Muslim Brotherhood May Destroy Egyptian Culture

It begins: "Largely secular" Muslim Brotherhood sets its sights on "beach tourism" as Salafists say antiquities are of a "rotten culture"

The things that we were assured won't, can't, or ought not to happen after the Egyptian revolution are happening. Egypt's economy will suffer, leading to widespread discontent and potential political unrest. Good thing there's always Israel to blame. "Egypt’s Brotherhood declares war on the bikini," from All Headline News, August 25:

Sunbathing in Alexandria may soon be a thing of the past, at least if some Egyptian Islamist politicians have their way.

Egypt's tourism industry has suffered a severe blow since the outburst of anti-regime demonstrations in January. But that did not stop the Freedom and Justice Party, the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, from demanding stricter regulations over what tourists can do and wear while visiting the country. The party is urging officials to ban skimpy swimwear and the consumption of alcohol on Egyptian streets.

Freedom and Justice: you are free to obey Sharia, which will be given a monopoly on the definition of "justice."

"Beach tourism must take the values and norms of our society into account," Muhammad Saad Al-Katatny, secretary-general of Freedom and Justice, told Egyptian tourism officials on Monday. "We must place regulations on tourists wishing to visit Egypt, which we will announce in advance."

The call for new strictures on tourists comes as Egypt debates the role of Islam in the post-Mubarak era. Freedom and Justice is competing in elections scheduled for this autumn for parliament and opinion polls show a majority of Egyptians favor a greater use of Islamic law and mores. But a vocal minority worries that Egypt risks becoming an Islamic republic.

But the Obama administration's director of national intelligence said the Brotherhood was "largely secular."

"This is how things began in Iran," Hani Henry, a psychology professor at the American University in Cairo, told The Media Line. "The moderate youth wanted to implement changes, but the mullah's hijacked the revolution. The same thing is now happening here in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. It makes me sick to my stomach."

Yes. As with Iran, many were duped by the promises of change. Technically, thing did change, just not for the better.

Along with Suez Canal tolls and energy exports, tourism is a major source of foreign exchange for Egypt. But with protests, strikes, and continued violence in the cities and Sinai Peninsula months after President Husni Mubarak was forced to step down, foreigners have hesitated to visit the country, which offers some of the world’s most spectacular antiquities as well as beaches and scuba diving.

Finance Minister Hazem Al-Beblawi told the Reuters news agency earlier this month that revenue from tourism would likely total $10 billion in the financial year that started on July 1, compared with $11.6 billion in 2009/10.

Al-Katatny told Al-Masry Al-Youm daily that his party had already set up a subcommittee to investigate the issue of incoming tourism to Egypt and planned to amend legislation following the upcoming parliamentary elections.

"Some slight changes will be made in public beaches, to make the situation better than it was before," Ali Khafagy, youth director of Freedom and Justice in Giza, told The Media Line. "Bathing suits and mixing on the beach are things that go against our tradition. It's not just a matter of religion. When I go to the beach I don't want to see nudity."

He said modest bathing gear or separate beaches for men and women are possible alternatives to the current situation.

They'll get a foot in the door and go from there.

Khafagy stressed that tourists would be free to do as they please in specially designated areas, adding that his party supported tourism to the country. But that did not satisfy the heads of Egypt's tourism industry, who met with the party’s secretary-general Al-Katatny for a heated debate on Monday.

"Without alcohol and bathing suits, no tourists will come and we will lose $13 billion a year," Hussam A-Shaer, head of the tourist company association, told Al-Masry al-Youm.

Then there are the antiquities, and what happens to those relics of jahiliyyah under Sharia:

But bathing suits are not the only worry of Egypt’s Islamists. Abd Al-Munim A-Shahhat, a spokesman for the Salafi group Dawa, has said that Egypt's world-renowned pharaonic archeology – its pyramids, Sphinx and other monuments covered with un-Islamic imagery – should also be hidden from the public eye.

"The pharaonic culture is a rotten culture," A-Shahhat told the London-based Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat on Wednesday, saying the faces of ancient statues "should be covered with wax, since they are religiously forbidden." He likened the Egyptian relics to the idols which circled the walls of Mecca in pre-Islamic times. [...]

