I finally found time to read Mark Alexander’s December 13th column in The Patriot Post. This an awesome history lesson of how Marxist ideology has crept into American mainstream politics. Alexander distinguishes American new Marxism from old Soviet Communism by making a play on words used to describe new Conservatism; i.e. Neoconservatism. Thus new Communism is Neo-Communism and shortened to NeoCom.
The NeoCom agenda is the platform American voters placed into effect in 2008 and again in 2012. The NeoCom agenda is the Obama agenda to transform Liberty oriented America as conceived by the Founding Fathers to a Socialist Christian-eviscerating State controlled economy with morality defined as well by the State.
You really need to READ Mark Alexander’s essay.
The Neo-Communist Economic Agenda
By Mark Alexander
Sent: 12/13/2012 12:16 PM
“We must make our election between economy and Liberty, or profusion and servitude.” –Thomas Jefferson (1816)
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. … Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.” –Winston Churchill
Today, I have a new entry for the political lexicon to categorize the latest ideological iteration of Marxists in America: “Neo-Communists” or the abbreviated version, “NeoComs.”
You’re no doubt familiar with the label “Neo-Conservatives,” and its shortened version, “NeoCons,” to describe conservatives who have adapted to more interventionist foreign policies promoting democracy, and who support open trade policies. “Neo” differentiates these conservatives from the isolationist and non-interventionist conservatism of the 1930s — until the attack on Pearl Harbor drew us into war with Japan and Germany.
At the other end of the political spectrum from the Ronald Reagan NeoCons are the NeoComs — modern-day socialists who have risen, in the last decade, to dominate the Democrat Party. They have modified old Marxist doctrines and adapted them to current political platforms and policies using leftist propaganda more compatible with contemporary culture. Chief among these is the Democrat Party’s tried and true “divide and conquer” disparity rhetoric, which foments discontent and division based on income, race, ethnicity, gender, education, occupation, etc.
However, bull pucky by any other name is still bull pucky. Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged.
The objective of today’s NeoComs is, as you by now know, “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” in order to “peacefully transition” from our constitutional republic and its free-enterprise economy to a socialist republic with a state-organized and regulated economy.
Ideological adherents of the American Communist Party made few political gains under that banner in the last century because the label “communist” was and remains “distasteful” to most Americans. Thus, NeoComs have infested the once-noble Democrat Party and are using it as cover for socialist policy implementation.
The political genes of the current cadres of NeoComs establish them as the direct descendants of the statist policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the programs he implemented under cover of the Great Depression.
Roosevelt, like most of today’s wealthy liberal protagonists, was an “inheritance-welfare liberal” — raised in a dysfunctional home and dependent on his financial inheritance rather than that essential spirit of self-reliance, which forms the core of American Liberty. Consequently, the “dependence ethos” irrevocably shaped by FDR’s privileged upbringing is virtually indistinguishable from the dependence ethos of those who have been raised or inculcated with belief that they are reliant upon welfare handouts from the state.
Though markedly dissimilar in terms of their political power, the underlying difference between inheritance liberals and welfare liberals is, the former depend on investment and trust distributions while the latter depend on government redistributions. But they both support socialist political and economic agendas based on Marxist collectivism.
Endeavoring to transform our Republic into a socialist state, FDR set about to replace our authentic Constitution with the so-called “living constitution” by way of judicial diktat, thereby subordinating the Rule of Law to the will of his administration. Anticipating Supreme Court rulings against many of his patently unconstitutional policies, which he later arrogantly outlined in his “New Bill of Rights,” FDR attempted to expand the number of justices on the High Court, thereby allowing him to flood the bench with his nominees in order to win majority rulings.
Despite his failed attempt to pack the High Court, over the course of FDR’s three full terms, he infested American politics with socialist programs and policies, and brought the nation perilously close to being ruled by an avowed Marxist, his vice president, Henry Wallace.
Prior to 2008, the closest the U.S. had gotten to an openly socialist president was after FDR’s then-vice president, John Garner, broke with Roosevelt over FDR’s effort to pack the court. In 1940, Roosevelt tapped his secretary of agriculture, Henry Wallace, to replace Garner as his new running mate. Wallace’s allegiance to Marxist doctrine was well established. However, near the end of World War II, Roosevelt feared that he could not get re-elected to a fourth term with an open Communist on the ticket, so he tapped the more moderate Harry Truman and demoted Wallace to Secretary of Commerce — where he could further his Marxist agenda.
FDR, of course, died in office just a month into his fourth term. But had he retained Wallace instead of opting for Truman, America would have had its first communist president by succession.
Shortly after becoming president, Truman fired Wallace because of his affinity for the USSR. Wallace would later unsuccessfully challenge Truman in 1948 under the thinly veiled socialist Progressive Party front, with the endorsement of the American Communist Party.
The end of World War II largely capped FDR’s “New Deal” socialist expansion of the state until Lyndon Johnson’s progressive “Great Society” platform heralded a plethora of new statist programs and policies. Ironically, another war, Vietnam, capped Johnson’s socialist expansionism, but not the enormous price tag of the welfare and entitlement programs established by FDR and Johnson.
It was not until the sharp economic downturn of the Great Recession in September 2008 that the next socialist surge of statist intervention would be implemented. That severe recession, the result of Democrat-sponsored statist intervention policies which led to the collapse of real estate values, and cascaded into the near collapse of the U.S. banking system, also led to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, much as the Great Depression had led to the election of FDR.
In fact, Obama’s progressive re-election mantra, “Forward,” was inspired either by the concluding words of FDR’s “Bill of Rights”: “[W]e must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights….”, or by Mao Zedong’s collectivist “Great Leap Forward.” Either case would constitute a political distinction without a difference. And a prophetic footnote: FDR also wrote in his Bill of Rights, “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
Like Roosevelt, Obama was raised in a dysfunctional family, but unlike FDR, Obama inherited a socialist political legacy rather than wealth. However, neither Roosevelt nor Obama “let a serious crisis go to waste.”
Obama, the NeoCom-in-Chief and our first openly socialist president, was elected and re-elected on his progressive “fair share” rhetoric, which he often frames as “spreading the wealth around.” That, of course, is merely a new riff on an old FDR proclamation: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.” However, that “American principle” is merely a paraphrase of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, in which he declared, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Obama’s political storm troopers are led by the largest subgroup of congressional Democrats, the 76 declared members of his Congressional Progressive Caucus, who have made “progressive taxation” the top priority of their “redistributive justice” agenda.
Rep. Paul Ryan properly summed up Obama’s progressive agenda as “a dull journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.”
Obama and his American Communist Party-endorsed NeoComs are crafting their progressive economic policies using the subtle Cloward-Piven model, a socialist strategy that outlines how to overload the national entitlement delivery system, what we call the ObamaNation Plantation, in order to generate a severe economic crisis and ultimately break the back of free enterprise. Obama is using so-called “stimulus and bailout” plans (including his most recent “Fiscal Bluff“), ObamaCare, cap-n-trade, international climate change treaties, and the like, to take our country to the edge of that precipice.
Sometimes, however, the NeoCom agenda is not so subtle, as was the case this week when Jeffrey Immelt, an ardent Obama supporter who also chairs Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, said of Red China’s economy, “The one thing that actually works, state-run communism, may not be your cup of tea, but their government works.”
NeoComs outside the U.S. are even less subtle.
In a recent newspaper column in “Pravda,” the old Soviet propaganda rag (“The Truth”) now published by post-Soviet era conscripts of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, a popular writer, Xavier Lerma, had this observation on our most recent presidential election: “The Communists have won in America with Obama. … Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society.”
Lerma criticized his fellow Russians for electing Vladimir Putin who, Lerma laments, “sounded like Ronald Reagan” in a recent speech Putin gave on the Russian economy.
Putin said: “We are reducing taxes on production. We are optimizing state expenses. We must avoid excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state. Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit and accumulation of the national debt are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game. During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself. We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success.”
Lerma concluded, “Who could ever [have] imagined anyone so willing to destroy [capitalism] like Obama, much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don’t they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist president.”
Indeed, who could have imagined?
Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
Publisher, The Patriot Post
(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families — especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)
The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2012 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.
