Sunday, March 29, 2009

Who Obama Seeks Out for His Administration

Obama seeks patriotic, pro-Western, Judeo-Christians in his administration -
Oh wait! Apparently not.

As reported by Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch:

Obama wants more Muslims in his Administration, and to work closely with Muslim community in U.S.
But no worries: his list of potential Muslim appointees has been "carefully vetted." How carefully? We can get a hint of the answer from the involvement of Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN). Congressman Ellison recently made the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca that is one of the five pillars of Islam. The Muslim American Society paid for his Hajj. And what is the Muslim American Society? The Muslim Brotherhood.

"In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members." -- Chicago Tribune, 2004.

And who is the Muslim Brotherhood? The Muslim Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is 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." -- "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.

Imagine if a conservative Congressman had taken a trip that had been paid for by a Christian group that was, according to one of its own documents, dedicated to "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house" so that Christian law would replace the U.S. Constitution. I expect we would hear more of an outcry than we ever heard about Ellison's Hajj.

"Carefully vetted"!

"Obama gets list of top Muslim Americans," from the Denver Post, March 27 (thanks to Pamela):

CHICAGO — In a bid to get more Muslim Americans working in the Obama administration, a book with resumes of 45 of the nation's most qualified — Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 executives and public servants, all carefully vetted — has been submitted to the White House.
The effort, driven by community leaders and others, including U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., was bumped up two weeks because White House officials heard about the venture, said J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, who sifted through more than 300 names.

"It was mostly under the radar," Williams said. "We thought it would put (the president) in a precarious position. We didn't know how closely he wanted to appear to be working with the Muslim American community."


This is the type of "Change" I feared Obama would bring to the table. Most Americans believe that violent Jihadists constitute a tiny minority of Muslims. They belive the great majority are peace-loving, patriotic, Christian-like Muslims who are just like you and me. Much evidence points to the fact that this "huge majority" of non-Jihadi Muslims are sympathetic to the aims of the Jihadists. They may not agree with the means and methods, but they most certainly agree with the ends: A nation dominated by Islamic tenets, if not Sharia law. Most are no friend of western values and culture.

A few weeks back, I suggested that most non-Jihadi Muslims were probably merely ignorant of the Islamic-supremicist nature of their religion and of their Holy Book - that they ignorantly believe that Islam is a "religion of peace."

A wise person got my attention when he ask me this question: With the past decade's high profile Islamic-sponsored carnage and public calls for the elimination of Israel and the West, how is it possible for Muslims in this country to be unaware of the violent nature their religion? Who would still lay claim to such a religion unless they agree with at least the objectives of the current driving forces of their religion if not also the means to achieve them? There is no way American Muslims can be unaware that the heart of Islam desires to subvert western culture and values into its own barbaric and fascist image.

Appointing Muslims to high positions in the White House is absolutely in keeping with Obamas past radical associations, his desire for change, his disdain of "traditional America" and her culture, and the agenda of Muslims to remake America in the image of Muhammad.

We can only hope there will be enough of a backlash against this foolishness over the next few years to reverse the damage that is being done to this nation. If not, we totally deserve what we get.

I have to confess, though, I find it absolutely surreal that a man with a Muslim name and Muslim sympathies, having America-hating associates, who has taken over the largest American companies, who has trashed the free-market and capitalism, and who bends over backwards to appoint Muslims to high positions, was elected President ONLY SEVEN YEARS AFTER 9/11! Does anyone else feel this way? What does that say about our electorate? Does the word "gullible" come to mind?

Monday, March 16, 2009

Neil "Private Sector Can Do No Wrong" Boortz

This morning I listened to an outrageous encounter between Neil Boortz and a caller who was concerned with the slimy behavior of AIG execs regarding their 176 million dollar bonuses. Boortz challenged the callers' condemnation and the credibility of her concerns with the incompetence and greed of AIG execs by demanding that she name the execs who shouldn't get the bonuses - as if their vile behavior wouldn't exist if she couldn't name the greedy bas-turds.