Henry of the American University said two classes of beaches already exist in Egypt, with modestly dressed, generally poor Egyptians occupying some and foreign tourists occupying others, mostly in the resorts of the Sinai Peninsula. He said he considered imposition of sharia law in Egypt "an act of aggression" that he would not tolerate.

Islamists have never been enamored of foreign tourism and before they were crushed by the Mubarak regime foreign visitors were often targeted for killings. Close to 60 Western tourists were killed by Islamist terrorists in the southern city of Luxor in 1997. Tourists were also attacked in bombings in the Sinai resorts of Taba, Sharm Al-Sheikh and Dahab in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

But Al-Katatny said that the Muslim Brotherhood regards Egypt's archeology as belonging to all of humanity, and should therefore be safeguarded.

"This heritage belongs to everyone, and one can't simply remove something he doesn't like," he told Al-Ahram daily.

Until one is too powerful to care.

Posted by Marisol on August 26, 2011

Should He Be Impeached?

Whitehouse Watch

When Barack Hussein Obama Proclaimed That He Would Not Enforce Our Nation's Immigration Laws, The Media Called It "Backdoor Amnesty." But It's Not Just Backdoor Amnesty, And It's Not Just A Simple Dereliction Of Duty: His Refusal To Enforce The Law Is An Impeachable Usurpation Of Congressional Power And Authority.

It's beyond belief. How many impeachable offenses must this self-styled American dictator commit? Of course, Obama's dictatorial refusal to enforce our nation's laws is not just limited to our immigration laws.

In violation of his Constitutional duty to act as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, he also refused to prosecute armed Black Panthers who were caught on video intimidating voters at the polls; and he is still refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

Here's another. In violation of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, Obama flat out told Congress that he DID NOT NEED Congressional approval to wage war in Libya. Can you imagine what would have happened if George W. Bush went into Iraq and told Congress he didn't need their authority to do so? He would have been impeached within a week.

And there may be potential felonies as well? When it comes to Obama's ATF actively selling illegal firearms to criminal organizations south of the border, the Sestak bribery allegations and former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's felonious "selling" of Obama's former Senate seat, the American people are still asking: 'What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it.'

Of course there's more. It should really go without saying; Barack Obama is the poster child of impeachable offenses and it's high time that our leaders in Congress get that message.

And yes, we're going to keep pushing this issue. We're not going to go away. We're going to continue burying our elected officials in avalanches of faxes until the piles of demands from the American people reach their waists if necessary... if that's what it takes, so be it.

Obama, Figured Out

WE'VE FIGURED HIM OUT!
By Ben Stein

Why was President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed? Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008.
(Pig in a poke means: an offering or deal that is foolishly accepted without being examined first. A poke means sack.)

They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books.

They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.

They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student.

They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.

The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, and not a fan of this country.

The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way helped all Americans.

The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never can be --
"a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society." Either the costs go up or the free society goes away... an historical truth.

These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud, if believed to be caused by man. She has also signed on to a Small Firearms Treaty at the U.N. This is a back door gun control move. This is approved by the Senate and a 2nd Amendment majority doesn't exist in the Senate now. It will supersede all U.S. Law and the 2nd Amendment. All citizen possession will be eliminated through confiscation. Just Like Great Britain and Australia .

Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms. There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America

The Race Card

They Who Live by the Race Card Die by the Race Card

August 16th, 2011

Due to Obama’s declining poll numbers, Democrat tongues loosened by cocktails at parties are quietly suggesting, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could primary Obama out with Hillary? Darn it, we can’t because Obama is black!”

I say, “Hallelujah — a perfect example of divine justice.” They who live by the race card die by the race card.

Almost three years ago, the Democrats offered their equivalent of a Trojan Horse to America in the form of a shiny, new, extremely well-crafted, beautiful black man. Its mega-internal speakers broadcast a hypnotic message, heavily reverbed to create a godlike effect and looped 24/7, promising “Hope and Change.”