John R. Houk
© March 14, 2012
If you are wondering way President Barack Hussein Obama’s Harvard U student embrace of Professor Derrick Bell is important then watch this Soledad O’Brien Leftist attempt to inform CNN (known to Conservatives as the Communist News Network) viewers that Bell’s Critical Race Theory is not about calling White people supremacists in general. Editor-in-Chief Joe Pollak of Breitbart.com handles himself quite well with O’Brien’s invective defense of BHO’s warm affection for Professor Bell.
Now here is the thing about Soledad O’Brien’s misrepresentation of Critical Race Theory. Pollak busted O’Brien on her inaccuracy about the White Supremacist component about the theory which cited from Wikipedia. Unfortunately for O’Brien the original Wikipedia article sided with Pollak. Evidently a large amount of people attempted to go into the article to change it to match O’Brien’s inaccurate rendering so Wikipedia “froze” the article and put an older version of Critical Race Theory. Can you say Left Wing cover-up?
The Daily Caller reports that Wikipedia has frozen its entryon Critical Race Theory, reverting to the version of the page that existed before her on-air implosion in debate with Breitbart.com’s Joel Pollak.
At the time, O’Brien–evidently citing the first line of the Wikipedia entry–claimed that Critical Race Theory had nothing to do with white supremacy. However, the same entry she relied upon–or which producers provided via her earpiece–mentions white supremacy twice.
The Daily Caller quotes a senior Wikipedia editor as saying that the entry is being frozen for a short time because of attempts to cover for O’Brien–and competing attempts to uncover the cover-up: “Given the flurry of reverts by and of anons yesterday I’m semi-protecting the article for a week.”
As for O’Brien, she has yet to correct the record, and attacked Pollak for an entire segment in her Monday show, leading even sympathetic media critics to mock her attempted “do-over.” She has asked angry viewers to “stop tweeting” her about the subject. (Brietbart.com 3/13/12)
So let’s look at Critical Race Theory from another source than Wikipedia.
Slate.com is a website that I think everyone would agree is Leftist oriented. And in being Left Wing Slate author Will Oremus defends Critical Race Theory and therefore Professor Derrick Bell and ultimately President Barack Hussein Obama.
Oremus first goes through a brief educational moment on Critical Race Theory (CRT). I am going to excerpt the part of his article that defends CRT as a non-supremacist race theory in the sense that CRT does not accuse the entire White Race of the supremacism that emanates from say the Ku Klux Klan, Arian Nation idiots and the like.
Bell in particular advanced what he called “interest convergence theory,” which holds that whites will support minority rights only when it’s in their interest as well. For example, he saw the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 school-desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education, as a part of a Cold War effort to improve America’s standing among Third World countries. To redress racial wrongs, he sympathized with black nationalists’ calls for separate black institutions but also pushed for affirmative action at Harvard and elsewhere.
On CNN, O’Brien and Pollak clashed over Pollak’s assertion that “white supremacy is at the heart of critical race theory.” It’s true that Bell often used that loaded term to describe what he saw as an entrenched racial hierarchy. He didn’t mean, however, that America is full of white supremacists, in the Ku Klux Klan sense. As Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic note in “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction,” those who subscribe to it believe that racism can be an everyday fact of life for people of color even if whites rarely notice it.
So is the theory radical? Yes, in the sense that it questions fundamental assumptions. Critical race theorists argue that what many Americans think of as the “white race” does not describe a distinct group of people but rather a social construct that serves to benefit some groups and marginalize others. And unlike some strands of academic and legal thought, critical race theory has an open and activist agenda, with an emphasis on storytelling and personal experience. It’s about righting wrongs, not just questing after knowledge.
But Bell and his fellow theorists, who include Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, and Charles Lawrence, were not radical in the sense of advocating extreme tactics to achieve political ends, like Greenpeace or the Irish Republican Army. They fought their battles in the halls of academia, not on the streets. And many of their ideas are not radical today in the sense of being outside the mainstream: Critical race theory is widely taught and studied, not only in law but in sociology, education, and other fields. And it is part of the mainstream debates over affirmative action, immigration, and hate-crime laws. (Slate.com March 9, 2012, at 2:59 PM ET)
So Oremus is saying CRT was not advocating a Black Revolution to terminate the U.S. Constitution and redistribute power and wealth to give minority races (Bell is thinking African-Americans) a leg up on the White Race like violent White Supremacists would do to minorities to denigrate their racial existence. CRT is different than violent White Supremacists because the theory advocates a societal-cultural transformation by writing about it in academia. What? So CRT is good because it wants to destroy the American experiment in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of Constitutional government because the White Race wrote the instruments of power to remain superior to any other race on a subliminal level; ergo it must change. Change how?
Oremus DOES NOT really delve into the CRT methodology of this transformative change. I think the methodology is evident in the Gramsci-Alinsky-Obama model to use the U.S. Constitution to destroy the U.S. Constitution.
The change Bell intended for America and that President Barack Hussein Obama subscribes to may not be an immediate minority revolution to overthrow the White Race, but the Bell-Obama concept of Change is a racial theory to terminate the U.S. Constitution. After the Constitution is rendered to a relic of history the intention is to continue to whittle away the vision of the Founding Fathers to make America closer akin to a Marxist Amerika in which self-initiative, merit, power and property are redistributed in such a way that minorities tell the White majority how to exist in a kind of reverse Apartheid.
Violent or not, Professor Bell was an anti-White racist with a hatred that moved him to rip power and property from his perceived enemy race to bring equality to minorities in an egalitarian-authoritarian manner. In full disclosure I believe Bell intended to share that power and property with the enemy White Race, but only with those with a utopian Marxist like vision that eliminates property and Liberty that is still constitutional today.
Breitbart.com has a better explanation of Critical Race Theory than Oremus’ pro-CRT view. It is a bit lengthy but you need to read it to understand how anti-American Derrick Bell was and to understand that President Barack Hussein Obama totally buys into this theory to destroy the American way of life.
John R. Houk
© October 1, 2011
Leslie J. Sacks writes briefly somewhat as an introduction to Janet Levy’s review of the Rebecca Bynum’s book “Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion”. The theme of Sacks’ thoughts is Islamic reform which is also hinted in Levy’s book review. An excerpt from the Bynum book indicates her reasoning that Islam is not a religion. However, her reasoning to me shows that Islam has more akin to Leninist-Stalinist Communism or Nazism than to goal of any other religion. In the culture formed by a Communist or Nazi State the people are brainwashed to obey the State without question and to place the leader on such a pedestal that there is the appearance of divine worship but with the denial of a deity.
Islam is Communist-like except the cult founder picked out a deity from all the Meccan polygamous deities and declared that deity to be the ONE deity and backed that claim up by stealing mostly from Jewish theology with a swash of Christian theology mixed together with a lot of distortion and revisionism to make Allah that ONE deity. In order to make a worldly connection between Allah and the World, Mohammed made sure that he was mystically elevated to a pedestal of being Allah’s sole and last mouthpiece to humanity.
The difference between Communism and Islam is the former rejects the existence of deity or deities and the latter embraces a monotheistic faith as a control mechanism over the people.
Allow me to add one other thought about Islam and the concept of reform. The true reform movement that is currently happening in Islam is all the fundamentalist Islamic movements of Sunni and Shia that seek a purity that existed in Mohammed’s day. It is a reformation that is actually gaining momentum among Muslims everyday because it reinforces what all Muslims are taught: Allah is one god and Mohammed is his prophet. Thus everything Mohammed said and did is the PERFECT example for all Muslim believers to follow. If Mohammed is perfect then killing kafir (unbeliever in Islam), killing an apostate (one that leaves Islam for another religion or for atheism), killing a Jew first and then a Christian (because ultimately the People of the Book will perish for unbelieving Allah and his prophet Mohammed) and all the brutal dictates of Sharia Law which if broken can lead to amputation or death depending on the punishment defined by Sharia Law (e.g. a Muslim adulteress, a Muslim homosexual, a Muslim female that dishonors her Muslim family for various offenses will all find death either by the Muslim government or by the hands of the Muslim family).
Purist Islam is the Islamic reformation that Radical Islam that is real and is happening in the 21st century. Islam does not need a reformation. Islam needs a transformation to enter the realm of a religion that provides a path to peace with a deity, deities or the seeking of escaping the wheel of life such as moksha or nirvana.
Islamic transformation would eradicate the dark side of Islam contained primarily of the Quranic suras that are attributed as Mohammed’s sayings from his arrival in Medina and afterwards.
