq is the coup de grace. Like a parasite sucking blood from its host, Blackwater attached itself to America’s morbid fascination with greed and, as journalist Jeremy Scahill put it, made a killing off the killing in Iraq.
Blackwater’s forces are no longer relegated to the conflict-zones of the Middle East. Erik Prince, Blackwater’s founder, sent his armed militia to the hurricane-ruined streets of New Orleans to suppress looters in the wake of Katrina. Coursing up and down the streets of the French Quarter with loaded assault rifles, the scene was described by Scahill as “Baghdad on the Bayou.” The thought of an ultra-right wing executive protecting the wealthy elite of an American city with his personal paramilitary force sounds like a plot line ripped from the pages of Orwell or Kafka.
In the eyes of Prince, Katrina was an opportunity to diversify. Just like the Wall Street banks that continually find new ways to make money, Blackwater found a crisis and exploited it – disaster capitalism at its worst. President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the increased influence of the military-industrial complex in his farewell address, but not even Eisenhower could foresee the ominous encroachment of private military firms on domestic soil.
Many people find Blackwater to be an old story – a relic of Bush’s Iraq fiasco. However, as Blackwater’s final days in Iraq come to a close, the nation’s new president needs to be reminded that he is accountable to the people, not to the war profiteers of the military-industrial complex. The emergence of America’s mercenary army should serve as a cautionary tale of what happens when capitalist might collides with militant ideologues.
Kucinich Seeks To Ban Hand Guns In America
Kucinich Seeks To Ban Hand Guns In America
Gun bans don’t stop gun violence in the western world. Look at the UK which has the most explosive gun crime rate in the entire world while the average citizen there isn’t allowed to own so much as a can of pepper-spray or even carry a knife. We could go to the Chinese system of course where guns, free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are pretty much banned, where you will be sent to a labor camp for expressing dissent and tortured at will. If that is the system you want, then go along with Kucinich who has proposed the Orwellian “Department of Peace” whose “Peace Patrols” will be to going door to door confiscating weapons and taking out anyone who believes in the 2nd Amendment. Remember that “Peace”, according to the globalists, is a situation where resistance against the global dictatorship is pacified.
PW
Congressman drafting legislation to make owning a hand gun illegal.
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to ban hand guns in America.
Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of hand guns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.
Kucinich announced this move in the aftermath of Monday’s deadly shooting at Virginia Tech.
Kucinich noted in a speech to congress that about 32 people die each day in America due to hand gun related incidents. 33 died at VT.
Kucinich says it’s becoming “painfully obvious” that the easy availability of handguns constituents a growing national crisis of public health and safety, one that he says calls for a powerful, wide-ranging response from congress.
He says the level of violence in our society constitutes a national emergency.
Already this Congress, Kucinich has introduced HR 808, legislation to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. It would address the issue of domestic violence, gang violence, and violence in the schools, which is reflected in the current homicide rates.
Kucinich notes recent studies that indicate many killers had histories of mental illness. He says the lack of parity for mental health care remains one of the most serious deficiencies in healthcare in the United States.
Kucinich has also proposed HR 676, Medicare for all. It would establish a universal not-for-profit healthcare system, which would provide full and comprehensive mental healthcare.
Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood
Expediting the Grand Jihad: Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood
As these authors write these words, Israel is conducting a major ground assault in the Gaza Strip. Israeli ground troops and heavy armor have moved deep into the Gaza Strip ("Israeli forces split Gaza in two"). According to the BBC, the move has, in effect, cut the territory in two (ibid). This ground assault followed hot on the heels of Operation Cast Lead, a December 27-28 series of Israeli airstrikes conducted in Gaza in response to Hamas' refusal to renew the truce brokered by Egypt in the summer of 2008 (Khalil, "The already-strained Hamas-Egypt relationship sours"). Hamas had been launching rocket attacks into Israel since December 24, when no less than 70 rockets hit the small Jewish state, and Israel decided to strike back ("Israeli jets hit Hamas target, killing 1").