A “perfect storm” of circumstances led to America’s enthusiastic embrace of the Democrats’ ebony idol Trojan Horse: white guilt, black racism, and perhaps even the popularity of the American Idol TV show. Obama was the first “rock star” American Ebony Idol presidential candidate.

Democrats were elated by their good fortune.

Obama would be the key to implementing all of their liberal-academia, utopia-producing theories, his black skin insulating him from any and all opposition. Oppose Obama? You’re racist!

The Democrats keep their R-for-racist branding iron red-hot and ready to apply swift retribution to any feisty, uppity conservative or Republican who dares challenge Obama.

Basking in their tactical genius, Democrats thought, “We did it! We pulled off the perfect exploitation of race to implement our socialistic agenda; a liberal black man in the White House.” Someone at the DNC even broke out their old Commodores record as they partied: “Ce-le-brate good times, C’MON!”

As America slept, one night under the cover of darkness, a hidden door in the ebony idol opened; out rushed an army of vicious liberal minions, freedom-killing mandates, and socialistic policies. Their mission: destroy our capitalist system and massacre America as we know it.

Totally unexpected and to the horror of the Democrats, We The People rose up. Patriots, via divine inspiration, formed the Tea Party. Patriot freedom-fighters began winning skirmishes around the country — governorships in New Jersey, Virginia, and Florida — and defeating the tyrannous teachers’ union in Wisconsin, to name a few. We took the House. We will take the Senate and are predicted to take the White House in 2012.

The Democrats’ ebony idol, their so-called gift to America, has been exposed for the fraud it truly is — a hollow, soulless shell of empty liberal ideology, its internal recorded message malfunctioning and distorted, stuck repeating the phrase, “I blame…I blame…I blame…”

Seeing the handwriting on the wall via polling, the Dems wish they could abandon their disastrous ebony race card for Hillary, their gender card.

But alas, they cannot. After spending the last three years, assisted by their media minions, convincing Americans that any and all criticism of or opposition to Obama is racist, Democrats find themselves victims of their own trap. Fearing the repercussions, Dems do not dare display the slightest abandonment of Obama. I love it! They who live by the race card die by the race card.

Despite the media’s relentless attempts to brand us otherwise, the Tea Party has never been about race. Our focus and sole desire have been to uphold the Constitution and restore our freedom, liberty, and culture. The Tea Party’s goals are much higher than the Democrats’ bottom-feeding agenda of exploiting race for political gain. This is why it is so sweet that they are stuck with their loser black candidate.

You leftists, do not try to spin my comment as being racist. I, along with millions of my white Tea Party brothers and sisters, would gladly cast a presidential vote for blacks such as Herman Cain and Col. Allen West in a heartbeat. So don’t even go there.

Ironically, the Democrats who claim ownership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shamefully dishonor his dream. The Tea Party, vilified by the Democrats, fully embraces MLK’s dream by judging and selecting their candidates by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Thus, the Tea Party, much-hated by Democrats, is the realization of MLK’s dream. And for the record, MLK was a Republican.

The Democrats played the ultimate race card — an incompetent affirmative-action president, and now they are stuck with him. The faux finish on their once-shiny ebony idol is rapidly deteriorating, peeling off daily. Come 2012, Obama is a sure loser. “Ce-le-brate good times, C’MON!”

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

Did Justice Dept Know About 'Fast and Furious'?

Why shouldn’t Rick Perry’s Islamic ties be vetted?

Why shouldn’t Rick Perry’s Islamic ties be vetted?

The rush to anoint him our next President is overlooking a great deal.

Imagine a candidate for President of the United States who says all the right things: he will cut taxes, he will roll back the disastrous and defeatist policies of his despised and discredited predecessor, he will restore America’s pride and renew America’s hope.

This candidate is handsome, telegenic, articulate, and apparently unafraid to joust verbally with his failed predecessor, as well as with an adversarial press.

Imagine also that this candidate had raised funds for and had a longtime association with a power player in party politics, a man who was owed favors by virtually everyone who had ever won an election for his party, but a man with ties to some extremely shady characters – say, for example, that this power broker had received, for an organization of his founding, a loan of $10,000 and a gift of another $10,000 from a man who was now in prison for raising money for a terrorist murder plot.

