Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Egypt court bans Muslim Brotherhood

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

This officially ends the "Arab Spring" period that was so widely hailed -- except here and at a few other jihad-conscious sites -- as a new flowering of democracy and pluralism in Egypt. Instead, it was a Muslim Brotherhood power grab that ultimately foundered when Egyptians who didn't want to live in a Sharia state rose up.

"Egypt court bans Muslim Brotherhood group," by Maggie Michael for the Associated Press, September 23 (thanks to Kenneth):
CAIRO — An Egyptian court Monday ordered the Muslim Brotherhood to be banned and its assets confiscated in a dramatic escalation of a crackdown by the military-backed government against supporters of the ousted Islamist president Mohammed Morsi. 
The ruling opens the door for a wider crackdown on the vast network of the Brotherhood, which includes social organizations that have been key for building the group's grassroots support and helping its election victories. The verdict banned the group itself — including the official association it registered under earlier this year — as well as "any institution branching out of it or ... receiving financial support from it," according to the court ruling, made public on Egypt's state official news agency MENA.
The judge at the Cairo Court for Urgent Matters also ordered the "confiscation of all the group's money, assets, and buildings" and said that an independent committee should be formed by the Cabinet to manage the money until final court orders are issued. The verdict can be appealed.
The Brotherhood was outlawed for most of its 85 years in existence. But after the 2011 ouster of autocrat Hosni Mubarak, it was allowed to work openly, formed a political party and rose to power in a string of post-Mubarak elections. In March, it registered as a recognized non-governmental organization.
"This is totalitarian decision," leading group member Ibrahim Moneir said in an interview with Qatari-based Al-Jazeera Mubashir Misr TV. "You are losers and it (the Brotherhood) will remain with God's help, not by the orders by the judiciary of el-Sissi," he added, referring to military chief Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who led the overthrow of Morsi July 3....


With this weekend's massacre by Muslim terrorists at a mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Muslim terrorists killing about 80 Christians at a Christian church in Pakistan, most people wonder what, if anything in addition to a continuing war on terror, can be done to minimize the scourge of Islamic terror. 
 
The answer lies with Muslims themselves. Specifically, it means that Muslim religious leaders around the world must announce that any Muslim who deliberately targets non-combatants for death goes to hell.

I arrive at this answer based on something that I have long believed about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust.

I readily acknowledge that the situations are not the same. The Jews of Europe were not annihilated by Catholics in the name of Catholicism; whereas the Christians, Muslims and Jews who are massacred by Islamic terrorists are murdered by Muslims in the name of Islam.

I also readily acknowledge that many of the attacks on Pope Pius XII for his alleged inaction and even collaboration with the Nazis during the Holocaust are animated by individuals who hate Western religion generally or hate the Catholic Church specifically. Pius XII was not "Hitler's Pope," as one best-selling book on Pius XII is titled.

Moreover, Pius XII lived in Italy during World War II, in a fascist dictatorship that began as Hitler's ally and ended up being the target of Nazi atrocities. This was not the case with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, who lived in the safety of a free country six-thousand miles away from Germany, did nothing to save the Jews of Europe, and even sent a boatload of Jewish refugees from Hitler back to Europe. Yet the critics of Pius are silent about Roosevelt.

Nevertheless, Pius could have done more to at least slow down the Holocaust. And I say this recognizing that Italy's Catholic clergy saved many Jews, and that Pius, to his credit, had to be aware of this. What he could have and should have done was to announce that any Catholic -- and any Christian for that matter -- who in any way helps in the murder of innocent Jews is committing a mortal sin and will not attain salvation. In other words, he or she will go to hell.

This would have had no impact on the many Germans and other Europeans who had no belief in God or religion; but it would have had an impact on many who did.