Doubtless, the conflict between Israel and Hamas is one of the many issues that Obama will have to address when he enters the Oval Office. Is the President-elect sincere in his opposition to the terrorists responsible for the current Middle East crisis? Obama has repeatedly condemned Hamas, calling the group a terrorist organization (Oinounou, "A Hamas problem for Obama?") The President-elect even went as far as to condemn former President Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas (ibid). But the words of Ahmed Yousef, a top Hamas political advisor, during a WABC interview, seem to suggest that Obama's opposition to Hamas may be a mere public relations ploy. During the interview, Yousef stated:
"We don't mind-actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance." (Ibid)
Why would Hamas support an Obama presidency? The answer may lie in a group known as the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood
Hassan al-Banna
According to former CIA operative Robert Baer, Hamas was an offshoot of the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (172). Founded in 1928 by an Egyptian schoolteacher named Hassan al-Banna with the expressed purpose of purifying Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood is anything but a benign Muslim organization (172). According to Baer, the Brotherhood "is another of the cauldrons from which al Qaeda emerged" (172). Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of the September 11 attacks, joined the Muslim Brotherhood at the age of sixteen and attended the Brotherhood's desert youth camps (Mintz and Farah, "In Search of Friends Among Foes"). Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Egyptian branch (ibid). According to Seymour Hersh, the Brotherhood may have even been involved in the September 11 attacks. Hersh states: "Many of the September 11th hijackers had operated out of cells in Aachen and Hamburg, where Al Qaeda was working with the Brotherhood" ("The Syrian Bet"). The Brotherhood's hatred of the United States was clearly expressed in a 1991 internal memorandum written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood. Entitled "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," the document states that the Brotherhood's activities in the United States represent:
a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. (Akram)
Akram's memorandum failed to mention the powerful, white, English-speaking individuals that have given assistance to the Brotherhood's "grand Jihad." The Muslim Brotherhood is not only a radical and dangerous party; it is intimately tied to the power elite. This connection probably had its start prior to World War Two when British travel writer and intelligence agent Freya Stark forged an alliance between the Brotherhood and British intelligence (Dorril 622). Brotherhood collaboration with Western intelligence continued with an alliance between the Brotherhood and the CIA that began around 1955. According to former CIA agent Miles Copeland, it was around this time that America began looking for the Muslim equivalent of Billy Graham, hoping to use such a charismatic individual to influence the Arab world. When this failed, the Agency began forging ties with the Muslim Brotherhood (Aburish 60-61).
The connection between the Brotherhood and the power elite is perfectly illustrated by the party's audience with the Bush Administration. On June 20, 2007, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department hosted a meeting with other intelligence community representatives to discuss the opening of "more formal channels" to the Muslim Brotherhood (Lake, "Bush Weighs Reaching Out to 'Brothers'"). One of the Brotherhood supporters at the June 20 meeting was Robert Leiken (ibid). Robert Leiken, a scholar at the Nixon Center, was commissioned by the National Intelligence Council to put together a paper on the history of the Muslim Brotherhood earlier in 2007 (ibid). According to administration officials, Leiken's paper to the National Intelligence Council drew the attention of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and senior members of the National Security Council (ibid). George W. Bush even encouraged Tariq al-Hashemi, the leader of the Iraq branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, to form an alliance to oppose Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (Slavin, "Iraqi VP says Bush wants coalition to counter al-Sadr").
After his election victory, Barack Obama promised that change was on the way. Will that change include an end to Washington's contact with the Muslim Brotherhood? Unfortunately, there is evidence that the Brotherhood will maintain its audience with Washington circles during the Obama reign.
The Democrats' Answer to Grover Norquist
Mazen Asbahi
When the Obama campaign needed an individual to reach out to the Muslim community, it turned to Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi for help (Simpson and Chozick, "Obama's Muslim-Outreach Adviser Resigns"). But Asbahi's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood did more to raise questions than it did to bridge gaps. By August of 2008, Asbahi had resigned from his position as volunteer coordinator for Muslim American affairs for the Obama campaign (ibid).