Imagine further that the candidate had partnered in educational initiatives with a billionaire who owned, among many other things, to be sure, a bank that had been accused – and never cleared -- of funding a terrorist group, and of complicity in the murder of an American reporter. That billionaire also owned a development organization that bore his name, and that partnered in various initiatives with the government of a country listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, and that was now essentially at war with its own citizens.

Do you think that such a candidate would be questioned about these associations, and that he would deserve the questioning, and would be expected to produce honest, full, and serious answers to concerns about whether he was turning a blind eye or would, as president, turn a blind eye to certain kinds of activity that aided and abetted terrorism?

There is such a candidate: his name is Rick Perry. He has occasioned tremendous excitement among Republicans and conservatives, to the extent that those who dare to ask legitimate questions about his associations and beliefs are being attacked and vilified by people who are ostensibly on their own side. I already know of friendships being broken over this candidacy.

Nonetheless, these questions must be asked. I criticized Bush for his ties to the Saudis, and Obama for his fatuous fawning over the Islamic world. I don't see why Rick Perry should be sacrosanct. The next President of the United States will inherit a responsibility made even more awesome than it usually is by the catastrophic policies of his predecessor, which he will have to move quickly to reverse or else see the nation continue on the path of a prolonged and severe decline from which it may never recover. That is all the more reason not to leap onto the bandwagon of just anyone who looks this week as if he has a chance to defeat Barack Obama, and to rush to demonize those who dare to ask if the emperor’s clothes are really of that good a quality. Now is the time, of all times, to ask of Perry and of every other candidate probing, searching questions, and to investigate their ideas and associations with a critical eye – an operation which, if it had been performed on Barack Obama in 2008, we might not be in this fix.

And so we see first of all that Perry and Grover Norquist held a joint press conference in March 2011. Perry appeared at a fund-raiser for Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform group. Also, Norquist actively campaigned for Perry back in 2009. Their association is longstanding: Perry was investigated by the Texas Ethics Commission in 2004 for allegations that the Governor illegally used campaign money to finance a trip to Bahamas; the point here is not the allegations, but the fact that along on the Bahamas trip at his own expense was Grover Norquist. Perry and Norquist are clearly not just casual acquaintances.

As David Horowitz pointed out several years ago, Norquist has worked with “prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities.” Among them was Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was once the most prominent and powerful “moderate Muslim” in Washington, and is now in prison for helping to finance an al-Qaeda plot to assassinate the Saudi king, whom jihadis consider to be inexcusably lax in his Islamic observance (primarily in allowing infidel American troops onto the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War). Alamoudi gave Norquist’s Islamic Institute, a gambit to try to garner Muslim votes for the Republican party, a $10,000 loan and a $10,000 gift.

Norquist is unrepentant; he continues to partner with Islamic supremacists. Is this the sort of man our next president should be associating with? Does Perry really need Norquist to carry over his tax-cutting message? Does he know about Norquist’s unsavory ties? Does he care? Do Republican candidates need Norquist so much that they have to put up with his taint?

Why can’t such questions even be asked? And why can’t Perry’s ties to the Aga Khan likewise be investigated? The Ismailis are a peaceful sect; however, what Pamela Geller uncovered in her article on Perry Wednesday ought to raise at least a few eyebrows even during the current Perry pep rally. Geller reveals in her article that in 2008, the Aga Khan Development Network signed three agreements with the Syrian Government, and that “between 2003 and 2008,” the Aga Khan’s group “spent $40 million to develop business in Syria.”

Syria has been listed by the State Department as among the State Sponsors of Terrorism since December 29, 1979, and, as Geller notes, “for years has allowed the jihad terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah to operate with impunity out of Damascus.”

Nor is that all. Another Aga Khan organization, the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development, is one of the owners of the Bank al-Habib in Pakistan. In 2007, Daniel Pearl’s widow Mariane sued that bank, charging that it had funded al-Qaeda and was involved in killing Daniel Pearl. Those charges have never been answered.