Without further adieu here is Leslie J. Sacks post about Islam below.
Why Islam is in Desperate Need of a Reformation
By Leslie J. Sacks
Sent: Sep 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM
Website: STRENGTH AND TOLERANCE
Rebecca Bynum writes a focused and timely, yet largely one-sided book entitled “Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion”. Janet Levy’s timely review of this book (see below) questions why parts of the left wing have taken up political commonality with the ACLU, CAIR, MAS and those who would advance Sharia law and Muslim religious expression in our schools, colleges and communities. Yet these selfsame individuals and groups rail against any Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Baha’i or Hindu representation in the same institutions.
Two preeminent questions jump out at us:
1) Why do anti-religious elements choose to see Christianity et al. as a religion but Islam as a culture, the former worthy of denigration whilst the latter deserves understanding, empathy, support and expression? Surely Judaism for example is as much a culture, a way of life as Islam is.
2) Why has Islam been high-jacked by the fundamentalists, the literalists, the extremists, all seemingly in commanding control of the many “faces” of Islam’s expressions, of Islam’s visible personality? At the same time, why have these supremacists fervently and successfully denied moderate voices, interspersed throughout the world of Islam, even a modest participation in the public persona, in the governmental personas, and ultimately in the voices of today’s Islam?
If many multiculturalists, if many well-meaning albeit somewhat naïve citizens of the West, insist on projecting their most optimistic and myopic visions onto Islam, in total indifference to the fatwas and intolerance everywhere evident, then support for the Muslim moderates will never spring forth, and the radicals will hold ground.
If there remains no allowance in the Muslim world for alternative interpretations of their scriptures, or tolerance for an evolving set of applications, lifestyles, beliefs and allowances, and if jihad is not replaced by an acceptance of other religions, cultures and peoples, then any reformation will remain, as it has for 1400 years, a dim fantasy.
And in those instances Rebecca Bynum’s vision of Islam (or radical Islam in the view of many) will keep ringing true, and the one overarching face of medieval Islam in our modern age will remain all-powerful, omnipresent. All the world’s major religions except mainstream Islam (Wahabism, Iranian Shiism, and the many offshoots like the Taliban) have largely learnt over thousands of years to live and let live. 1 Moderates and apostates in the Islamic world still fear for their lives. Bibles are banned in Saudi Arabia, as are women drivers. Honor killings and beheadings should have no place in a modern civilization; as should supremacist and exclusitory interpretations of any religion.
My hope and my prayers are for every moderate Muslim, every tolerant Muslim, every unequal woman in the Muslim world, to not lose hope, to retain their faith and keep chipping away at the unbending monolith surround them, until a reformation indeed arrives.2
Peace in the West depends on it, just as prosperity in the East will.
Note 1 The bible has for millennia established the concept that we are all indeed equal, a concept only now largely accepted by most religions. “You Shall not hate the Edomite because he is your brother; you shall not hate the Egyptian because you were a stranger in his land” (Deuteronomy 23:8). “You shall love the stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:19). “… You shall love your neighbor (every human being) like yourself; I am the Lord” (Lev 19:18)
I enclose excerpts from Janet Levy’s review which highlights questions that need answering and issues that desperately bear discussion. Some may argue as to how relevant Bynum’s thesis is, however the mere existence of its application as a reality is an indictment of one of the world’s great religions, and one desperately in need of modernization.
By Rebecca Bynum Published by New English Review Press, 2011
Reviewed by Janet Levy
In a July 29 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit essentially regulated the language of prayer by ruling that any mention of “Jesus” during public prayer constitutes sectarian and unconstitutional language. But the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) brought the legal challenge seeking to end a traditional practice commonly used before public meetings in state and local legislative bodies across America.
Such attacks by the Left against religious expression are commonplace. In August, leftist groups roundly criticized Texas Governor Rick Perry’s call for a day of prayer to “seek G-d’s guidance and wisdom in addressing the challenges that face our communities, states and nation.” In January, Hawaii caved in to ACLU demands and became the first state to eliminate daily prayer, although approval of a 2009 bill to celebrate “Islam Day” mysteriously escaped their censure.
Several state legislatures including Iowa, Texas, and Washington have opened their sessions with Islamic prayers invoking Allah, calling for “victory over those who disbelieve (i.e. all non-Muslims)” and soliciting “protection from the Great Satan.” These requests that Allah grant Muslims victory over non-Muslims are hardly prayers to bless the work of legislatures, but neither the ACLU or AU raised objections, even though the prayers excluded Christians and Jews and declared cultural war against American society.
In the past, the Left, which asked the nihilistic question “Is G-d Dead?,” made common cause with communism (and Socialism) rejected religious faith in favor of “godless” secular humanism. Today the connection between the totalitarianism of the Left – control of human activity and thought in the name of “social justice” – and the totalitarianism of Islam – control of every aspect of life through the shariah – is a bond fusing their efforts to pursue a common agenda: to undermine America’s Judeo-Christian values and traditional institutions.
In her book Allah Is Dead: Why Islam Is Not A Religion, Rebecca Bynum (author and publisher of New English Review) adeptly explores the traditional role of religion, the G-d is dead posture of the left, and the nature of Islam. She offers astute observations on the meaning and essence of religion as the very basis of reality for Western culture, extols its noble purpose of elevating man toward a path of righteousness, and contrasts this with the nihilistic ideologies presented as religion by the Left and Islam. She describes the deleterious effects of the Left on the meaning, value, and practice of religion, and argues that Islam’s fundamental characteristics deny it status as a religion.
Bynum identifies the critical role religion plays in fostering morality, anchoring society, buttressing the family, and promoting social harmony, public service, and charity. She makes important distinctions between the mechanical adherence to religious doctrine and the exalted, living experience of faith. A transcendent reality, faith captures the human heart and spirit and imbues our lives with meaning, Bynum writes. Faith is not coercion through the recitation of Biblical passages. Instead, scripture is a series of guidelines for human behavior which empower individuals to freely and creatively chart a path, constantly striving toward spiritual perfection. Bynum emphasizes that individual free will encouraged by faith is the pathway to understanding goodness, truth, and beauty, and ultimately the unique experience of discovering G-d and godliness.
The influence of the anti-religion Left has caused the church to abandon this traditional role and these values, Bynum asserts. For the most part, the church has turned away from spiritual ministry toward political and social causes with a focus on “works” over faith and religious practice. Religion is used politically to bolster social reforms, she writes, rather than to nurture spiritual and moral development. Religion emphasizes self-realization and sensual comfort, rather than attainment of the ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness. Instead of helping individuals aspire to the virtues of self-reliance, self-control, and gratitude, religion fosters an infantile sense of entitlement, a victim mentality of blaming external factors, and an unwillingness to take personal responsibility.
For the Left, religion is the enemy, morality is non-existent, and actions relate to narcissistic wants. In this view, man’s higher purpose, his ability for self-reflection, and his capacity for imagination are denied. As human dignity has been debased, the human values of love, truth, and goodness, as well as religious experience, are dismissed as delusional. Bynum concludes that spiritual transcendence is impossible when free will is viewed as an illusion and morality is arbitrary.
Just as leftist-influenced Western religion has abandoned the search for spiritual transcendence, Islam similarly does not provide a path to spiritual transcendence, either, Bynum asserts. Islam does not qualify as a religion, she argues, because it lacks the essential qualities and attributes of religion. Muslims are not free to establish a relationship with Allah but are required to recite prayers in a specific format and direct them to an object – the Kaaba, a cube-shaped building in Mecca that is the most sacred site in Islam. In Islam, strict rules regulate all behavior and Islamic worship is merely unquestioned obedience. Lacking is any quest for truth, acknowledgment of reality, or historical verification. The goal of Islam is complete control over the mind and the physical body and its functions. Bodies and minds are controlled with no nourishment for the soul.
With no outlet for individual expression in Islam, creativity does not exist nor does anything that would capture the human heart or spirit. No quest to discover Allah is required because he exists merely to be obeyed. Piety is enforced by conformity to Islamic doctrine with sinners severely punished or killed to uphold the community’s purity. Islam’s goal is complete submission, which stifles curiosity, creativity, motivation, and individuality, plus denies the truth.