I believe the same thing regarding Muslim terror. Muslim leaders -- specifically, every imam in the world who is not a supporter of terror, the leaders of the most important Sunni institutions, such as the Al-Azhar Mosque and University in Cairo, and religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and the in Gulf states -- must announce that any Muslim who participates in any deliberate attack on civilians goes to hell.

This must be announced as clearly and as repeatedly as, for example, Muslim condemnations of Israel.

Just as the promise of immediate entrance into paradise animates many Muslim terrorists, the promise of immediate hell would dissuade many Muslims from committing acts of terrorism. Just as the promise of 72 virgins animates many Muslim terrorists, the promise of hell would dissuade many Muslims from terrorism.

Whenever non-Muslims ask Muslim organizations about Muslim terrorism, these organizations trot out the various anti-terrorism statements they have issued. But these are largely useless because: a) they are usually issued by Western Muslim organizations; b) even when they are issued by Middle Eastern Muslims, they almost always include condemnation of "state terrorism," which is Muslim-speak for condemnation of any use of force by Israel; and c) these statements usually also condemn non-Muslim terror, as if Christian or Jewish or Buddhist terrorism is as great a threat to humanity as is Muslim terrorism.

Therefore the statements that need to be made by every Muslim teacher, school, mosque and organization that does not support Muslim terror must be unequivocal. They need to state that any Muslim who targets (SET ITAL) any (END ITAL) civilian for death -- whether that civilian is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or of no religion -- goes to hell.

In addition, there need to be large Muslim demonstrations against Muslim terrorism. I understand that Muslim clerics who would organize such demonstrations in the Muslim world might be risking their lives. But what about Muslims in America and Europe?

There have been huge Muslim demonstrations against cartoons depicting Muhammad and any other perceived "insult" against Islam. But I am unaware of a single demonstration of Muslims against
Muslim terror directed at non-Muslims.

And if morality doesn't persuade Muslim leaders to issue such a statement and organize such demonstrations, perhaps self-interest will. To just about everyone in the world outside of academia and the media, Islam is not looking good. Muslim leaders should be aware that with Muslims burning Christian churches and Christian bodies in Pakistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Egypt and elsewhere, and the regular massacring of innocents by Muslim terror groups, the protestations by Muslim spokesmen that "Islam is religion of peace" are beginning to wear thin. For a religion that seeks converts, this is not a positive development.

On the other hand, perhaps not that many Muslim religious leaders do believe that Muslim terrorists are going to hell.

Defunding Obamacare is a great idea and I'm not just saying that because I was the first one to promote the concept in March of 2010. Back then, the GOP Leadership agreed with me with no arm twisting required. John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Cathy McMorris Rodgers all vowed to defund Obamacare if the GOP took back the House. Today, it's finally going to happen, but only because Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have forced the GOP to stand up and fight.

That being said, it is admittedly unlikely that Barack Obama will agree to defund Obamacare. To make that happen, we'd need a unified GOP caucus and leaders with skill at messaging who could keep the public on our side for months after Obama shuts down the government. We don't have that, which means we probably can't achieve our ultimate goal. However, that doesn't mean that there is nothing to be gained or that the GOP is doomed to take a beating on the issue.

1) We're nearly on even ground with Obama at the moment: According to the latest Gallup poll, if there was a government shutdown, 39% of the public would blame the GOP, 36% would blame Obama and 17% would blame both sides. Those are not bad numbers and when Obama is shouting from the rooftops that he won't compromise under any circumstances, there's no reason the polls have to dramatically tilt against the Republican Party if Democrats insist on shutting the government down. If people assume your side is holding up a deal when the other side is telling everyone that it won't compromise, then maybe it's time to start questioning whether your leaders are effective enough at messaging to continue to lead.

2) The GOP has to prove it's willing to stand up and fight: Jonah Goldberg once said, “(J)ust to clarify: If you go into every situation saying there’s absolutely nothing worth fighting over, you will inevitably end up on a cot sleeping next to a guy named Tiny, bringing him breakfast in his cell every morning, and spending your afternoons ironing his boxers. Or, in the case of the French, you might spend your afternoon rounding up Jews to send to Germany, but you get the point.”
 