Asbahi was the democrats' equivalent of GOP/Bush political operative Grover Norquist, meant to court Muslim American voters. And like Norquist, Asbahi had several radical associations that raised eyebrows and set off alarm bells. Eight years before taking up the Obama cause, Asbahi served on the Board of the Allied Asset Advisors (Spencer, "Obama's Muslim Outreach Problem"). Allied Asset Advisors is a subsidiary of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) (ibid). According to the 1991 internal memorandum authored by Akram for the Muslim Brotherhood, NAIT is part of the network conducting the Brotherhood's "grand jihad" ("An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America"). NAIT is also connected to the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), an organization believed to be involved in the financing of Muslim Brotherhood offshoot Hamas (Josh Gerstein, "US: Facts Tie Muslim Groups To Hamas Front Case"). According to the prosecutors in the HLF case, NAIT has an "intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood" (ibid).
When the Wall Street Journal and other media organs began raising questions, Asbahi quickly went to work on damage control. The Chicago lawyer claimed he resigned from Allied Asset Advisors' board immediately after learning about fellow board member Jamal Said's connection to Hamas (Simpson and Chozick, "Obama's Muslim-Outreach Adviser Resigns"). However, Asbahi later admitted that his resignation from the Obama campaign was purely a "strategic decision," suggesting that the explanation for his involvement in the Allied Asset Advisors was contrived (Spencer, "Obama's Muslim Outreach Problem"). Asbahi's alibi further disintegrated on September 15, 2008 when the former Muslim liaison met with members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (ibid). CAIR's parent organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine, is named in Akram's Muslim Brotherhood memorandum as part of the Brotherhood's "grand jihad" network (ibid). Asbahi's resignation did not end the Obama campaign's love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood. Also present at the September 15, 2008 meeting was Asbahi's replacement as the Obama campaign's Muslim liaison, Minha Husaini (ibid).
Rezko, Othman, and Al Taqwa
Antoin "Tony" Rezko
Obama may also connect to the Muslim Brotherhood through his old Chicago mob friends. Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a Syrian-American political fundraiser and Chicago real estate developer provides the bridge. On June 4, 2008, Rezko was found guilty in federal court on 16 corruption charges ("Rezko begins serving time immediately"). It seems that when Rezko wasn't busy helping his friends in the Illinois political scene, such as scandal-embroiled Governor Rod Blagojevich and Obama, he was knee-deep in a kickback scheme that involved taking bribes from companies that desired state contracts (ibid).
Obama owes a lot to his good friend Tony. Rezko began his career as Obama's political godfather in 1995, when two of his food companies contributed $2,000 to Obama's campaign (Novak, "Obama and his Rezko ties"). It was the beginning of a beautiful political friendship. Rezko helped bankroll Obama in five election runs (Fusco, et al., "Obama explains Rezko relationship to Sun-Times"). After some ducking and weaving, Obama admitted to receiving $250,000 from Rezko's fundraising efforts (ibid). According to the Chicago Sun-Times, this amount was "about $100,000 more than had previously been disclosed and about five times more than Obama conveyed during a November 2006 question-and-answer exchange with the Sun-Times" (ibid). Standing behind Rezko is Talat Othman, a leader in the American Muslim community in Illinois and an extremely successful Arab American businessman. It was Othman who introduced Rezko to former Illinois governor Jim Edgar and it was Othman who aided Rezko in gaining access to Illinois political circles (Hanania, "Arabs in Chicago discover political clout and controversy"). Rezko was also recognized as "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by Othman's Arab-American Business and Professional Association (ibid).
M. Yaqub Mirza
Othman has a close relationship with M. Yaqub Mirza, a naturalized Pakistani businessman and physicist (Trento 336). Othman and Mirza were co-chairmen of the Islamic Society of North America 2001 Convention (336). The two were also involved in Amana Mutual Funds Trust, an Islamic mutual fund which, according to investigative journalist Joseph Trento, "specializes in investments that are consonant with Islamic beliefs" (336). Othman sits on Amana's board and Mirza served as the mutual fund's chairman (336).
On March 20, 2002 a U.S. Treasury task force known as Green Quest raided 14 homes and businesses believed to be involved in terrorism financing that were affiliated with Mirza (Guidera and Simpson, "Agents Raid Properties Affiliated with Chairman of Islamic Fund"). According to Guidera and Simpson, the Green Quest investigators were "most interested in Mr. Mirza's role as an officer in the Saar Foundation, a nonprofit started in the 1970s by members of the Saudi Arabia's al-Rajihi family, which has interest in banking, construction, and real estate" (ibid). Stephen Schwartz identifies the Saar Foundation as the "keystone" to the Mirza-related network ("Wahhabis in the Old Dominion").