In Islam, history begins with Mohammed. Nothing that occurred prior to his existence is of any value, thus history is revised and knowledge rendered meaningless. Islam requires cultural genocide because culture is an obstacle to establishing Allah’s authority on Earth. No concept of G-d-given free will and tolerance exists. Individual thought makes no difference because only the decrees of Islamic doctrine have value.
Islam requires complete self-denial and robot-like functioning as part of a collective: the umma, or Islamic community. Behavior is mandated by the shariah, which makes law and morality one and the same. Islam does not recognize the state as a higher authority and requires ultimate jurisdiction in all worldly matters. No explorations of and (sic) independent conclusions about justice and judgment exist as the shariah explicitly outlines every aspect of existence and sanctions forced marriage, child marriage, polygamy, death for apostasy, dhimmi status for non-Muslims, and other rulings and actions outlawed in other societies. Islam is the highest value, with no room for mercy or compassion. Islamic doctrine is immutable, unquestioned, and does not bend to any human circumstances.
Because of all these characteristics, Islam is not a religion, Bynum concludes, as it places ideology above life itself. It fails to advance individual morality, sacrificing the individual for the collective. It is unable to preserve wisdom because it denies everything but Islamic beliefs. It fails to foster peace and social harmony and instead requires perpetual war with non-believers. It weakens the family as the foundational unit of society by promoting polygamy. It is not transcendent in purpose, as its highest purpose is to perpetuate itself, and it has little meaning beyond rituals.
Islam cannot stand with the other religions of the world as a belief system that relates humanity to spirituality and to moral values and imbues life with meaning, Bynum writes. Instead, Islam is a supremacist, totalitarian, theo-political-legal ideology that engages in constant war with non-believers, controls the lives of its believers who are unable to question or relinquish its mandates, and fails to provide spiritual nourishment and to promote social harmony.
Just as the secular humanism of the Left diminishes man, Islam similarly diminishes man through its hatred of non-believers and its emulation of its brutal, murderous prophet as the ideal specimen of a man. Thus, leftists who assert their nonreligious and non-spiritual agenda and diligently work to eliminate G-d from the public square – including prohibitions against religious observances, holidays, symbols, and prayer – are allying with Muslim efforts to demonize and supplant non-Muslim faiths. Both represent a danger to Western society, and in particular the United States, which was founded on a core belief in G-d and the transcendent power of spirituality. Both Islam and the left’s secular humanism are godless ideologies that undermine Western values and civilization.
Janet Levy, MBA, MSW, is an activist, world traveler, and freelance journalist who has contributed to American Thinker, Full Disclosure Network, FrontPage Magazine, Family Security Matters and other publications. She blogs at www.womenagainstshariah.com
Note 2 There is an exciting new venue in which to see what Arab reformers have to say – the website [may be found at http://almuslih.org/ (It is in both Arabic and English.) According to its mission statement, Almuslih.org "aims to maximize the exposure and distribution of journalism and analyses promoting progressive thought in the Arab Middle East and the Muslim world." Go there to see how some of the most brilliant minds in the Arab world, like writer Sayyid al-Qimny, Abd al-Hamid al-Ansari, the former Dean of Islamic Law at Qatar University, and Hassan Mneimneh, director of the Iraq Memory Foundation, understand the situation today and what must be done to secure a democratic future. Invariably, they address the problem of the culture.
Contrary to al-Qaradawi's condemnation of secularism, Tunisian philosopher Latif Lakhdar, one of the brightest lights in the Muslim world, calls for "an acceptance of the division between the domains of faith and politics." He also states that a reformed Islam "ends the conception of the world divided up into an Abode of Islam destined for expansion and an Abode of War destined for 'Jihad unto the end of time,' as al-Bukhari's Hadith has it." Lakhdar says forthrightly, "our faith today constitutes a part of the problem, and it is incumbent upon us to reform it, in the school of religious rationalism, so that we turn it into a part of the solution." The most recent posting on Almuslih, is an article titled "Freedom and the Progress of Civilization," by Mohammed al-Sanduk. Al-Sanduk confirms the thesis in The Closing of the Muslim Mind that the greatest scientific and cultural achievements of the Arab Muslim world occurred during, and because of, the ascendancy of the rational theologians, the Mu'tazilites, whose thinking "laid emphasis on the freedom of choice and on the responsibilities that accompany this." Likewise, its decline resulted because of their suppression. He even provides a chart which tracks the rise and fall of Muslim scientific achievement parallel to the rise and fall of Mu'tazilite thought.
One of the best essays on the website is "A Manifesto for Reform," by the eloquent Hasan Hanafi, chairman of the philosophy department at Cairo University. He writes that "no real change can take place if there is not a change in the mindset first." This is the reason, he says, that prior efforts at reform have failed because they "started with social, political and economic structures rather than with inherited intellectual substructures, which remained unchanged even as liberal, western enlightenment-derived structure was superimposed over them." This has not worked because "the imported freedom therefore perches on an infrastructure of inherited fatalism, while the imported Rights of Man sit atop a substructure of the inherited Rights of God, in the same way that the imported sciences are superimposed over an infrastructural legacy of miracles." As this brilliantly insightful sentence implies, the real problem is theological, and it is at this level reform must take place.
Without a different theology, can one have democracy? Iranian philosopher, Dr Abdulkarim Soroush, explicitly answered this question: "You need some philosophical underpinning, even theological underpinning in order to have a real democratic system. Your God cannot be a despotic God anymore. A despotic God would not be compatible with a democratic rule, with the idea of rights. So you even have to change your idea of God." Can this be done? Can what seems to be the bedrock of Islam change? This seems a very tall order, though there is precedent for it in Muslim history. However, if it is going to be done, it will no doubt be accomplished by courageous Muslim thinkers such as those appearing on [the Almuslih website]. Through it, you will feel spring in the air.
Leslie J. Sacks
Islam: Reformation, Transformation or just Plain Political Cult?
John R. Houk
© October 1, 2011
Why Islam is in Desperate Need of a Reformation
Leslie Sacks Fine Art | 11640 San Vicente Blvd. | Los Angeles | CA | 90049
John R. Houk
© March 29, 2011
Christopher Logan of Logan’s Warning is very displeased with Brigitte Gabriel’s distinction between Moderate Islam and Radical Islam. Logan is one of those that believe Islam is Islam as is inherent in Islamic holy writings.
I have long struggled back and forth internally about the existence of a Moderate Islam. I am fully aware that in America a significant amount of the Muslim community subscribe to America’s concept of constitutional freedom as is guaranteed by the first ten Amendments which are called the Bill of Rights. Of those ten Amendments the First Amendment is the big dog of civil liberty guaranteeing Free Speech, Religious Freedom, Free Press, Free Open Protest, Freedom to petition the government without fear of retribution and no government interference of the practice of religion.
I also know that most of the Mosques in America receive their Islamic religious and theological literature from the Saudi Arabian dime. This means that purist Islam of the Wahhabis (and Muslim Brotherhood) niche, which the Western media asserts is a minute minority in Islam, is what American-Muslims read. Also if one ever takes a peek at angry Muslims in Islamic dominated lands it is difficult to believe that those who are supposed to be the Islamic majority subscribe to a moderate interpretation of Islam. When one reads about mass Muslim protests over idiotic cartoons of Mohammed in an unflattering expression, there was not so much a demonstration of a religion of peace and more of a demonstration of religion threatening violence and calling for murder and revenge on embassies that allowed Mohammed cartoons to be freely published in Western media. Also it is becoming common in Muslim dominated lands for hateful and violent persecution to be executed upon Christians. This violence leads to pogrom-style destruction of Christian Churches and property that often leads to rape and kidnapping of women as well as death to Christians that are in the way of the Islamic pogrom-style madness.
Now back to those Muslims that wish us non-Muslims to believe most Muslims are moderate and religion of peace kind of guys, I need to refer to a Muslim that has really become the face of Islamic “reform” in America – Dr. Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser.