In a 2006 interview with Spiegel, the Aga Khan revealed himself to be no friend of the freedom of speech. He complained that “many young Muslims feel because they think that the Western society has the intention of marginalizing or damaging them” and noted that “anyone who knows the faith of Islam, for example, would have known that the caricatures of the prophet were profoundly offensive to all Muslims.” Indeed; but what was one to do about it? The Aga Khan called for self-censorship, and all too many in the West are only too happy to oblige him in that, whatever the implications may be for the freedom of speech. “I am told,” he said, “that there was an internal debate between the editors of that publication and they actually knew what they were doing. They took a risk and somebody should have said to them, Why get into that situation?”

Why indeed? Maybe to uphold the principles by which a free society can resist tyranny?

Can all this really be waved away by an avowal that the Ismailis are peaceful? Is it really just an exercise in guilt by association to ask Perry about actions by the Aga Khan’s various organizations? Or do those actions suggest that the Aga Khan is not as peaceful as he may seem, and that Perry is less than discriminating in his associations than he should be, and certainly that any president should be?

Certainly, for America’s sake, it is imperative that Barack Obama be defeated in 2012. But that is no excuse to accept any candidate who looks as if he could beat him, no matter how potentially damaging his associations or poor his judgment.

Rick Perry needs to be vetted. He, and all candidates, must be vetted.

Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/why-shouldnt-rick-perrys-islamic-ties-be-vetted.html

More About Norquist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

Islam's Honour-Shame Culture

Liberal intellectuals are frightened of confronting Islam's honour-shame culture

By Richard Landes Religion Last updated: August 17th, 2011


Politeness is not saying certain things lest there be violence; civility is being able to say those certain things and there won’t be violence.

A recent series of polls indicate that European public opinion is substantially concerned by the increasingly aggressive Islam that their substantial immigrant populations have taken to expressing. To quote Soeren Kern, Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group:

The findings – which come as Europeans are waking up to the consequences of decades of mass immigration from Muslim countries – point to a growing disconnect between European voters and their political masters regarding multicultural policies that encourage Muslim immigrants to remain segregated rather than become integrated into their host nations.

The survey results mirror the findings of dozens of other recent polls. Taken together, they provide ample empirical evidence that scepticism about Muslim immigration is not limited to a “right-wing” political fringe, as proponents of multiculturalism often assert. Mainstream voters across the entire political spectrum are now expressing concerns about the role of Islam in Europe.

The disconnect referred to in the article constitutes one of the most worrying developments in Western culture over the last decade: between a elite that controls much of the discussion in the public sphere (journalists, academics, talking heads, mainstream politicians) and who fear being called Islamophobes and racists more than they fear Islamist racists, and a population of people who, whenever they voice concern about the behavior of the Muslim neighbors, are told not to be Islamophobic racists. The problems are knotty and painful to disentangle. Here’s my outline of an approach. (For a longer version of the following essay, see my blog, The Augean Stables.)

Honour-shame and Islamism:

In an honour culture, it is legitimate, expected, even required to shed blood for the sake of honour, to save face, to redeem the dishonoured face. Public criticism is an assault on the very “face” of the person criticised. Thus, people in such cultures are careful to be “polite”; and a genuinely free press is impossible, no matter what the laws proclaim.

Modernity, however, is based on a free public discussion, on civility rather than politeness, but the benefits of this public self-criticism – sharp learning curves, advances in science and technology, economic development, democracy – make that pain worthwhile.

But such a system represents a crucible of humiliation for alpha males, especially those who believe that the social order depends on the honour of ruling elite, like the anti-Dreyfusards around 1900, ready to sacrifice a single man for the honour of Army and Church.

This is particularly true for Islamic religious culture. In Dar al Islam, a Muslim’s contradiction/criticism of Islam was punishable by death, a fortiori did this hold true for infidels. Modernity has been a Nakba (psychological catastrophe) for Islam, and Islam in all its variegated currents has yet to successfully negotiate these demands of modernity.