The hidden hand of the Muslim Brotherhood can be identified through the Saar Foundation's connection with a shell company known as Al-Taqwa (Schwartz, "Wahhabis in the Old Dominion"). The Al-Taqwa shell game was originally based in Switzerland and had as one of its leading figures a notorious Nazi disciple named Ahmed Huber (ibid). It was an extensive network that included companies based in the Bahamas, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein (Hosenball, "Attacking the Money Machine"). Al Taqwa even had a foothold in the United States until after September 11 when its assets were frozen and its operations were shut down by a U.S. presidential order ("Wahhabis in the Old Dominion"). According to a Newsweek investigation, the Al Taqwa network "was set up in the 1980s by prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood" ("Attacking the Money Machine"). Al-Taqwa' chairman, Youssef Nada, even admitted to being a member of the Brotherhood for 50 years (ibid).
Talat Othman
Apparently, the Green Quest raids made Othman extremely nervous. Two weeks after the raids, Othman and several other Muslim activists met with Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill to protest the raids (Trento 337). Was Othman afraid that the investigation would connect him to the Muslim Brotherhood's plan for a "grand jihad"? Four individuals who were targets of the investigation were affiliated with Amana, the mutual fund where Othman serves as a trustee (337). It is also interesting to note that another Amana board member, Samir Salah, is known to have ran a Caribbean branch of the Muslim Brotherhood's Al-Taqwa network ("Wahhabis in the Old Dominion").
When Obama tries to downplay his connections to Rezko, is he merely trying to conceal his poor judgement in the realm of campaign finance? The 44th President may be trying to hide a much more disturbing reality from the eyes of the public. That reality is the fact that our own government, in league with the power elite, will continue collaborating with America's enemies. The "grand Jihad" proclaimed by Akram in his 1991 memorandum does not only constitute the Muslim Brotherhood's crusade to destroy Western civilization. It also constitutes the power elites's war on the plebians.
Iran
Obama's Muslim Brotherhood connections may motivate him to go soft on Hamas when it comes time for him to deal with the current Middle East crisis. The Muslim Brotherhood is still very close to its Hamas offshoot. If the new administration was too supportive of Israel in its efforts to end the terrorist attacks, it could potentially alienate its Muslim Brotherhood connections.Those connections may prove useful when the new administration unveils its plans for Iran.
According to investigative researcher Webster Tarpley, power in Washington has shifted away from the neocon "rogue" faction of the elite to the Trilateral faction that stands behind Obama ("US Policy Shift On Iran-Iraq Again Shows Brzezinski Rules In Washington"). This faction seeks to redirect the American Empire's hostilities away from Iran and focus them on Russia and China (ibid). Such a plan requires that Iran be transformed into an asset, which means that Tehran's efforts to procure nuclear weapons may even be tolerated, so long as Iran is willing to act as a nuclear proxy of the American Empire (ibid). Iran has long desired to revive the Persian Empire, and Trilateralists such as Carter's former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski believe that they can insure that a revived Persian Empire is merely an extension of the American Empire.
For Obama, diplomacy really means imperial recruitment. The Muslim Brotherhood could provide the bridge in the recruitment process. According to Robert Baer, Iran has substantial ties with Jordan's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, known as the Islamic Action Front (178). Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot currently fighting with Israel, is also extremely close to Iran. Iran first began establishing contact with Hamas in 1992, when Israel expelled 415 members of Hamas's leadership as punishment for their involvement in the first intifada, which was a Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule (172). When the exiled leaders crossed the border into Jordan, they found Hezbollah, a Shi'a paramilitary organization that acts as Iran's Lebanese proxy, waiting for them with open arms (172). Hezbollah provided the Hamas leaders with tents, clothes, and food (172-173). A few days later, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard officer also arrived on the scene to provide assistance to the Hamas leaders (173). Without a doubt, the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran are becoming extremely close as Iran attempts to co-opt every major movement and political party in the region as part of its bid for empire.