Dr. Jasser is very anti-Islamist and pro-Moderate Islam. No one disputes his antagonism toward radical Islam and his complaint that the most known Muslim organizations in America have an Islamist and/or Muslim Brotherhood connection. The many that are critical of Dr. Jasser dispute his claim that most Muslims in America are moderate because they don’t actually attend the radicalized Mosques (which seems to be the majority) in America. This criticism goes back to those that believe Islam is Islam as it is recorded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira (combination of Sunna and Hadith). This is the very purist Islam that the Muslims we call radical subscribe to. The actual reform movement in Islam is the call to a return to the Islam established by Mohammed and congealed by the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. This is the very purist Islam that the Muslims we call radical subscribe to. The reform called by Dr. Jasser is the eschewing of the violent concepts in Political Islam which is the majority portion of Sharia Law. Though many of us kafir (non-Muslims) might call this reform, it is actually a transformative call by Dr. Jasser and the few that follow his (what I believe to be) noble call to change Islam into an actual religion of peace.
Dr. Jasser’s assertion that most American-Muslims are moderate is because American-Muslims do not follow the radical Islam that permeates most American Mosques. Dr. Jasser’s critics believe that is a deluded fallacy. Ergo, if Dr. Jasser is preaching a fallacy he must be a deceiving liar. Debbie Schlussel who complains about many prominent exposers of radical Islam as being con artists and/or plagiarists of her journalistic pieces says this about Dr. Jasser:
You see, the message Mr. Jasser is spreading is contrary to the one he claims in the movie. The movie warns of the homegrown jihad we’ve been warning about for years, since before 9/11. But Jasser’s statements regularly contradict the movie. He’s two-faced, and a liar. And you simply can’t believe a single piece of fertilizer coming out of his mouth. He openly lied to me in an e-mail, claiming he’d never discussed a topic on Detroit radio, which he expressly did discuss on the air for a full half-hour.
Jasser has consistently appeared on Detroit radio shows and TV and radio shows around the country, saying the usual bullcrap, i.e., that Islam is a peaceful religion, that the majority of Muslims are peaceful because they don’t belong to a mosque, that CAIR and MPAC and ISNA, etc. don’t represent Islam.
Sorry, but that’s baloney. Islam is not peaceful. Whether or not Muslims belong to a mosque is not the determinant of their radicalism, only an adding factor. I know some extremely secular Muslims who drink alcohol and haven’t been to a mosque in decades. But they love Hezbollah and HAMAS and hate Jews, Christians, America, and Israel. If the majority of Muslims are really peaceful and don’t support terrorist groups, why did I see ten thousand Muslims–during the workday–marching on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit in support of Hezbollah and HAMAS in both 2006 and early 2009? Why do Bin Laden, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah remain the most popular figures and entities in poll after poll of Muslims? Why do a third of young American Muslims support homicide bombings?
Dr. Jasser was kicked out of his mosque in Arizona, a pretty good sign that Islam is, in fact, radical, and they don’t want his pretentious claim otherwise. I’m sorry, but CAIR, ISNA, and MPAC do represent Islam more than he does. Far more, despite his claims otherwise. It’s like when Communist fantasists and utopians used to tell me that I can’t judge Communism by its manifestation and practice in the Soviet Union or Cuba or China, because they don’t practice “real” Communism and don’t represent this silent, imaginary majority of Communists worldwide who love peace and don’t throw people in jail for a life of torture for writing a poem. Sorry, Zuhdi, but you know better. And yet, you continue to lie. I asked Jasser how many Muslim members he has in his organization, the “American Islamic Forum for Democracy,” and he didn’t respond. He’s told others it’s about 100. That’s not even negligible. It’s downright embarrassing.
Not negligible are the speaking fees and other payments and funding Dr. Jasser is getting from this speaking tour, a good chunk of it courtesy of the Clarion Foundation, which in using him as its two-faced spokesman seems not to heed its own eponymous clarion call. I dream (and will forever dream) of the day we will see a Muslim (which means an ex-Muslim) or an Arab who is actually putting forth a consistent, truthful, truly peaceful message . . . and not some uninformed double-talk, milked as a money-making enterprise. Jasser, Hanan Tudor a/k/a “Brigitte Gabriel,” Walid Shoebat, and other frauds have all made a mint after they opened up shop post-9/11 (and lying about what and who they are). Before then, they were nowhere to be seen. Apparently, the underside of the rock was quite cozy ’til then, but afterward the outside suddenly became far “greener.” (The Sad Truth About Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser–Star, Narrator, & Producer of “The Third Jihad” Mar. 12, 2009 2:45 PM)
As you can see Schlussel is not pleased with a lot of people that actually have the same agenda of exposing Islam. Schlussel seems to believe that any defense of the existence of “Moderate Islam” must have an agenda of self-aggrandizement for gain; thus the Gabriels, the Jassers and the Shoebats criticizing Radical Islam deceive to make money because they lie or are plagiarizing the Schlussel journalism. Honestly I believe every one of the people Schlussel castigates has accomplished a great service in exposing the agenda of Islam in America. I have never heard that Brigitte Gabriel’s name is Hanan Tudor (Where did that come from?). If Gabriel had an alternative name, what is the implication?
I have kind of taken the middle road about the nature of Islam. According to Islamic holy writings that affect non-Muslims, the religion of Islam is evil. Muslims that declare they practice a moderate path of Islam simply means that Moderate Muslims wittingly or unwittingly disregard the portions of Islam that are doom and gloom in this present physical time for non-Muslims. All Muslims that call for a return to the practices of the early days of Islam are calling for a reformation to the pure days of Islam. The Muslims that call for an updated or a modernized Islam are calling for the elimination of the portions that call for defending the faith with a good physical offence (i.e. with violence) to propagate or to force submission of non-Muslims to the supremacy of Allah and Islam. Frankly my friends if you find a Muslim that denies that all of the examples of the perfect man, their prophet Mohammed, that Muslim person is part of a very miniscule minority in which the Muslim will find their life is endangered.
Does this mean that Muslims no matter how few they are, such as Dr. Jasser, should be criticized because they have a vision for an Islam that is actually a religion of peace in more than in mere deceptive propaganda? As long as the desire for a new kind of Islam exists among Muslims, it will be a noble desire.
I have to admit I sense it is a bit of dangerous territory for non-Muslims to believe in an Islamic transformation. Multicultural diverse Leftists that are deluded about the validity of all cultures whether evil, good or foreign are understandable. However, for Conservatives and those that wish to expose the nature of Islam by writing about the tenets of radical Islam as distinct from Islam itself is a path with good intentions yet probably doomed to failure. The only way for a transformed Islam is for a charismatic figure within the substructure of the Islamic faith that has the ability to catch the mind of Muslims to abandon the medieval-intolerant-global empire mindset of purist Islam. I am afraid such a person would be a miracle for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It would be a miracle for Muslims in the sense that the Clerics are self-indoctrinated and they indoctrinate their followers that Islam is pure and all else is false; even if the defense of the faith requires a violent action to correct even the least insult to Islam, Mohammed and Allah. Centuries of Islamic programming among Muslims has entrenched intolerance and Islamic Supremacy into their minds. I dare say that non-Muslims living in Muslim dominated lands have also been brainwashed to the point of accepting the supremacy of Islam; i.e. in following the rules of Sharia as it applies to non-Muslims not offending anything to do with Islam. So a Muslim willfully believes a dhimmi or pseudo-dhimmi life is better Islam. The offering of basic human right to religious freedom, free speech and freedom of conscious is anathema to the Islamic Supremacist mind especially in Muslim dominated lands.
In this sense Debbie Schlussel’s castigation of Brigitte Gabriel (Christian from Lebanon) and Walid Shoebat (Converted Christian and former Palestinian terrorist) might be a bit justified except for her use of bridge burning words that offends an ally in exposing Islam. It also brings one to an understanding of Christopher Logan’s frustration with Brigitte Gabriel and Dr. Jasser for looking for a Moderate Islam.