The problem with the D.C. Republicans is that they've become that guy sleeping on the cot. They're ultimately not willing to go to the mat over anything and so the Democrats never see a need to compromise because they assume they'll win every even fight in a walk. As a general rule, they're right about that and if it wasn't for the conservative base applying pressure to the GOP, we'd NEVER win an even fight with the Democrats. That needs to change.

3) We elevate the issue: If we could pick one issue that should decide the 2014 and 2016 elections, Obamacare would be it. The roll-out has been a disaster. People are losing their jobs, being cut back to part time, and losing their health insurance. Premiums are set to skyrocket across the nation.

Obamacare is killing the middle class in this country and we should want every last American to know that the GOP is fighting like hell to stop this law while the Democrats are responsible for every last problem Americans have with their health care from now on. If this fight helps cement that message in and becomes a crucial defining difference between the two parties, that's a good thing for the Republican Party.

4) We make it known we're going to kill the bill by any legal means necessary: Since the GOP has voted against Obamacare many times and most GOP governors have declined to sign up for the exchanges, this is the next logical step in attempting to kill the bill. If the GOP manages to take back the Senate and the perception is that the Democrats lost because of Obamacare, it could dramatically curtail support for the law on the Left. Beyond that, we should expect any GOP nominee in 2016 to pledge to unilaterally dismantle Obamacare using the precedent set by Barack Obama. If we have an opportunity to do something, but fail to act, the politicians like John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham will declare the fight over and encourage everyone to just learn to live with Obamacare.

5) Think of the proposals we can send the Democrats: Too many people think of this as an all or nothing exercise. Either we defund Obamacare or we've failed. But, what if the House Republicans compromise by agreeing to fund the government, while implementing the whole law "as is" with no delays? What if they agree to fund the government, but demand that the IRS, Congress, and their aides are covered by Obamacare? What if they vote to fund the government, but with a two year Obamacare delay? Let's turn this into THE ISSUE OF 2014 and then let the whole country see that Democrats would rather shut the government down than give up their special carve-outs for the IRS, themselves, and their cronies. If the GOP leadership can't wring concessions worth having out of the Democrats under those circumstances, then the problem isn't the fight; it's the people we have in charge of the Republican Party.

Fear The Boom, Not The Bust

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Fear The Boom, Not The Bust
PHOTOS.COM
If you listen to TV commentators, you’ve been told the worst is behind us. Growth is picking up, and Europe is coming out of its slumber. No one seems to be concerned that this tepid below-2-percent growth is being entirely fed by the central bank’s massive money printing. It’s a “growth at any price” policy.

How quickly we forget.

Back in the boom days, anyone who questioned double-digit growth in housing prices was viewed as an unenlightened Cassandra, lacking knowledge on how the new economy had fundamentally changed the law of scarcity. Austrian economists consistently warned that a boom built on foundation of easy money could only lead to a disaster. Today, most of the growth is coming from the interest rate-sensitive sectors of the economy, such as cars and housing. This should be ringing warning bells everywhere.

The conventional wisdom is that the Fed will begin to taper when growth picks up. This is a complete misreading of what is actually happening. The Fed made a monumental mistake, and does not really know how to get out of the trap it had set upon itself.

The Fed embarked on a “we know best” policy of QE3 (a third round of quantitative easing) last fall, and induced a market bubble in the spring. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index gained 12 percent from January to June 2013, while growth remained subdued. The Fed realized its mistake and now wants to get out. The problem is that in economics, as with most things in life, it’s much easier to get into trouble than out of it. The Fed wants to take away the punch bowl; but it knows that interest rates will rise, the stock market will crash and the economy will tank. The longer it waits, the greater will be the inevitable adjustment.