The Obama administration may wish to use its connection to the Muslim Brotherhood as a means of establishing diplomatic channels with Iran. But that means the new President may not be as supportive of Israel in its struggle with Hamas. Obama may even pressure Israel to come to the table of diplomacy and establish yet another truce with Hamas. The 1988 Hamas Covenant, however, painfully illustrates why peace overtures on Israel's part would be an act of folly. Article seven of the covenant states:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." ("Hamas Covenant 1988")
Article 28 reiterates the document's anti-Jewish theme when it states: "Israel, Judaism, and Jews challenge Islam and Muslim people. 'May the cowards never sleep.'" ("Hamas Covenant 1988"). Obviously, the idea of Israel establishing a truce with a group that adheres to such ideas is unthinkable. It would merely give Hamas an opportunity to lick its wounds and continue to prepare for the day when it hopes to finally wipe Israel from the face of the earth.
These authors believe that history will characterize the Obama administration's attempts at diplomacy with Iran as a lost opportunity. Iran has been a hotbed of radicalism ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Instead of facilitating Iran's departure from radicalism, Obama and his puppeteers will work to turn the radicals against the American Empire's competitors, such as Russia and China. A chance to move Iran in a moderate direction will slip away as Obama and his Establishment handlers try to employ the country as an asset in their fight for dominance in the New World Order. In the process, Obama will help expedite the Brotherhood's "grand Jihad."
Engaging the Muslim Brotherhood
Expediting the Grand Jihad Part Two: Engaging the Muslim Brotherhood
Inauguration: The Beast Enters the Gates
For many, the January 20 Presidential inauguration of Barack Obama is reason for celebration. Obama supporters everywhere believe that the event represents the introduction of the solution to America's deepening crisis. It would break not a few hearts, however, if it was revealed that the enemies of America are going to be in attendance. According to a January 14 Associated Press article, a prayer will be offered at the inauguration by Ingrid Mattson, the first woman president of America's largest Muslim group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) (Zoll, "Muslim woman, rabbis to pray at inaugural service"). While many Americans may believe that this prayer offering represents a celebration of religious pluralism, the hidden message behind this display, which is only discernible to the power elite and the most astute observer, is that members of the Establishment will continue their torrent love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood. The first installment of this series established the Muslim Brotherhood as a dangerous organization that is partially responsible for spawning al Qaeda. Furthermore, the Brotherhood has a long running, symbiotic relationship with the power elite and the darker factions of the United States government and the intelligence community.
ISNA's connection to the Muslim Brotherhood was revealed during the 2007 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial. Before being shut down by the United States government, the HLF was the largest Islamic charity in America. In 2001, evidence began to surface that HLF was a fundraising entity for Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. One of HLF's founders, Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, was even a Hamas political leader. This lead to the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control classifying HLF as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist ("Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons"). During the HLF trial, ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator that was "intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas" (Gerstein, "U.S.: Facts Tie Muslim Groups To Hamas Front Case"). The prosecution also introduced several exhibits into evidence that established ISNA's "intimate relationship" with the Muslim Brotherhood (ibid). In a 1991 internal document written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood, HLF appears on a list of Brotherhood "friends" (Akram).
The Muslim Brotherhood is anything but Muslim. The party, which is considered the world's largest and oldest Islamist group, is actually a cult of neo-Gnostic immanentists. The Brotherhood re-conceptualizes the concept of jihad, which actually connotes a personal struggle, as an object of immanent experience. Thus, the spiritual conflict of orthodox Islam is transplanted within the ontological plane of the physical universe. Such an ontological transplantation is a defining feature of all sociopolitical Utopianism, as is evidenced by the myriad of earthly paradises envisioned by revolutionaries throughout history. While the concept of a worldly Heaven circulated under numerous appellations, it was always portrayed as a future that would be instantiated through the efforts of man himself. Historically, such immanentist crusades have resulted in wars, terrorism, and genocide. For instance, the immanentist crusade of Hitlerian fascism attempted to establish a Third Reich through eugenical regimentation. Their ideological kissing cousins, the communists, sought to establish the worker's paradise through the bloody revolution of Marxist dialectic. Neoconservatives, which are the progenies of Trotskyism, have attempted to establish a Pax Americana through the violent imperialism of the so-called "global democratic revolution." In the case of immanentist Muslims, factions like the Sufi Sunnis and Ismaili Shiites wage a jihad within the ontological confines of the visible world in hopes of achieving a universal submission to their perverted version of Islam. Some immanentist Muslims even believe in an immanent parousia, as is evidenced by the disturbing messianic claims of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Given its neo-Gnostic eschatology, the Muslim Brotherhood is merely another incarnation of the immanentist crusade.