From www.The "AIG has argued that it contractually obligated to pay the bonuses." Yeah, just as "contractually obligated" as the line workers at GM, who will be giving up not only bonuses but salary to help keep their company afloat. Just as "contractually obligated" as any worker who sacrifices days of work to allow coworkers to keep their jobs.

Boortz, have you always sided with the greed-hounds who have no concept of self-sacrifice?

Listen up Boortz, you libertarian fool. Your credibility goes down the toilet when you use condescending and paternalistic debate tricks to discredit your callers. You are attempting to defend the indefensible. No wonder your caller hung up on you.

Perhaps it is your shtick to be a contrarian. But to be the one out of one million folks who believe the AIG execs who were the cause celeb of their company's downfall should be rewarded with bonuses equaling the amount of taxpayer bailout dollars is insane.

You have amply demonstrated your belief that anything "private sector" is golden, greed and guilt free. And anything "government" is evil. That is a distorted view of life.

Friday, March 06, 2009

Being "Green" Right Now is Being Stupid

The wave of "greenness" covering the globe was questionable from the start, and is even more questionable in this economy.

Even in a good economy, the claimed benefits of "green initiatives" are as quirky and questionable as global warming and the end of the world in 2012.

Back in 2007 when, as a City Planner, I was asked to research the benefits of the City joining the green bandwagon, I couldn't find any - except the "good publicity" that might follow: the feel good feeling that comes when you follow a popular fad, however useless it might be. All the evidence pointed to the benefit of good public relations much more than any cost benefits.

As a college student 40 years ago, the teaching at that time was that good environmentalism will pay for itself. Much of the environmentailism being promoted today does not. It actually creates greater expense.

The Waste Management truck that picks up recycing materials just passed my house. Its' crew picked up clear plastic bags placed along the curb in front of each house. Each bag contained probably 20 or 30 empty used plastic containers. Most folks would probably consider this a great green program - recycling plastic bottles. What could be more American and Apple Pie? But consider the cost.

The four ton diesel garbage truck, the crew of two, the burning of the fuel, the wear of the streets, the processes for recycling the bottles, the meager value of recycled plastics. I will bet this is one program that does not pay its way. And there are hundreds just like it.

This type of government program is questionable in a good economy. In a bad economy it is unconscionable and stupid.

During the worst recession (possible depression) since the 1930's, why would we...

- Impose greater mileage restrictions on automobiles when two of our three manufactures cannot sell cars and are on the brink of bankruptcy.

- Impose greater emission standards on coal and other fossil fuels, when right now, they are the most cost-effective fuels we have and raising such costs will bankrupt hundreds of additional businesses at this stage of our economic meltdown.

- Impose a system of "carbon credits" when no US producer can afford their costs.

- Continue with the hundreds of other attempts to be environmentally sensitive when the lifecycle costs of such programs in fact demonstrate that most are more costly and more damaging to the environment than doing nothing. These programs are nothing but slipshod government manipulation of the free market without an understanding of all the costs and components impacted by a particular program.

This is not the time for our federal government to impose any environmental agenda. If anything, it is time to reverse the least effective and most costly environmental programs at least until those who pay for them - American business and American citizens - can get back on their feet to pay for them.

Talk about misplaced national priorities. Stabilize the boat before you let the mariachi band get on.

Monday, March 02, 2009

Government: Corporate America's Scapegoat

A recently published book "Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, The Economy Tanked, and Government Bailout Will Make Things Worse" by Thomas Woods claims the following:

"...the current crisis was caused not by the free market but by the government's intervention in the market."

Having been professionally involved in local government for over 30 years, I claim that the current crisis was caused by corporate America's intervention in government.

The hierarchy of government, whether it be the City Council or Federal Legislature, the Mayor or the President, the City Manager or the Chief of Staff typically get their jobs by way of the most influential powers within their particular jurisdiction, whether it be city or nation. They are all influenced by or beholden to those who they perceive brought them into power and sustain their power.