On the contrary, the loudest voices in contemporary Islam reject vehemently the kind of self-criticism modernity requires. Criticism constitutes an unbearable assault on the manhood of Muslims.

Indeed, global Jihad and the apocalyptic prophets who nourish it with genocidal rhetoric, represent a particularly virulent form of abreactive modernity, in which the powers of modern society (especially technology) are turned to the task of destroying a modern culture of public, free debate about what is fair.

Secularism demands more maturity, it requires that religions be civil, that they not use force (the state) to impose their beliefs on others. Religious communities have to give up their need to be visibly superior as a sign of being right/true. This involves high levels of both self-confidence and tolerance for public contradiction.

For Islam this is a particularly difficult challenge. For Islam’s formative period, it dominated. Dhimma laws spelled out the principles: infidels were “protected” from violence and death at the hands of Muslims as long as they accepted a visibly humiliating, inferiority. And among the key demands made on dhimmis, was that they not challenge, criticise, or in any way “insult” Islam or Muslims.

Contemporary manifestations of Islamic revival tend to handle the infidel “other” poorly. The peril to contemporary Christians and Jews in Muslim majority nations is mirrored in the behavior of Muslims in the expanding European enclaves, those zones urbaines sensibles, or Sharia zones, where the state’s writ no longer runs.

Thus, Islam’s – Muslims – relationship with the “other” (kufr, infidel, lit. one who covers [the truth]), is the great problem to resolve in this coming generation, and at the heart of that problem lies the ability of Muslims to tolerate criticism from outsiders.

We in the modern (and post-modern) West, who first forged these remarkable rules of self-restraint and created so rich, so variegated, so tolerant a culture, have a right to demand that Islam adopt these rules, certainly those who live in and benefit from the civil polities we have created. Indeed, if we treasure these values of tolerance, and freedom, and generosity towards the “other,” we owe it to ourselves and to the Muslims in our midst, to make this demand. Anything else, including the fantasy that this is not a problem, is cultural suicide.

And yet, so far, we are doing very badly, mostly because we avoid dealing with the problem. The “thin skin” of Muslims is proverbial, and much public, diplomatic, and even academic discourse tacitly acknowledges and placates that cultural reality. When Western positive-sum principles (we do everything we can to “get to yes,” win-win) meets Arab zero-sum principles (they can only win, if we lose), we most often lose (Oslo “Peace” Process).

In the last decade this has gotten much worse. The behaviour of the self-identified “progressive” “left” – traditionally the bastion of stinging public criticism of abuse of power, misogyny and belligerence – has been overwhelmingly placatory towards touchy Muslims. Repeatedly, as in the case of Pope Benedict, they step in to prevent anyone (fellow infidels), whom they smear as Islamophobes, from saying something that might bruise Muslims feelings. Indeed, they seem more worried about “us” provoking Muslim violence than about exploring the sources of Muslim violence. And often they attack those defending democratic principles with a shrill and contemptuous tone that they would never dream of using with Muslims.

Which brings us back to the “disconnect.” Our journalist and academic talking heads are subject to a different kind of Islamophobia: an inordinate fear of criticising Islam. And as a result they betray their own real constituencies, those of us committed to the rules civil polities. We cannot defend modern, tolerant, liberal political culture with such fearful people dominating the public sphere.

US Downgraded

The U.S. has a spending problem, Spending needs to be cut..

"Even if Americans were taxed 100% of their income it wouldn't be enough to balance the budget."

In a message dated 8/5/2011 7:55:26 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, editor@inflation.us writes:
S&P just announced late this evening that they have downgraded the U.S. debt rating from AAA to AA+ with a negative outlook.

NIA is absolutely shocked by this. What shocks us is just how long it took them to make this downgrade. Just like how S&P and Moody's didn't downgrade subprime CDOs until the mortgage-backed bonds they held were practically worthless, S&P waited for U.S. debt obligations to reach five times GDP and for the U.S. dollar to lose 84% of its purchasing power over the course of a single decade. The U.S. was a hair away from defaulting on its debt this week if the debt ceiling wasn't raised, yet it still had a AAA rating.