The 1991 internal document written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrates the organization's immanentist interpretation of jihad. Entitled "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," the document states that the Brotherhood's activities in the United States represent "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions" (Akram). The Muslim Brotherhood is deadly serious about their neo-Gnostic crusade. In "Ikhwan in America," a document over the Muslim Brotherhood that was released during the HLF trial, Brotherhood members are alleged to have travelled to camps where they engaged in weapons training, which the Brotherhood euphemistically refers to as "Special Work" ("Ikhwan in America"). The document also describes a Brotherhood method known as "Securing the Group," which amounts to little more than counterintelligence operations against the U.S. government (ibid).
The inauguration will not be the first time that Mattson has had an audience with the democratic wing of the Establishment. The ISNA president also spoke during the Interfaith Gathering at the 2008 Democratic National Convention ("Democratic Convention To Highlight Diverse Community of Faith Leaders Working Toward Common Good"). Before the new administration, the Bush White House also had contact with the Brotherhood and its allies. What happened to Obama's promise of change? When it comes to maintaining contact with America's enemies, it seems that Obama's pledge is null and void.
The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project and the Muslim Brotherhood
Mattson is also a member of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project's Leadership Group ("U.S-Muslim Engagement Project: Leadership Group On U.S. Muslim Engagement"). While this organization claims to be creating and advocating a bipartisan strategy of improving relations between the U.S. and Muslim world, the real goal seems to be legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations involved in the neo-Gnostic "grand Jihad." In a document entitled "Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World," the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project promotes the U.S. government forging official ties with the Brotherhood. The document states:
The U.S. must also consider when and how to talk with political movements that have substantial public support and have renounced violence, but are outlawed or restricted by authoritarian governments allied to the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood parties in Egypt and Jordan are arguably in this category. ("Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World")
In order to convince the U.S. government to establish formal channels with the Brotherhood, the party's image must be cleaned up considerably. The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project is not ignorant of this fact. "Changing Course" presents the Brotherhood as an organization that has abandoned violence and is pursuing more peaceful forms of political expression. The document elaborates:
After a period of violent opposition to the Egyptian government, the Brotherhood has moderated some of its goals and strategies as its candidates have been able to participate, tacitly in parliamentary elections. Other independent Islamist political parties have also begun to organize and compete, but the government continues to limit electoral competition. Given this context, the primary institution goal for the U.S. in Egypt should be to create opportunities for political participation and good governance at the local and national level. (ibid)
"Changing Course" also suggests that the United States' hesitance to fully engage in diplomacy with the Brotherhood bespeaks a frivolity that pervades America's attitude towards the liberalization of Islamic nations:
The U.S. has also sent mixed signals about its willingness to work with nonviolent Islamist parties, notably the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan. This inconsistency reflects a belief shared among many policy makers that there are significant trade-offs between U.S. security interests and our commitment to political reform. Though understandable, these U.S. responses to militants and nonviolent Islamist parties have confirmed the view of many Muslim citizens and mainstream reformers that the U.S. is not serious about political liberalization in Muslim countries. (ibid)
Following these prescriptions would require the United States to abandon sound national security precautions. But placing Americans at risk does not seem to concern the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project.
Enter Dennis Ross and the Neocons
The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project is in a position to influence Obama. Dennis Ross, the former Middle East peace envoy under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, provides the conduit. Ross is a member of the Leadership Group of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project ("U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project: Leadership Group On U.S. Muslim Engagement"). According to an Associated Press report, incoming secretary of state Hilary Clinton will most likely appoint Ross as a special advisor for the Middle East and Iran ("Incoming secretary of state Clinton to name Dennis Ross as top advisor on Mideast, Iran"). If Ross takes the job, he will be in a position to foster closer ties between the U.S. government and the Muslim Brotherhood. The already existing connection between the Brotherhood and the darker factions of our government and intelligence community may become an official and formal relationship that is no longer frowned upon.