If we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. We have been here before. The depression of 1920 and Roosevelt recession of 1937 show us what happens when excessive monetary printing is followed by tepid tapering.

The 1937 Recession is a perfect example of Austrian business cycle theory. It was severe but short. Output fell by 11 percent and industrial production by 32 percent. Unemployment surged back up from 14 percent to 19 percent.

There is considerable disagreement on the cause of the recession, with some economists blaming the tightening of fiscal and monetary policy. Reserve requirements were increased, and the budget deficit was reduced. Yet spending in the 1937 fiscal year was $7.6 billion, compared to $6.5 billion in 1934 and $6.4 billion in 1935: two spectacular boom years. Taxes went up about 1 percent of gross domestic product from 1936 to 1937, but were less as a percentage of GDP than the rebound years of 1938 or 1939. Writing in 1956, E. Cary Brown found that fiscal policy changes accounted for less than a quarter of the downturn. The Fed did raise reserve requirements, but banks were already holding abundant excess reserves. The new requirements had very little impact.

The real cause of the 1937 recession occurred much sooner. The die was cast early in 1934 when the United States set the price of gold at an overvalued $35 an ounce. The ensuing gold inflows caused the money supply to explode, increasing 12 percent per year (M2) from 1934 to 1936. A boom ensued with real output growing 10 percent in 1934, 8.9 percent in 1935 and 13 percent in 1936. As Austrians would say, the additional money masqueraded as real savings. Since no real resources had been liberated, a scramble for resources followed. Eventually, many of the investment projects that had been undertaken turned out to be unprofitable and needed to be abandoned. The 1937 recession was necessary and desirable to free up resources from the malinvestments of the previous years. A recession is a realignment of resources closer to what society really wants to be produced. The central bank could have continued printing, extending the illusion of prosperity; but this would have just delayed and amplified the final adjustment.

By late 1936, the Fed started to get worried. And in March 1937, the chairman of the Fed, Martin Eccles, said: “[R]ecovery is now under way, but if it were permitted to become a runaway boom it would be followed by another disastrous crash.”

In December 1936, the central bank began sterilizing the gold inflows so they no longer boosted monetary growth. This was a timid tapering by contemporary standards. Monetary growth slowed from 12 percent to essentially nothing. This was the equivalent of gently tapping on the brakes.

Anyone who considers this excessive is implying that a capitalist economy needs monetary juice to operate. Yet there is ample evidence from the 19th century of a stable money supply resulting in solid growth, and money is a measure of value and serves its function best when it is stable.

The bust was written in the cards. It could not be avoided, just postponed. It is not the bust, but the boom, that should be feared. The bust was of short duration and could have been much worse if the Fed had not pulled the punch bowl then and there.

We currently fear Fed tapering, as we should. Yet we should be even more fearful that it doesn’t taper. Today, we really have a dreaded choice of losing an arm now or two arms and a leg tomorrow. Because the price distortions have been massive, the adjustment will be horrendous. Government policy makers and government economists simply do not understand the critical role of prices in helping discovery and coordination.

Recognizing that the economy is still weak, the Fed at its Wednesday meeting yet again declined to begin tapering. When the Fed is finally forced to cut back, interest rates will rise, Wall Street will call for relief and the economy will slump. This may be delayed with additional printing for a couple of months; but the adjustment will occur, and it will be severe — probably much worse than in 2008.

However, this time there are no arrows left in the government’s quiver to spend or print its way out of trouble.
Today is BOWE TUESDAY 221.

It was 221 weeks ago, on 30 June 2009, that Bowe was taken captive by enemy forces. Be sure to make a post to your timeline that reminds people about Bowe. Tell as many as you can; tell them that it's time to bring Bowe home.


Op-ed:
Shamefully politicizing the memorial service
By: Diane Sori

How dare he...

How dare Barack HUSSEIN Obama turn the Memorial Service for the 12 murdered at the Washington Navy Yard into a political platform for his already failed in Congress gun control platform.