NIA believes that a AAA rating should be reserved for countries that have budget surpluses, low levels of debt that could easily be paid off without printing money, and low levels of inflation. The U.S. had a cash budget deficit last year of $1.3 trillion, but once you include increases to unfunded liabilities, our real budget deficit was approximately $5 trillion. Even if Americans were taxed 100% of their income it wouldn't be enough to balance the budget.

It is hard to imagine a fiscal situation worse than this, but the credit ratings agencies have justified giving the U.S. a AAA rating based on the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency and the Federal Reserve's ability to monetize our deficits and debts by printing money. If it wasn't for our printing press and the world's willingness to accept and hoard the dollars we print in return for the real products and commodities they produce, the U.S. credit rating would be junk.

S&P claims that their reason for downgrading the U.S. debt rating at this time is because, "the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge". According to S&P, it is because our two political parties are so far apart that we weren't able to pass a bill with anything but modest spending cuts. The reality is, the Republicans and Democrats aren't far apart at all. Neither parties are serious about cutting spending and the underlying fundamentals of both their proposed bills were exactly the same. The Republicans that American tea party supporters elected to office have broken their promises to make major spending cuts and have accomplished absolutely nothing positive since entering office.

Our country just had an unbelievable opportunity to dramatically cut government spending in a last ditch effort to prevent hyperinflation. Instead, our government passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling that had no real spending cuts at all. The mainstream media tried to spin the bill into being a victory for U.S. tea party supporters due to the purported "spending cuts" that it contained. The truth is, government spending is set to rise every single year until the dollar is worthless. The $2.1 trillion in phony spending cuts are only tiny reductions to large spending increases and none of them will begin until early 2013 when we will need to once again raise the debt ceiling. Even if the government in early 2013 decides to follow through with them, rising interest payments on our national debt will mean substantially larger budget deficits than what are projected today.

Credit ratings agencies have absolutely zero credibility left and we believe that with hyperinflation coming soon, credit ratings will become a thing of the past. To capitalize on this, on May 23rd NIA suggested to you put options in the only publicly traded pure credit ratings play, Moody's (MCO). On May 23rd with MCO trading for $37.90, NIA suggested to you MCO November 2011 $35 put options at $1.98. MCO today closed at $32.88 and our MCO put option suggestion finished the day with a last trade of $5.20 for a huge gain of 163% in a little over two months. NIA is very pleased that we figured out the #1 most profitable way to capitalize on the major fundamental shift that is taking place in this industry and as far as we are aware, NIA is the only organization in the world that suggested MCO puts in recent months.

With the stock market down big in recent weeks, NIA believes that this evening's news is already mostly factored into stock prices. With the Fed Funds Rate having been left near zero for over two years, the world is flooded with excess liquidity of U.S. dollars and there is no chance of the stock market crashing like in late-2008/early-2009. In fact, the recent downward move in the stock market means the Federal Reserve is likely to soon implement additional monetary inflation measures and will leave the Fed Funds Rate near zero permanently.

The GDP was already on its way to becoming negative in the second half of 2011 and if the U.S. wants to avoid a debt default later this decade, it needs the Federal Reserve to print enough money to see at least 5% annual nominal GDP growth. It's not just the Federal Government that needs GDP to grow, but most cities and states will default on their debts if GDP doesn't grow rapidly. Cities and states don't have printing presses so unless the U.S. government wants to bail them all out like the European Union is bailing out Greece, Portugal, and Ireland, it needs to create GDP growth even if that means the Federal Reserve eliminating interest payments on the $1.6 trillion in excess reserves held by banks and taxing banks who don't lend the money.
===============

In a message dated 8/8/2011 4:48:05 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, editor@inflation.us writes:

The Dow Jones today declined by 634.76 points to 10,809.85, while the price of gold rose $69.20 to $1,718 per ounce. The Dow Jones/Gold ratio is now down to 6.29, declining below our prediction of 6.5.

The stock market appears to be approaching oversold levels and could be setting up for a huge bounce, including a bounce in the Dow Jones/Gold ratio back up to above 6.5.

Obama Should Apologize