There was a serious effort in the nineteenth century to transform Islam away from its violent nature. Islamic Supremacism marginalized and persecuted that transformation attempt. The attempt of transformation was initiated by an Iranian by the name of Sayyid ‘Ali Muhammad Shirazi. Shirazi declared himself to be the Bab which translated into English means the gate or gateway or doorway and probably other synonyms I didn’t take time to look for. The Bab imagined himself to be the Hidden Twelfth Imam of the Twelver portion of Shias who are predominantly Iranian (once called Persians). The Bab’s effort to declare himself the Hidden Imam was a transformation movement within Shia Islam. Here is a summary of the Bab’s idea of Islamic transformation:
Babism (bä’bizum) [key], system of doctrines proclaimed in Persia in 1844 by Ali Muhammad of Shiraz. Influenced by the Shaykhi Shiite theology that viewed the Twelve Imams as incarnations of the Divine, Ali Muhammad proclaimed himself the Bab, the living door to the twelth Imam and the knowledge of God, and sent missionaries throughout Persia. He also announced a series of revelations, detailing the cosmogonic sequence, abrogating Islamic obligations and replacing them by a new set, structured around esoteric concepts such as the importance of the number 19. The year was hence divided into 19 months of 19 days each; the community was led by a council of 19 members. The movement placed special emphasis on the coming of the Promised One, who would embody all the tenets of the new religion. In 1848 the movement declared its complete secession from Islam and all its rites; upon the accession of a new shah, the Babi (the Bab’s followers) rose in insurrection and were defeated. Many of the leaders were killed, and the Bab was executed at Tabriz in 1850. Two years later, after an attempt on the life of the shah, there followed more persecutions. In 1863 the Babi were removed to Constantinople and later to Adrianople and Cyprus. After 1868 one group had its center in Acre under the leadership of Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri (known as Baha Ullah), the founder of the Baha’i faith, who declared himself the Promised One. (Babism; Fact Monster)
When the Bab was captured and tried for heresy by the Twelvers and imprisoned, the Babi followers went off on a jihad that turned into a Persian civil war. During this time the Bab was executed by firing squad. The Babi Jihad went on for a couple of years until it was ruthlessly put down resulting in the deaths of most of the leadership and thousands of Babis. One of the survivors of the lost Babi revolution was Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri. Husayn Ali was disturbed by the violence of the Bab, Babism and Islam. After a period of hiding Husayn Ali eventually ended up Acre (Akka and present day Israel) of the Syrian Magistrate of the Ottoman Empire. Husayn Ali was part of a split between the Babis. At that time a greater amount of Babis joined Husayn Ali’s version of a spiritual evolution of the Bab’s teaching. Husayn Ali became Baha’u'llah the founder of the Baha’i faith.
Baha’i is a religious movement founded in the 19th century by the Persian Bahaullah. It claims members in practically every country of the world. Objecting to polygamy, slavery of any kind, religious prejudices, and politicized religion, Baha’is call for world peace and harmony. The ideals of a world federalist government and a new world language are also a part of their teachings. Recognition of the common ground of all religions is seen as fostering this move toward global unity; Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Zarathustra, Jesus, and Muhammad are all recognized as divine manifestations, a series of prophets culminating in Bahaullah. Nonresistance, respect for persons, and legal recognition of the equal rights of both sexes constitute additional aspects of Baha’i teaching.
Baha’u’llah survived brief imprisonment in Iran/Persia and then was exiled to the Ottoman Empire who basically imprisoned him or placed on virtual house arrest for the rest of his life. Effectively Baha’u’llah was persecuted as a heretic from Islam by both the Shias of his homeland and the Sunnis of the Ottoman Empire.
Considering all that had happened in the 48 years beginning with the declaration of the Báb in 1844, Bahá’u'lláh’s passing on May 29, 1892 at about 3:00 A.M. might seem anticlimactic. He died quietly at the age of 75, still marginally a prisoner but permitted to live outside the walls of Akká in a mansion known as Bahjí. The relative tranquility of His final days on Earth stand in marked contrast to the tumult that had surrounded Him for much of His life, yet it proved to be merely the calm before another storm for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, His oldest son and appointed successor. (Read the rest of essay at Reflections on the Ascension of Bahá’u'lláh; Dale E. Lehman; Revised: 05/25/2001)
From a Christian perspective Baha’i is part of the many paths that are wide and lead to the destruction of the soul in which the human spirit is in danger of experiencing the second and final death. From an Islamic perspective Baha’i is the transformative path that would truly evolve Islam into a religion of peace.
Reformation in Islam is a return to Mohammed’s wickedness. A transformation in Islam will lead to the Mecca-Mohammed before the Hegira to Medina in which Mohammed became mad with power. Without that transformation there will be definitely a clash of civilizations between the West and the violent culture that is Islam.
John R. Houk
© February 2011
Industrialization in America was good for America. When factories needed workers it attracted farmers, rural citizens and immigrants to urban areas to meet the need for production.
The problem with industrialization was that ownership and management were looking for the best way to optimize profits. As good as industrialization was for America’s free market economy it left a lot of room to ignore the needs and safety of employees. Increasingly employees of factories became known as laborers and workers. In the quest for optimized profits the workers were exploited to the full extent a human could experience working for pittance often in an unsafe working environment. Indeed a substantial amount of workers in factories were children working the same long hours as adults which was essentially from sunrise to sunset often with a seven day work week.
These workers were essentially regarded as a means to an end for Industrialists with the employees not well regarded. Hence when novel political ideas advanced by Fabianism and Marxism (Detail: Marxism Unmasked, Von Mises) began to be shared with uneducated workers a substantial amount of people began to fall for the utopianism in which working conditions would not be oppressive. Fabianists were socialists that believed in a peaceful evolution away from Free Market Capitalism. Marxists were socialists that believed change would only happen by an armed revolution of the worker-laborer class to end personal ownership and eventually a stateless society of mutual cooperation.
Undoubtedly the Fabian/Marxist utopian dream caught on with the horrible working conditions of the relatively low wages for long hours experienced by employees. It seems to me that Unions began to gain strength after the infusion of socialistic ideas began to disseminate from Marxist activists toward the unlearned labor force. The promise of a long range utopia seemed very attractive to short term memory.
Of course the reality of history has shown the Marxist path as interpreted by Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and Mao was a path to oppression and probably the most unpublicized genocide in world history. There was no path from violent revolution to change society into the collective means of ownership and production that would benefit the whole. Rather after the Marxist revolutions the Marxist-Communist leaders embarked on a plan to eradicate all thought of attachment to ownership, traditional family values and religion. In the view of these revolutionary Marxists the only way to change the future was to eliminate an attachment to the past. Below is a paragraph representing the genocide of people that lost their lives in the name of social transformation from the two largest Marxist/Communist nations of the 20th century:
Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and their successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tse-tung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history’s most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii’s Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, “Death by Government.” A wealth of information is provided at his website. (Leftists, Progressives and Socialists; October 21, 2010)
Did you do the math? The sum of genocidal deaths was 138 MILLION people. My friends this is the failure of Socialism/Marxism.
Unsuspecting exploited American workers had no idea the long term promise of a collective Socialist or Marxist utopia would lead to oppression that made profit margin Capitalists look like a picnic.
In one sense the rise of powerful Unions was part of ending the mistreatment of workers via government regulation that benefitted better work hours, better wages, better safety, better health benefits and the elimination of child labor in industry. Unions brought parity between the employed and their owner/managers. Indeed, it was discovered that better conditions actually improved the means of production which increased profits which increased wages and benefits.
I will not go into the bitter bloodiness that occurred between owner/manager and Unions. There were atrocities of violence on both sides until a symbiotic relationship proved beneficial.
I will go into how Unions began to be both a detriment to their Collective members and the means of production as it affected the American economy. Just as Industrialists became greedy Capitalists in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution so also Union leadership became greedy for more benefits, more wages and more power which meant more money in the coffers of the Unions. The big Unions began to be haunted by corruption. The Socialist utopianism espoused by early Union leaders turned powerful fiefdoms in which thuggery was used to keep members in line or to brutalize those who did not want to join the Unions. The combination of Union high demands and Union corruption led to a point in which owners found it cheaper to move the means of production to nations where the wage demand was a fraction of the American Union demands. Eventually America moved from a producer nation to a consumer nation.
Just as Capitalists needed government regulation, it is time for government regulation to enable Right to Work laws that give workers a better opportunity to land a job eschewing a Union. It is time to regulate the power of Unions. That symbiotic balance between owner/manager and Unions must be found again or America’s lack of production combined with America’s increasing National Debt will explode to America’s detriment.
As much as I am concerned about Marxist principle and Islamic theo-politics robbing America of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; it could all become irrelevant as National chaos turns America into something that will discharge the U.S. Constitution and lead to another form of government that will lead to the decline of the Pax Americana. The historical lesson is the Roman Republic devolving into a populist cult leadership that led to civil wars which led to a Roman Empire that was lucky enough to have a capable first emperor in Augustus. After Augustus the Roman infrastructure slowly deteriorated until it was divided into two spheres of influence. The Western Latin sphere degenerated into the last powerless emperor that lost his Imperial throne in 476 because the only area of rule was the area of Italian Rome itself (The capital city actually being Ravenna). The Eastern part of the Roman Empire eventually became a Greek speaking empire that acquired the appellation of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine East became weaker and weaker due to wars with Persians which exhausted its Empire. The Byzantine/Persian wars actually left both empires depleted and were eventually overrun by conquering Muslims. In the case of the last vestige of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine capital of Constantinople was overrun on May 29, 1453 ending the Byzantine Empire.
I suspect a similar slow demise will begin if lack of production and an unsustainable National Debt collapses the greatest political experiment the world has ever seen.
I became lost in these thoughts because I was the recipient of a mass email by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). The purpose of the email was to raise support for the National Right to Work Act. The Act would enable the potential for businesses to be created in which production is made in America rather than American debt owner Communist China. Check out the Senator Paul rally for the petition and I encourage you to sign it.
Sign the petition Obama fears
From Senator Rand Paul
Sent: 2/24/2011 10:36 AM
Dear Concerned American,
I didn’t come to Washington, D.C. to buddy up to Big Labor and continue decades upon decades of “politics as usual.”
I came to turn this place around.
And if there’s one thing I learned during the historic 2010 elections, it’s that good folks like you and me can make a real difference.
So won’t you please agree to sign the petition I link to in a moment urging your Congressman and Senators to cosponsor the National Right to Work Act to finally END Big Labor’s stranglehold on our government and our fragile economy?
The truth is, there may be nothing President Obama and his union boss pals fear more than a public roll-call vote on this bill.
You see, right now, more than 11 million American workers are forced to pay union dues just to keep their jobs.
That’s just plain wrong.
But every bit as bad is the toll forced unionism is taking on our economy.
Just in the past few years, UAW union bosses armed with forced-dues privileges nearly drove the Big Three automakers to insolvency — until they were bailed out by American taxpayers.
Of course, the thousands of small businesses who were forced to shut their doors due to Big Labor militancy weren’t so lucky.
In the government sector, out-of-control union bosses’ outrageous demands, cushy pensions and bloated benefit packages all helped push California and dozens of other cities and states to the brink of bankruptcy.
And more stories like these are sure to come.
So, especially during these tough economic times, why has forced unionism been allowed to continue?
Well, thanks to their forced-dues privileges, the Big Labor bosses rake in eight BILLION dollars every year in forced union dues.
Every election year the union bosses spend one BILLION of that to elect and reelect their own handpicked politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.
Then, once elected, these tax-and-spend politicians fight for even MORE union-label power grabs like:
*** The “Card Check” Bill to strip workers of their right to a secret ballot election and FORCE millions more American workers under union boss control;
*** The Police and Firefighter Forced Unionization Bill which is designed to force EVERY first responder in the country under union boss control — and is just the first step toward turning all state and local government workers nationwide over to Big Labor;
*** New, TRILLION-dollar “stimulus packages” and social welfare boondoggles like ObamaCare all laden with Big Labor goodies — sending our already soaring deficit through the roof and increasing pressure for economy-crushing tax hikes;
*** Taxpayer bailouts for everything from failed unionized companies to Big Labor’s own mismanaged “Cadillac” union pension funds.
I hope you agree something’s got to change.
The good news is, passage of a National Right to Work act would end the forced-dues mandates in federal law and finally put an end to this vicious cycle.
You see, just getting a public, roll-call vote in both houses of Congress would be a huge victory.
Nearly 80% of the American people are opposed to forced union dues.
So if the union bosses’ pals in the U.S. House and Senate want to vote against our National Right to Work Act, they can be my guest.
They’ll pay the political price at the ballot box when faced with reelection — and 2012 could be an even worse year for forced unionism and the union bosses than 2010!
Just imagine the price the union bosses’ allies will pay once the American people come face-to-face with the fact that:
*** Millions of workers are forced to surrender part of every paycheck to Big Labor just to keep their jobs.
This cash funds aggressive “organizing” drives, a limousine lifestyle for union bigwigs, and bankrolls radical, tax-and-spend politicians like Barack Obama;
*** Big Labor’s power is poison to hundreds of thousands of small businesses.
Union-label politicians and Obama-stacked bureaucracies are strangling small businesses with confiscatory taxes, destructive laws and straitjacket regulations;
*** Union thugs terrorize workers and communities with violent strikes where they get away with beatings, arson — even murder.
But this fight won’t be easy.
The union bosses are going to do everything they can to try and suffocate the National Right to Work Bill quietly behind the scenes without even a public vote.
That’s why I’ve agreed to help the National Right to Work Committee mobilize Americans from all over the country to force Congress to vote publicly on the National Right to Work Act.
They’ve been leading the fight to end forced unionism in America for more than 50 years.
The Committee has drafted a petition to your Congressman and Senators that I hope you’ll agree to sign IMMEDIATELY by clicking here.
This petition is a vital part of the Committee’s plan to turn up the heat on Congress and force a vote on a National Right to Work law.
Using their sophisticated direct mail, email and phone mobilization programs, they’ll make sure Big Labor’s allies in Congress know they won’t get away with sweeping the forced-unionism issue under the rug.
In fact, over the next few months, their goal is to contact up to fourteen million Americans!
And in the days before the vote, the Committee will prepare hard-hitting newspaper, radio and TV ads to make sure my colleagues understand the political price they’ll pay should they choose to betray the nearly 80% of their constituents who oppose forced unionism.
But such a massive program isn’t cheap — and none of it can happen without the support of good folks like you.
So, in addition to your signed petition, I hope you’ll agree to a generous contribution to the National Right to Work Committee.
Some folks have given as much as $2,500 or $1,000.
That’s a lot, I know. Only a few folks can make that kind of contribution.
All I ask is that you please contribute as much as you can.
Perhaps you can give $500 or $250. Or perhaps $100, $50 or $35.
Friend, folks like you and me who truly believe in freedom must make sure that victories at the ballot box aren’t wasted.
Instead we should capitalize on them — and one of the best ways to do that is to force a vote on the National Right to Work Act.
And after signing your petition, will you agree to a generous contribution of $500, $250, $100, $50 or $35 to the National Right to Work Committee today?
I’m counting on your support.
The Hon. Rand Paul
U.S. Senator (R-KY)
P.S. There may be nothing President Obama and his Big Labor allies fear more than a public roll-call vote on the National Right to Work Act to END forced union dues nationwide.
With nearly 80% of the American people opposed to forced unionism, should Big Labor’s allies choose to vote AGAINST this bill, they’ll go down in flames at the ballot box.
So please sign the petition to your Congressman and Senators urging them to cosponsor the National Right to Work Act — and make your most generous contribution of $500, $250, $100, $50 or $35 to the National Right to Work Committee TODAY!
Production, Unions, National Debt and the American Transformation
John R. Houk
© February 25, 2011
Sign the petition Obama fears
Here is a comment from one who would describe himself as a moderate Muslim but I would describe as a transformative Muslim. Radical Muslims or Islamists or Salafis or Wahhabis are the purist Muslims seeking a reform back to the days of Mohammed’s initiation of brutal conquests. A transformative Muslim wishes to eschew the elements of Islam that underline violence as the primary theme of theology.
Ashraef Ahmed is primarily addressing fellow Muslims as in an open letter. As a Westerner the letter is awesome. As a Christian I still a bit of Islamic Supremacism; however I’m a Christian Supremacist in a New Testament kind of way. Thus, I can’t be too critical.
JRH 10/5/10 (Original Post Date)
Comment by Ashraef
Sent: Oct 1, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Comment: Ashraef Ahmed [to] Brothers and sisters,
The Islamic community in the West is suffering as a direct result of the radical elements within Islam that have hijacked our religion and turned it into a faith of terror. You make us look like barbaric uneducated uncivilised people. STOP!
The internet is full of Hate speeches by Islamic Clerics. The internet, media, press have exposed the weakness within Islam. We are unable to control Muslims perverting the Holy Koran; they have portrayed us as evil inconsiderate monsters. Our non-Muslim friends in the West have every right to be critical. It is time for us to be honest and reclaim and take ownership of our faith Islam. Why are we allowing radicals to destroy our image to the whole world? Where are our honest leaders? Where is the peace of Islam?