It is no secret that in this nation, corporate America is America. Corporate America has the resources to do the lobbying, the expertise to critique and redraft proposed legislation, the influence to get its' way. And "its' way" is not always best for America as the current state of affairs starkly and painfully reveal.

The review of "Meltdown" goes further, claiming "busy-body bureaucrats [were allowed] to pull the strings on our financial sectors and the value of the very money we use." It is more accurate to claim that "busy-body" corporate interest lobbyists "pulled the strings" of the bureaucrats to craft policies that favored their greedy and loose business practices. It is very likely that the so-called "busy-body" bureaucrats did not always want to go along with the string pulling and policy manipulation of corporate interests. These bureaucrats do have bosses who are typically politically motivated or in various ways influenced or coerced to achieve certain policy objectives the "bureaucrats" did not believe best.

So, with the combination of corporate lobbyists "advising" the bureaucrats and the bureacrats bosses reinforcing the "advice" of the corporate lobbyists, what we get is the preferred corporate agenda translated into public policy via our political process. The bureaucrats are merely pawns.

Scapegoating the "bureaucrats" is not the answer. Strengthening public disclosure, doing a better job at balancing public interests and corporate influence in government (now that's a challenge!), and looking past the hype promoted by corporate interests will give better results.

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Glenn Beck: Wrong on Islam

I could have titled this blog: Muslim Democracy - One Vote, One Time

Or "A funny thing happened to Glenn Beck on the way back from the Mosque."

I like Glenn. I agree with most of his opinions on most issues. But he is misinformed or excessively forgiving or hopeful about Islam.

His belief is that the Muslim religion has been "hijacked." That Islam is, at its core, a peaceloving religion - practiced by many fine and kind people he has met.

I recently sent Glenn an e-mail in response to a similar statement he made in defense of Islam. I said, Glenn, if you lived in 1939, you would have also claimed that you met many fine and kind Nazi's. That Nazism has been hijacked by a radical element. At their core, they are peaceloving. You might have said. "I think Nazi's coming out and voting is a very good thing."

In fact, on page 147 of his book, An Inconvenient Book, Glenn quoted himself in a previous interview: "I think the Somalians coming out and voting is a very good thing."

As it turns out "the leader of Somalia's autonomous region of Puntland has agreed to introduce Islamic law in the territory" as reported by the BBC. Puntland comprises about one third of the area of the nation of Somalia. Similar Sharia inspiring declarations are being made in parts of Pakistan and I will bet will occur in Iraq within a short time after our withdrawal. This is Islam's "democracy": "one vote - one time."

What Glenn and many others fail to understand is that the upstanding and kind Muslims we know in this country fall into one of two categories. Either they are ignorant of or uncommited toward the historical Islam (as exhibited in the latter and more binding sections of the Koran), or they are being secretive about their beliefs and aspirations regarding Islam - their practice of "taqiyya."

I would compare the first possibility to the lack of earnestness of the beliefs of the "nominal Christian" toward his faith. He may claim to be Christian, he may also go to church on occasion, but his knowledge of, faith in and allegience to his religion is sorely lacking. They may be "good people", but they know and really believe squat about their religion. These "nominal Christians" don't represent Christianity any more than the "good people" Glenn chooses as examples of Muslims represent Islam.

Glenn fails to understand that the basics of Islam practiced by Mohammed promotes exactly what the so-called "radical element" of Islam is practicing today. Will the "real Muslims please stand up." And, in fact, they are. In all their jihadi-practicing faith and terror. The call for Sharia law in Muslim-dominated nations across the globe are bearing this out. And if they are not practicing violent Jihad, they either believe in or promote Sharia law, the abuse of women (at least by western standards) and an often psychotic intolerance of any real or perceived criticism of Islam.

Those we perceive as the "good American, family-oriented" neighborly Muslims are either the nominal Muslim - the ones who don't really practice the basic tenants of their faith or the practitioners of Islamic deceit.

Glenn and many others are misinformed wishful hopers. It is unfortunate that one who is as influential as Glenn is spreading such a misinformed and misleading message.