"I'm here today to say there's nothing routine about this tragedy. There's nothing routine about your loss...We must insist here today there is nothing normal about innocent men and women being gunned down where they work," Obama told those gathered (setting the stage for calling this massacre yet another case of 'workplace violence' perhaps), and then he morphed into full political campaign mode... forgetting why he was there...as he started spewing his entire 'bad gun' rhetoric.

The killer, Aaron Alexis, a black former Navy reservist, had untreated mental health issues including the usual 'hearing voices' excuse, but friends have come forward saying he was angry that his military benefits were being held up and he blamed that on discrimination because he was black.  Now add the 'voices' into the discrimination mix and you have one man ready to explode...which he did.

And YES guns were his weapon of choice but guns per se had NOTHING to do with what he did for if it was NOT guns it would have been something else.  Alexis was intent and keenly focused on doing as much carnage as he could, and would have done so with knives, acid, gas, or whatever he could get his hands on if he couldn't get them on a gun.

So Obama had NO right doing what he did...saying what he did...for his lack of true compassion and leadership defamed and dishonored the memory of those lost and those they left behind.  The survivors and families were there to honor the fallen and to be comforted by the Commander-in-Chief NOT to hear about 'bad guns' and those 'bad' Republicans who do NOT want to ban 'bad' guns.

Spewing political nonsense and deliberately withholding the truth is paramount to lying by omission, and Obama did just that as he told those gathered in grief that "the US  military needs to do more to secure its facilities," leaving out the very important fact that our soldiers stationed at our military bases are unarmed because in 1993, Democratic President Bill Clinton turned our military bases into 'gun free zones.'

And as we all know sometimes the truth is just too shocking to believe, but the truth remains that 'Billy-Boy' cow-towed to 'political correctness' and decreed that US military personnel were to surrender their Second Amendment rights...one of the very rights that our military swears an oath to support and defend.  

So thanks to Bill Clinton our military personnel are forbidden from carrying their own personal firearms (guns) on base, and that “a credible and specific threat against Department of the Army personnel must exist in that region” before military personnel “may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.” 

And with our military bases being 'gun free zones' a direct correlation to mass shootings exists for those intent on killing know that once they get a gun onto a base they are basically free to kill...free to kill because they are facing unarmed military personnel who have been stripped of the very means to defend themselves.

Liberal logic 101...disarm those who are targets for every terrorist and every kook out there...every terrorist and kook who has 'a score to settle' with the military...and then render our military impotent to fight back against those who are out to kill them...makes a lot of sense doesn't it...yeah right.

And this has been going on for 20 years now, and in those 20 years more violence and deaths have occurred on said bases than ever before...one other recent case in point is Fort Hood...and this miserable excuse of a president wants to strip away their and our gun rights even more as in his eyes the gun is what killed...NOT the killer using the gun.

And bringing all this up at the Memorial Service for the 12, and then to add insult to injury Obama cites the Sandy Hook Massacre as he railed against lax gun laws that he blamed for murder rates in the US being three times higher than in other developed nations...forgetting the oh so key fact that our population numbers are many times higher than other developed nations.

Convenient huh...

And then telling the grieving that he "cannot accept" that politics are too "frozen" to change gun laws, urging them to demand change in the name of their lost loved ones is more than just political grandstanding...it borders on the obscene.

Bottom line...the Washington Navy Yard Massacre did NOT have to happen nor did the Foot Hood Massacre have to happen and would NOT have happened if our military...the very people who lay their lives on the line everyday to keep us safe and free at home...were NOT ordered to be unarmed while on base  And if these tragedies did NOT happen 'We the People' would NOT have to listen to Barack HUSSEIN Obama turn what should be a solemn occasion into just another stop along the never ending Obama campaign trail...a campaign that unfortunately he's already won.
.
Shameful...just shameful...