As you are all aware the spot light is now focused on Islam all over the world. Let’s be totally honest with each other, since 9/11 the West has become terrified of Islam, and rightly so… Muslims are NOT terrorists and we are good people wanting to live in peace. So why is only the modern-day terrorists threatening the world are radical Muslims? Why are we silent, while they totally shame our faith? I do not blame the West, America, or any one; I blame these radicals that have hijacked Islam and destroyed any notion Islam is a peaceful religion.
I find it incredible that our Islamic leaders cannot or will not recognize this and deal with it. As a group of Muslims in the West we have some basic questions to ask Our Islamic leaders, so they may understand our concerns and why there is so much hatred and annex towards Islam. Why is the Islamic community allowing terrorists to hijack their religion to justify hideous attacks on Western countries? What are the “moderate Muslims” doing to prevent abuse of their religion by their radical brothers and sisters in Islam? When the Muslim community continually does nothing except complain about the reaction of the West to the radical elements in Islam and labeling them “Islamophobics”, what do we expect them to do? Are we doing nothing about them? It is the responsibility of every moderate Muslim to claim ownership of Islam and openly denounce any Muslim abusing or using the Koran to ratify their evil acts. Do you agree that when civilized Muslims take control of Islam, people might view us in a different light? Do the Muslim nations agree it should not [be] up to the Western nations to clean up the mess left behind by radical Islamists? We totally accept that as a direct result of the inaction of the Islamic community, the West has no option but to protect ourselves? [Perhaps the author means themselves?]
We have failed to protect our religion! Are we aware everyone has the right of self-defence; this is not solely an Islamic or Koranic teaching? As true Muslims we feel ashamed and embarrassed by the 100,000′s of YouTube videos and internet sites where our religious leaders are promoting absolute vile barbaric and evil doctrines in the name of Islam. Shameful! What are our Islamic leaders doing to protect the name of Islam from these radicals? These people are the ones totally damaging the name of Islam and turning the West against Islam. What is the Muslim community doing about them or going to do about them and when? When is Islam going to accept responsibility for the evil actions of radical Muslims acting in the name of ALLAH? What does the Koran tell us Muslims about dealing with any Muslim perverting the word of the Koran?
You must be aware the world is now a very small place, due to technology we in the West “hear and see everything in the Muslim world via Internet, TV, media, etc”. Radical Islamists must realize their barbaric extreme actions are viewed with complete revulsion and disgust by Muslims and non-Muslims. No we have some young Muslims here wanting to follow in the footsteps of these evil people. These small but radical Muslims come across as barbaric uncivilized people much to the detriment of Islam. For example look at their reaction when one Pastor threatened to burn a Koran, the Islamic community went into a frenzy and mass demonstrations. It would have been better to show composure, maturity and simply issue a clear statement stating this act is unchristian and unhelpful in every way and will pray for him and leave it at that.
The West would have turned against him. By contrast the hypocrisy as countless of radical Muslims come out and threaten Western nations and post evil inciting speeches based on the Koran and calling “god is great” yet there is not a whisper from any Muslim, Moderate or otherwise.
You make Islam and the Muslim people look like foolish ignorant hypocrites. More so we ask, what are Islamic scholars going to do about the suras in the Koran that incite violence, call for the killing of Jews and Christians, and prohibiting people from leaving Islam, and condoning lying to infidels? Why does Islam feel the need to come out and attack our Jewish brothers and sisters and call for the elimination of Jews and Israel? This is only adding fuel to the fire, and it does make us look like an evil race of people following evil hatred.
Why does the leader of Iran come out and threaten Israel and the Jews in the most disgraceful inciting and hateful way? Can the Islamic community see – it is their Muslim brothers that are damaging the reputation and the name of Islam? Where is the voice of the civilised Muslim, the educated Muslim, and the peaceful Muslim? All the messages to the West are hatred, evil, violence, terror. Of course they are going to hate us, let us as a community become honest with ourselves? If the West does something we dislike, we must react in a civilised, diplomatic manner and not have mad men come out declaring war in the name of Islam?
Who is in control of our faith, our Leaders, Clerics, The radical elements and the terrorists? We do not have ONE voice to speak out on our behalf with reason, tolerance and as a role model for Islam. You have allowed barbaric terrorists to destroy our image, our reputation, our standing and our self-esteem. The Islamic communities in Islamic nations must understand, that 95% of Westerners are by far more highly educated, well read and liberal minded than they can ever imagine. They are not fools or stupid that will be swayed by threats of violence, terrorism, deception or lies.
How do we explain all the hatred and evil on the Net: look at You Tube? Clean yourselves up and stop self-destructing and blaming others. You are foolish for allowing this to happen in the first place. It is NOW, yes NOW, time for Islam to stop pointing the finger, claim ownership of Islam, control the Muslims and clean out own house, our image, our approach and our mindset.
The fact is if our Islamic leaders and community take direct and firm action against any radicals within the ranks of Islam, there would be no need for external intervention by any one. We would be viewed as truly a peaceful religion, not an unruly religion where everyone is free to do what they want in the name of Islam. It is time that Islam rescues its own reputation and uproots the core of the cause destroying the name of Islam. The Islamic leaders are fully aware of the problem, just as we are in the West. Our Islamic Leaders must immediately demonstrate to the world they are in control of the destiny of Islam and it is not in the hands of a minority radical element. They must condemn and excommunicate the entire “Islamic brotherhood” [Perhaps the author means the Muslim Brotherhood] in Egypt.
Everyone in the West, as you are aware, are the chief promoters of Jihad, Shariah and terrorism all over the world. It is no secret. It is all over the Net and the media and the latest report released in America on 15/9/2010 [I am uncertain of the report referred to by the author; however this report was produced circa 9-15-10].
Islam must stop thinking they can continue to wash their hands of the root causes and blame everyone else. No one is stupid. All over the world they are aware of the manner the Copts get treated. They [i.e. the West has seen] the reaction to comments by a Bishop [SlantRight Google Search: “Muslim Body Sets Conditions for Christian Citizenship in Egypt”].
What is the matter with you all? Do not react like animals: the Torah and Bible have been scrutinised, examined and debated for 2000 years. They [i.e. Jews, Christians and the West] don’t go wild. [The] “Da Vinci Code” [was written and made into a movie], not one demonstration or act of violence, we must learn from this. We as Muslims have nothing to hide; we are not scared to answer questions about the Koran. If someone says something or asks a question, we answer them and educate them. We don’t react like stupid fools unable to answer a question. In the West they see the way Muslims treat the Copts. That [is] image of Islam they get [and] makes them hate us and not trust us.
Everyone in the West knows the Copts are natives of Egypt. Islam, they see what you have done in Egypt and they believe we will do the same in their countries. Look at all of Europe everyday in the news because of Islam. How do you think the rest of the world views this?
Islam must show we can live in peace, tolerance, equality and love. I do not blame them, I blame the Islamic clerics that brainwash them and places hatred and evil in the hearts and incite them to commit evil acts. AT the SAME TIME these clerics live in safety and will not expose themselves to harm, prosecution or courts. This is wrong and madness. Again we remind you all the problem is within Islam not the West; especially after 9/11 it succeeded in turning the world focus on Islam and put us under the microscope. They have every right [to be upset]. If the same thing happened to us in an Islamic country, the Islamic community would have burned down their own countries’ in mass protest.
Finally the request for a Mosque at Ground Zero shows a complete lack of empathy, sympathy, consideration, remorse or respect. Do not add insult to injury. All it has done is increase the worldwide hatred and condemnation of Islam. Please have civilized educated people take control of Islam all over the world. It would be such a wonderful gesture if an Islamic Leader came out and said, “After due consideration, the Islamic community will not seek to build a Mosque on scared [I presume the author means “sacred”] ground where so many innocent people lost their lives at the hands of a foolish terrorists perverting the name of Islam.”
We as Muslims should let the Americans heal their wounds from this evil act. We as Muslims in an Islamic nation would [n]ever – ever – ever allow a religious building on a site where adherents of that faith committed a similar evil act. It is time to treat each other equally with respect, dignity, decency and consideration. I can only hope and pray.
NOTE: I have run a spell check. Also in places I added words in brackets that was not in the original. Also I placed some clarification in italics embraced by brackets. I also believe Ashraef Ahmed learned his/her (sorry about the uncertainty) English in a British influenced nation. Some of the words have a British spelling. I tried to leave those alone.