If this unholy alliance gains legitimacy, the Muslim Brotherhood may become a weapon for those hawks and neoconservatives that survived the purge that accompanied the election of Obama. Ross is a neoconservative. Two documents confirm this contention. In the first document, entitled "Statement on Post-War Iraq," Ross joined with other neoconservatives in support of military intervention in Iraq ("Statement on Post-War Iraq"). In the second document, entitled "Second Statement on Post-War Iraq," Ross and his fellow neoconservatives supported then British Prime Minister Tony Blair's call for a closer partnership between America and Europe ("Second Statement on Post-War Iraq"). Both documents are part of the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative plan, and Ross is a signatory on both.
The first installment of this series established that the election of Obama represented a major power shift in Washington away from the neoconservative faction of the power elite towards the Trilateral clique. This shift was accompanied by a dramatic decrease in the likelihood of an invasion of Iran because the trilateralists favor recruiting Iran as an asset of the American Empire. Neoconservative operatives in the new administration such as Ross, however, may be able to revive neoconservative plans to invade Iran.
Ross has even helped prepare a document that proposes invasion as a viable option to dealing with Iran's attempts to procure nuclear weapons. Entitled "Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development," the document is the product of a bipartisan policy group and names Ross as a contributor ("Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development"). "Meeting the Challenge" states that there is a "military component" to "deterrence and containment" (ibid). The report suggests that the U.S. government "consider a declaration of automaticity" (ibid). This declaration would state: "In the event Iran or any suspect proxy utilizes nuclear weapons, Iran will be hit with a devastating retaliatory strike" (ibid). A "devastating retaliatory strike" may even employ nuclear weapons. The report states:
A nuclear deterrent strategy would require moving to a declared U.S. stance threatening the potential use of nuclear weapons should Iran ever use a nuclear weapon or allow its proxies to do so. (ibid)
The report goes on to reiterate this "nuclear deterrent strategy" theme:
The U.S. Administration may need to announce that it reserves the right to respond to any attack against itself or its allies with overwhelming force and, perhaps, nuclear weapons. (ibid)
America must be ready to make good on its threats and "must begin to prepare for such a response" (ibid). This means that the U.S. must "construct alliances needed to station U.S. forces in position to confront Iran" (ibid). Gulf Cooperation Council states such as Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Oman would be called upon to U.S. military forces to use key military facilities that America has access to under defense pacts formed after the 1991 Gulf War (ibid). But the U.S. must also seek "enhanced access to military facilities in countries East, West and North of Iran" (ibid). Overtures must be made toward states such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, and Pakistan in order "to gain their approval to host the U.S. forces and support the staff needed for military action" (ibid).
If the neoconservatives are able to sway the new president, invasion may be back on the table as a viable option. In such an event, the government may look to the Muslim Brotherhood to use its considerable influence and political clout in the Middle East to help build the alliance needed to make an invasion successful. The United States might have to use the religious differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. The Brotherhood is a Sunni organization while Shia Islam is the dominant religion of Iran. These differences could possibly motivate the Brotherhood to work towards a consensus among other Arab states concerning an invasion of Iran.
But the task may not be as easy as it sounds. In its bid to become a regional superpower, Iran has begun working past its religious differences with the Brotherhood in order to forge significant ties with the highly influential political movement. In 1992, Iran and Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, began building the bridge by giving sanctuary to 415 leaders of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood's offshoot in the Palestinian Gaza Strip (Baer 172-173). Iran has also forged considerable ties with the Islamic Action Front, the Muslim Brotherhood's branch in Jordan (178). Whatever the outcome of such efforts, one thing is apparent: the government, acting on behalf of various factions of the power elite, is now courting America's enemies. Such treason is intolerable, but will remain a permanent fixture of the Establishment that currently dominates the American political landscape. Only a restoration of the Constitution will change this sorry state of affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment