Harry - a True Man Whom I Miss!

Some friends and fellow memo readers were critical of me when I suggested Sen. Obama was being given a free pass by the press and media during the campaign. They said I was guilty of sour grapes. Certainly I did not favor Obama's candidacy and was critical of him, at times also his wife, many of his policies and his artful dodging. I feared we were about to elect a "Music Man" as I called him and that could result in dire consequences.

What concerned me is that we were seemingly selecting a president about whom we really knew very little and that Obama's past associations and fast rise up the ladder could come back to haunt not only him but also our nation. We may not be there but the Illinois Governor's problems make the logic of my argument more credible. Vetting a candidate is a sacred responsibility of the press and media. When they fail to do so they fail both themselves and the nation. Freedom of the press is a privelege and with that comes responsibility.

The fourth estate has moved closer to chapter eleven if this past election is any indication - professionally. Furthermore, far too many local and national newspaper chains are in financial difficulty and that is an ominous sign for our democracy/republic.

It would be tragic if corrupt politics in Illinois spilled over and blemished the incoming administration. Obama and his team will have it tough enough. More distractions and negative revelations can only hurt us all.

I also have written, should Obama stumble it would not be out of character for those in the media and press, who supported him during the campaign, to turn aganst him in order to retain what little credibility they have left. Hell hath no fury as a scorned editorialist. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)

Illinois' Governor seems to have dug his heels in and is deflecting calls for his resignation. Perhaps he wants to be paid to resign. He will eventually fall on his sword and/or slip on his hubris.

Feiglin humiliated by Netanyahu and Likud. They play rough politics in Israel. Being in the 20th slot put Netanyahu and Likud at risk (so they just downticked Feiglin. Obama can't even get a crooked governor to resign. (See 2 below.)

Every once in a while, a sane Arab voice breaks through the fog of hatred in the Middle East. (See 3 below.)

I knew it was only a matter of time before liberals would try and link Greenspan to Ayn Rand and blame her and her philosophy regarding free markets and individualism (Atlas Shrugged) for our economic mess. The head of The Ayn Rand Institute responds and suggests that because of the way various government officials and politicians are mismanaging things it will actually make Rand more popular than ever.

I totally agree. What liberals are doing is blaming Ford for making cars that drunks use to kill people or Colt for guns in the hands of robbers etc. Congress created The Fed so they could have someone to blame for their own lack of fiscal self-control and discipline so another entity came into being which increased the potential for human error in judgement when it comes to problem solving. (See 4 below.)

Krauthammer's view of 'who' Obama is - a centrist in name only who wants to stabilize the overwhelming problems, keep them at bay so he can transform America? Too early to decide if Krauthammer's fears are correct but he makes a compelling case and lays the foundation on which one can test and make their judgement. (See 5 below.)

Have a great weekend and go out and buy us out of our recesssion because that is the liberal American way or go back to what made us great, be conservative and frugal save so we can be become independent through self-reliance. The first model spells trouble, the second is the one we must utlimately re-embrace and that is why Ayn Rand's philosophy will live on!

Dick



1) Obama Was Mute on Illinois Corruption
By John Fund


The president-elect could use his bully pulpit to drive a clean-up.

This week Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on charges that he conspired to sell Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat, among other misdeeds. At first the president-elect tried to distance himself from the issue: "It is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment." But it quickly became clear that Mr. Obama would have to say more, and yesterday he called for Mr. Blagojevich to resign and for a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat.


What remains to be seen is whether this episode will put an end to what Chicago Tribune political columnist John Kass calls the national media's "almost willful" fantasy that Mr. Obama and Chicago's political culture have little to do with each other. Mr. Kass notes that the media devoted a lot more time and energy to investigating the inner workings of Sarah Palin's Wasilla, Alaska, than it has looking at Mr. Obama's Chicago connections.

To date, Mr. Obama's approach to Illinois corruption has been to congratulate himself for dodging association with it. "I think I have done a good job in rising politically in this environment without being entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics," he told the Chicago Tribune last spring. At the time, Mr. Obama was being grilled over news that he bought his house through a land deal involving Tony Rezko, a political fixer who was later convicted on 16 corruption counts. Rezko is mentioned dozens of times in the 76-page criminal complaint against Mr. Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama has an ambiguous reputation among those trying to clean up Illinois politics. "We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from," Jay Stewart, executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, told ABC News months ago. Though Mr. Obama did support ethics reforms as a state senator, Mr. Stewart noted that he's "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state including, at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."

One reason for Mr. Obama's reticence may be his close relationship with the powerful Illinois senate president Emil Jones. Mr. Jones was a force in Mr. Obama's rise. In 2003, the two men talked about the state's soon-to-be vacant U.S. Senate seat. As Mr. Jones has recounted the conversation, Mr. Obama told him "You can make the next U.S. senator." Mr. Jones replied, "Got anybody in mind?" "Yes," Mr. Obama said. "Me."

Starting in 2003, Mr. Jones worked to burnish Mr. Obama's credentials by making him lead sponsor of bills including a watered-down ban on gifts to lawmakers. Most of Mr. Obama's legislative accomplishments came as result of his association with Mr. Jones.

In 2002, Mr. Obama turned up to help Mr. Blagojevich, a staunch ally of Mr. Jones, win the governor's mansion. Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's incoming White House chief of staff, told The New Yorker earlier this year that six years ago he and Mr. Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two [other participants]."

Mr. Blagojevich won, but before long, problems surfaced. In 2004, Zalwaynaka Scott, the governor's inspector general, said his administration's efforts to evade merit-selection laws exposed "not merely an ignorance of the law, but complete and utter contempt for the law." Nonetheless, Mr. Obama endorsed Mr. Blagojevich's re-election in 2006.

This spring, many Democrats were so disgusted with Mr. Blagojevich that state House Speaker Michael Madigan drafted a memo on why Democrats should impeach Mr. Blagojevich. Mr. Madigan's "talking points" compared the corruption going on in the state to a tumor that must be removed.

But Mr. Madigan's move drew a rebuke from Mr. Jones. The Chicago Sun-Times story at the time quoted Mr. Jones saying he thought it was wrong for the speaker to "promote the impeachment of a Democratic Governor. . . Impeachment is unwarranted in my opinion, and should not be used as a political tool."

Many people were curious who Mr. Obama would side with in the dispute. Would it be with those Democrats who wanted to move aggressively against an apparently corrupt governor or with his old Chicago ally, Mr. Jones, who preferred to wait? Mr. Obama did neither. He kept silent. (I emailed the Obama campaign about Mr. Blagojevich's problems in June, but my question was ignored.)

To his credit, Mr. Obama did call Mr. Jones in September to urge passage of an ethics bill banning some office holders from accepting money from a business that has a $50,000 or larger contract with the state. The bill passed and takes effect on Jan. 1.

Mr. Obama has spoken out forcefully against corruption outside Illinois. Kathy Tate-Bradish, a Chicago teacher active in education in Africa, gushed on Mr. Obama's campaign blog during his visit to Kenya last year about his "amazing" speech against corruption during his visit there.

"Corruption is the single biggest thing keeping not only Kenyans, but all Africans, down," she wrote. "Corruption is just killing them but nobody has been able to speak out against it because they fear for their own security. Barack spoke out against it, publicly, in Kenya. I honestly think the speech he gave will be one of the major factors that turns the tide against corruption."

Mr. Obama says he plans to return often to Chicago as president. "Our friends are here. Our family is here. And so we are going to try to come back here as often as possible," he told the Los Angeles Times this month. Perhaps during one of those trips he could find time to forthrightly address the corruption issues that the state will be sorting through in the weeks and months ahead. A president has a powerful bully pulpit. A few words from Mr. Obama could force real and lasting change in Illinois.

1a) 7 Blago questions for Obama
By: Kenneth P. Vogel and Carrie Budoff Brown

The stinging criminal complaint against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris raises lots of questions for President-elect Barack Obama – questions he’ll have a chance to answer Thursday when he does his first news conference since Blagojevich was charged.

Here are seven worth asking:

1 – “Did you communicate directly or indirectly with Blagojevich about picking your replacement in the U.S. Senate?”

Obama issued a categorical statement Tuesday that he personally hadn’t spoken with Blagojevich about the seat — but seemed to correct himself in a way that suggested others around Obama might have.

“I had no contact with the governor or his office and, so we were not – I was not aware of what was happening," Obama said.

Yet, according to prosecutors’ characterizations of Blagojevich’s wiretapped telephone conversations, the Illinois governor seemed to believe he had a channel of communications with Obama’s team.

For instance, Blagojevich was recorded speaking to a union official who Blagojevich “understood … was an emissary” to discuss the interest of Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett in the seat, according to the criminal complaint unveiled Tuesday.

But at some point, Blagojevich seemed to become aware that Obama’s team had no interest in his favored option – he would pick Jarrett in exchange for being named secretary of health and human services, prosecutor allege. How did he know that?

2 – “Why didn’t you or someone on your team correct your close adviser David Axelrod when he said you had spoken to Blagojevich about picking your replacement?”

Last month, Axelrod unambiguously described a conversation between Obama and Blagojevich about filling the seat.

“I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them," Axelrod told an interviewer from Chicago’s Fox affiliate.

But then, Axelrod retracted the comment – after the president-elect asserted Tuesday that he hadn’t spoken to Blagojevich. Axelrod issued a statement saying he "was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then, or at any time, discuss the subject."

3. “When did you learn the investigation involved Blagojevich’s alleged efforts to ‘sell’ your Senate seat, or of the governor’s impending arrest?”

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said it was not until Tuesday that Obama learned the details of the complaint against Blagojevich – the same day it was released to the public – and wouldn’t say exactly when or how Obama was notified.

But at least some people got an early heads-up: Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. told reporters that he was notified Monday night by federal prosecutors that the investigation was coming to a head, that an arrest was imminent and that Jackson was not a target.


4 – “Did you or anyone close to you contact the FBI or U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald about Blagojevich’s alleged efforts to sell your Senate seat to the highest bidder?”

Blagojevich seems to believe that Obama’s team was aware of – and had rejected – his offers, telling Harris in a wiretapped Nov. 11 conversation that Obama was “not willing to give (Blagojevich) anything except appreciation” for picking Jarrett.

If Blagojevich contacted anyone on Obama’s team even hinting at a possible pay-for-play arrangement, it seems they would have been obligated to report that to law enforcement.

One report out of Chicago suggested the possible tipster was Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s pick for chief of staff and a potential conduit for any communications from Blagojevich’s office to Obama. But Emanuel’s office has denied that story.

5 – “Did federal investigators interview you or anyone close to you in the investigation?”

Fitzgerald said Tuesday he was “not going to speak for what the President-elect was aware of,” but it’s difficult to imagine his investigators did not reach out to Obama or his team during the course of the investigations into Blagojevich and businessman Tony Rezko, given how closely the subject matter involved Obama.

Rezko, a former Obama fundraiser who in June was convicted of 16 corruption-related counts, had alleged that prosecutors pushed him for dirt on both Blagojevich and Obama.

6 – “When did you and Blagojevich last speak and about what?”

Obama and Blagojevich both attended the National Governors Association meeting last week in Philadelphia and were photographed shaking hands at the event.

Before the meeting, Blagojevich was quoted saying he had asked Obama’s transition team for federal stimulus aid of $3 billion over the next three years to help fill Illinois’ estimated $2 billion deficit.

If Obama had spoken on the phone with him since Election Day, it’s conceivable that the conversation would have been recorded by the FBI, which in late October won a court order authorizing the wiretapping.

7 – “Do you regret supporting Blagojevich?”

Obama endorsed Blagojevich in his two gubernatorial runs and was among his key advisors during his first bid, in 2002.

During the governor’s reelection campaign in 2006 – with press reports swirling about a grand jury investigation into Blagojevich’s alleged jobs-for-contributions scheme – Obama praised the governor as a leader “who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois.”

It doesn’t seem like he shared the same high regard for Obama, at least not lately, considering that during a Nov. 10 conference call with advisers he called his old political ally and the president-elect an obscene name.

1b) HARRY'S WAY SHOULD BE THE LAW!


Harry Truman, from Missouri , was a different kind of President. He probably made as many important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.

Historians have written the only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri . On top of that, his wife inherited the house from her Mother.

When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of
$25,000 per year.

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There were no Secret Service following them.

When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, 'You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale.'

Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, 'I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise.'

He never owned his own home and as president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.

Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.

Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, 'My choices early in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference.'

2) Feiglin won't appeal bump to 36th spot
By Amnon Meranda

Citing lack of faith in Likud's internal court system, the proverbial thorn in party chairman Netanyahu's side waves white flag of defeat after being shoved from coveted 20th slot on roster for upcoming elections to the unrealistic 36th





Moshe Feiglin, the head of the Jewish Leadership Movement who recently landed the 20th slot on the Likud roster for the upcoming general elections, was bumped to the unrealistic 36th spot by the party's Elections Committee on Thursday. Through his media advisor, Feiglin said he would not appeal the decision in court.




Divisive Candidate

Feiglin: State should demand loyalty of Arab citizens / Amnon Meranda

Moshe Feiglin grants Ynet an exclusive interview following victory in Likud primaries, in which he secured 20th slot on roster, and says there is room to consider withdrawal from UN, as well as eradication of Waqf from Temple Mount
Full Story



"I have no faith in the legal system, the only faith I have is in the Likud voters who will support me wherever I chose to go," Feiglin said on Thursday evening through his media advisor. The statement contradicted his earlier proclamation in which he vowed to appeal the decision to bump him down the list.



Speaking with Ynet, Feiglin himself explained the change of stance: "I intended to appeal but reconsidered. On the way to Jerusalem I realized there is just no point in doing so. I don't believe in the High Court of Justice.

"The court is not my way to the Knesset. The people will put me in the Knesset, despite of and to spite Netanyahu. Even if they put me in the 40th spot I will reach the Knesset. I call on the public not to fall for the trap Netanyahu has set."

Just hours earlier Fieglin vowed the battle was far from over. Speaking with Ynet he said: "It's clear to me that there will have to be a legal battle," he said. "I am confident we will win this battle because the constitution is not up for interpretation. The Likud will lose this battle.



"The Elections Committee is composed of politicians and it couldn't stand the enormous pressure placed on it by Bibi and his staff.... Now the matter is being transferred to the courts. I know the Likud and the public is with me, and that everyone understands Netanyahu is making a fool of himself. The truth will come out and nothing will help him."




The petition against Feiglin was submitted by Ophir Ekonis, number 28 on the roster and a close associate of Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu.



In the petition Akunis claimed that since the women in the party were elected to higher positions than the slots secured for them, those slots should go to the members elected by the districts, such as Akunis, who was elected by the Tel Aviv district.



He claimed these members should be allotted the higher slots at the expense of the nationally elected members, such as Feiglin.




The decision places Feiglin in a slot that may not grant him the status of MK in the next Knesset, as recent polls have awarded the Likud no more than 30 mandates.





Likud hardliner Moshe Feiglin's communications director, Amnon Shomrom, said that he was not surprised by the party's Elections Committee decision to demote Feiglin to the 36th slot on its Knesset roster, despite his winning the No. 20 slot in the primaries.



"The Netanyahu committee is simply complying with the chairman's every demand," he said, adding that Feiglin's will use every legal recourse at his disposal to overturn the decision, including filing a High Court petition against it.

3) Liberal Author Dr. Shaker Al-Nabulsi: Secularism Will Triumph in the Arab World; Terrorism's Crimes Are 'The Death Struggle of Fundamentalism'

On May 15, 2008, the liberal Arab website Aafaq.org published an interview with prominent Jordanian-American liberal author Dr. Shaker Al-Nabulsi. In the interview, Al-Nabulsi discussed the meaning of secularism and its importance to the future of the Arab world.

The following are excerpts from the interview: [1]

"'Secularism'... [Is] In the Interest of Religion - To Keep the Sacred (Religion) Apart from the Profane (Politics)"

Interviewer: "What is your concept of secularism?"

Nabulsi: "'Secularism' means the separation of religion from the state, excluding the clergy from politics, and not permitting religious political parties. These measures are all in the interest of religion, to keep the sacred - religion - apart from the profane - politics.

"This is because when, throughout the ages, politics made use of religion, the joining of religion and politics was to religion's detriment. Politics gained, and religion lost. And likewise, this separation [exists] in order to hold the politician accountable for his political activity, and not [let him] take refuge under the umbrella of religion to avoid accountability and punishment. It is difficult to oppose or hold to account the clergy who combine religion and politics.

"In fact, the separation of religion from politics is easier for the Shi'a than for the Sunnis. Shi'ite institutions evolved like the Church, and the Shi'ite hierarchy resembled the ecclesiastical hierarchy, so that both hierarchies remained separate from the state.

"This is in contrast with the Sunni institutions, which were incorporated into the state from the time of Caliph Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, [the first caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty]. The state made use of Sunni institutions more than the Shi'ite institutions, which remained outside the domain of the Arab Islamic state.

"Thus, it seems to me that the separation of religion from the state in the Sunni school, where [religion] is incorporated entirely into the state, has become nearly impossible, as a result of the merger of religion with politics and politics with religion, and the disappearance of the boundaries between the two. It has come to where we do not distinguish between what belongs to religion and what belongs to politics.

"And that is the stratagem at which Arab rulers have excelled, from the era of Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan up until today. This was manifested in the conversion of the ruler into the 'shadow of Allah on Earth,' and the conversion of 'the treasury of the Muslims' into 'the treasury of Allah,' from which the ruler only disburses by the order of Allah. And the only one to receive the order of Allah is Allah's Caliph, his Prophet's successor on Earth, as Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan said 1400 years ago…

"The Arabic word for 'secular' ('almaniyya)… is new in Arab political literature. It is derived from the word for "world" ('alam) and not from the word for "science" ('ilm) - that is, [it refers] to the world we live in.

"There is not one single secularism, but many secularisms - much like the case with democracy. French secularism differs from German, from English, and likewise from American, and from Kemalist Turkish secularism."


"There is No Enmity Between Secularism and Religion - The Enmity is Between Secularism and the Clerics"

"…The most important [point] is that there is no enmity between secularism and religion. The enmity is between secularism and the clerics. It is the clerics, and not religion, who have called secularism unbelief and atheism.

"Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi said, 'The meaning of the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and apostasy from Islam.' (The Islamic Awakening, between Ossification and Extremism, 1984, p. 112). And he repeats this charge in another of his books, The Islamic Solution is a Duty and Necessity. The clerics who oppose secularism have realized that it would deprive them of many political, social, financial, and cultural perquisites, and limit their importance to just religious preaching and guidance within the walls of the mosque.

"Then the clerics would no longer be political and media stars, issuing fatwas on all matters small and large, as they do today, and they would be deprived of the privileges they receive from those in power.

"As for religion, it will continue. Religion continues in France, in all parts of Europe, and in America, except that the number of churches has increased, even if the worshipers have decreased. Secularism does not deny God, and does not hold itself above the monotheistic religions. While there are some secularist philosophers and thinkers, in the West and in the East, who repudiate divinity, that is their own matter, and no one is forced to follow them…"

Interviewer: "Is it possible for there to be a real partnership between secularists and Islamists in the government of a state? Is coexistence between the two parties possible?"

Nabulsi: "It would be difficult to achieve such a partnership in light of the Islamist quest to establish a theocratic state. But if they abandoned this demand, the partnership would be productive.

"The religious state is the state of 'Allah's sovereignty' propounded by the Indo-Pakistani thinker Sayyid Abul A'laa Al-Mawdudi (founder of the Jamaat e Islami party in Pakistan), which was then taken up by Sayyid Qutb and Muhammad Qutb.

"The meaning of this is that it is Allah who establishes the constitution of this state and all of its regulations and laws. That is, the clerics - who are the jurisprudents of religion and its protectors, and the religious scholars who are the heirs of the prophets - are the only ones who govern, because they are the only ones who know and are able to interpret and distinguish the religious precepts.

"Therefore, the Islamists do not recognize the multiparty system and pluralism, and contend that the 'party of God' ('hizb Allah'), namely, their party, is the sole party permitted to function politically…

"There is a fatwa by Iran's religious ruler, Sayyid Ali Khamenei, which states that 'opposition to the Islamic government is apostasy.'"


"There Is No Democracy Without Secularism -Because It Is Secularism That Accords Equality of Rights and Obligations Among All Citizens..."

"Therefore, the Islamists reject [the principle of] not distinguishing between citizen and believer. They insist on this distinction, and maintain that only Muslims are citizens.

"Secularists reject these principles, believing that society and the state only become democratic under a secular regime. The precondition for democracy is secularism. There is no democracy without secularism, because it is secularism that accords equality of rights and duties to all citizens, without regard to their sex, their denomination, their faith, or their ethnic origin. That is the core of democracy, and its rationale…"


"Terrorism in the Arab World Has Not Arisen Because of Religious Objectives - But Because of Political Ones"

Interviewer: "Do you see in the establishment of the principles of the secular state the solution to the problem of combating terrorism and extremism? And how will it be possible for secularism to preserve the principles of religion without prejudice to [religious] rules and laws, when it controls the levers of government?"

Nabulsi: "Terrorism in the Arab world has not arisen because of religious objectives, but because of political ones. And the terrorists do not want through their terrorism to implement Islam, as Islam is [already] implemented well in many Arab countries. The terrorists want political power, but are totally unqualified to exercise it.

"Do you think that Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al-Zawahiri is qualified to be the ruler of a state in the modern era? Perhaps they would be qualified to rule a state like that of the Taliban, or a state in the Middle Ages. And what are the Islamists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, and other countries striving for, except the desire to rule?

"Islam would suffer much through their coming to power. The news from Gaza, which has been and is being ruled by Hamas, tells us of rising crime rates, thefts, abduction of women, attacks on property, reduced attendance at mosques, increasing unemployment, and widespread smuggling."


"The Current Crimes of Terrorism [Are] But the Death Struggle of Fundamentalism"

Interviewer: "You stated in one of your publications that the 21st century will witness a contest between the advocates of the theocratic state and the advocates of the secular state. And you expressed your conviction that the secular tendency will ultimately prevail. Do you still believe this, and on what do you base your belief in the triumph of secularism?"

Nabulsi: "The reason for this contest is the gradual approach of the Arab world to unannounced secularism, or what I call 'masked secularism.'…

"This has been put into force in many parts of the Arab world, as well as in some of the Gulf countries. And the reason for the ultimate victory of the secular trend in the Arab world is the historical inevitability of secularism, a cup that must be drunk, even if it is bitter - even very bitter - to the Islamists. The world, as a whole, is globalizing, and fundamentalism in the world, as a whole, is shrinking. The 21st century is the century of globalization in the Arab world.

"The current crimes of terrorism are but the death struggle of fundamentalism and evidence of the tide of secularism and its principles that are sweeping over the Arab world. Since the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, until now - that is, 80 years - this organization has not been able to establish a theocratic government except in the Gaza Strip. And look at the world's attitude toward it, and what it has come to.

"Also, the Arab world has become secularized to a large extent. The shari'a punishments for crimes - despite all of the squawking and drumming of the fundamentalists - are not enforced, except in one Arab country alone, out of over 20 countries. And the proportion of women who are veiled in the Arab world does not exceed 10%, and the proportion of men who have taken four wives does not exceed 5%.

"In most of the Arab world there is equality between men and women, even in the Gulf states - even if this is not yet the complete equality that we want. [This is] apart from one country, due to its religious, historical, and political conditions, which do not permit women to cross certain 'red lines'…"


There Can Be Secularism without Democracy - "But There Can Be No Democracy Without Secularism"

"In the Arab world there are countries that are secularist but not democratic. Therefore, their secularism is counterfeit, like gold plating on a zinc ring, whose fraudulent character is revealed at the first scratch.

"There can be industrial and scientific modernization under a dictatorial, secular system, as took place in France in the era of Napoleon III, in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Stalinist Russia, and it is possible to establish secular dictatorships hostile to religion, as happened in Mexico, the Soviet Union, and Cuba. [So there can be secularism without democracy,] but there can be no democracy without secularism."


"Only One Theocratic State in the World [Iran]... Governs [Its] People with Steel, Fire, and Oppression"

Interviewer: "You wrote in one of your articles, 'No theocratic political regime can govern and prevail in this secular world, since the world has undergone secularization.' How can you say that the world is moving in the direction of secularism, despite the fact that there are theocratic countries, and fundamentalist organizations able to come to power through general elections?"

Nabulsi: "There is only one theocratic state in the world, and one only - Iran. But this theocratic state governs the people of Iran with steel, fire, and oppression. The religious Revolutionary Guard of Iran (the Pasdaran) is the real ruler of Iran. It comprises - according to the estimates of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London - 350,000 members. It oppresses the people of Iran to the extent that under it, the people of Iran have become the world's largest consumers of hashish and opium in the world. That is a result of the magnitude of injustice and oppression of the theocratic state represented by the Revolutionary Guard.

"According to the World Drug Report for 2005, issued by the United Nations, Iran has the largest proportion of opium addicts in the world: 2.8% of Iranian residents over 15 years of age are addicted to some form of drug. Besides Iran, there are only two countries whose proportion of addicts exceeds 2%: Mauritius and Kyrgyzstan.

"If we bear in mind that the population of Iran is 70 million, and that some directorates in the Iranian government believe that the number of addicts reaches 4 million, Iran leads the world in the number of narcotics addicts, including heroin. And this is the theocratic state that religious terrorist factions are seeking to replicate."


Statistics Released By Tehran's Cultural Affairs Director on Performing Prayers, Sexual Promiscuity, and Drug Addiction Shocked... Observers

"Turning to religious issues, the cultural affairs director of the Tehran municipality, Sheikh Mohammad Ali Zam, recently released data on Iranians' religious observance, particularly that of students and young people. The statistics he released on performing prayers, and on sexual promiscuity and drug addiction, shocked, astonished and stupefied observers, including Islamists outside the Islamic Republic of Iran - arousing serious concerns over the future of the Islamic experience in the 21st century, and moving them to think and reconsider their strategic plans and programs for governance in the future…

"It was expected that the clerics who came to power in Iran would continue the Islamization of the rest of society, and put an end to the roots of corruption, decay, and delinquency. But the statistics cited by the Iranian cultural official, which he disclosed at a press conference that set a precedent in transparency, openness and self-criticism, indicated a decline in religious observance among the majority of Iranians, especially the young…

"These are truly frightening numbers in a society ruled by an Islamic theocratic government that controls the press, radio and television, and in which there are half a million clerics!

"Despite the care the Islamic government has taken in preparing religious studies programs for young children in primary school and elsewhere, the two-decade-long experiment has resulted in an extremely high degree of estrangement of children and young people from religion… The Islamic Republic may be the first Islamic state to sell abandoned mosques; is there any greater bankruptcy than this?

"In fact, had the opponents of the 1979 Khomeinist revolution been sufficiently logical with themselves, they would have considered this revolution a decisive step toward overcoming traditional and fundamentalist Islam in order to make the transition to modernity, in application of the Hegelian principle of the philosophy of history..."


"The Theocratic Government[s in Iran and Gaza]... Are a Condition for the... Transition to Secular Government"

Interviewer: "What is the future of the existing Islamic states? Will they be able to withstand what you have called the 'secularist tide?'"

Nabulsi: "I have already answered this question. The theocratic government now existing in Iran, and the one in Gaza, are a condition for the realization of the transition to secular government.... We must pass through the theocratic stage in order to pass beyond it to the secular state.

"I am eagerly awaiting the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and elsewhere, so that we can go beyond the state that they establish to the secular state - and without that, we will not achieve the desired result."


"Fundamentalism Cannot Respond to Thought with Thought... They Respond... with Bullets..."

Interviewer: "There are those who criticize you, and have [even] directed bitter criticism at you, sometimes going beyond what is appropriate. In your view, does this criticism stem from rivalry, or from the struggle against secularist thought?"

Nabulsi: "The criticisms that you consider bitter are the least of fundamentalism's evils. And they are less than the evils of the fundamentalist criticisms that have been directed at the liberals before us. Read what the fundamentalists said and did to Taha Hussein, Abdulaziz Al-Tha'alibi (founder of the National Movement in Tunis), Mansour Fahmi, Ali 'Abd Al-Razzaq, Khalid Muhammad Khalid, Farag Foda, Hussein Marwa, Farah Antoun, and others.

"The Sudanese fundamentalists, under the leadership of Hassan Turabi, executed the Islamic thinker Mahmoud Muhammad Taha in 1992, in the era of the 'Commander of the Faithful' [Sudanese President] Gaafar Al-Nimeiri, because he denied the possibility of a theocratic state. And the Egyptian fundamentalists murdered Farag Foda, author of 'The Hidden Truth,' in 1992, because of the intellectual debate he engaged in with Muhammad Imara at the Cairo International Book Fair, during which Foda denied the possibility of a theocratic state. Egyptian fundamentalists tried to murder Naguib Mahfouz in 1994. And, recently, Saudi fundamentalists excommunicated and called for the trial of two Saudi liberal writers (Abdullah bin Bjad Al-Otaibi and Yousuf Aba Al-Khail). So we are well off indeed now, if the fundamentalist attacks stop at insults, vulgar curses, and false accusations.

"In fact, these accusations are the result of the bankruptcy of fundamentalism, its inability to contest thought with thought, and its complete ignorance of the reality of contemporary human thought.

"In the Arab world there is no cleric or expounder of religion who can stand up to any philosopher, East or West. The Tunisian thinker Lafif Lakhdar challenged Sheikh Rashed Al-Ghanushi, the secretary-general of the Nahdah Islamic movement in Tunisia, to a dialogue on one of the satellite television stations, or in a university seminar room. But Ghanushi refused, fearing that the superficiality and nonsense of fundamentalist thought would be revealed, and that fundamentalism cannot respond to thought with thought - because they do not have any thought. They respond to thought with bullets [and] explosive belts; [by] muffling voices [and] flogging; [by using] the knife, car bombs, curses, declarations of apostasy, accusations of atheism - and this betrays a lack of faith indeed."


[1] www.aafaq.org, May 15, 2008.

4) Who Is To Blame? Some point to Alan Greenspan. But his hands-off approach to the economy originated with Ayn Rand.
By Barrett Sheridan

It's not easy being Alan Greenspan these days. As the former Federal Reserve chairman, he urged government regulators to take a light touch while banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers buried themselves—and the economy more generally—under a mountain of debt. Now that his reputation is plummeting faster than the stock market, he's been forced to admit a "flaw" in his hands-off ideology.

Of course, things look entirely different to members of "free-market advocacy groups," as they like to be called. One such group is the Ayn Rand Institute, named after the matriarch of the movement, whose antigovernment and anti-regulation views are embodied in her best-selling novels "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Indeed, Greenspan himself was a friend of Rand's, and a devotee of her extreme free-market philosophy, known as Objectivism. NEWSWEEK's Barrett Sheridan spoke with the head of the Ayn Rand Institute, Dr. Yaron Brook, about why he defends free markets while much of the rest of the world has turned away from them, and what he thinks of Greenspan today.

Lack of regulation is being blamed for our current crisis, and free markets are in disrepute. Has Objectivism been dealt a deathblow?

Yaron Brook: No, not at all. From a public-relations perspective, it's been hurt. But in the long term there will be a backlash against what's going on in the markets today—the heavy government involvement, the nationalizations and the move toward socialism. If the free-market advocacy groups position themselves correctly, they can benefit from it.

How can they do that?

What we need to do is really make the case to the American people—and I think it's an easy case to make—that this is not a failure of free markets, this is not a failure of capitalism, but this is a failure of the exact opposite. It's a failure of the regulatory state. It's a failure of all the government policies of the last eight years. Actually, the last 95 years.

Why do you say the last 95 years?

I believe that the No. 1 cause of the current crisis is Federal Reserve policy. [The Federal Reserve was created in 1913.] The Federal Reserve, by necessity, creates economic problems; no matter how good a Federal Reserve chairman is, he's going to create cycles of booms and busts.

How did the Federal Reserve create today's mess?

The current crisis was caused by the housing bubble, and the primary cause of the housing bubble was the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at 1 percent in 2003. They were asking people to borrow money, basically begging them. The financial problem we face today was a problem of overleverage, of too much debt—but that's exactly what Federal Reserve policy encouraged.

But during that time, the head of the Federal Reserve was Alan Greenspan, a close friend of Ayn Rand and the world's most famous Objectivist.

Yes. Alan Greenspan was quite close to Ayn Rand in the 1960s and 1970s. But from pretty early on, Greenspan was a part of economic policies that I don't think Ayn Rand would have approved of. Yes, he wanted less regulation, but he never talked about rolling back regulation. He never talked about significantly meaningful ways to cut spending, cut taxes. I believe he sold his soul to the devil. Power corrupts, and absolute power—which I think is what you have at the Federal Reserve—corrupts absolutely.

So it sounds like you're not bothered by his admission that he found a "flaw" in his "free-market ideology."

No, the only thing that bothers me is that the press took it to mean, "See, capitalism has failed, even according to this guru of capitalism." He was never a guru of capitalism! At least he hasn't been a guru of capitalism since the 1980s.

Do you have any contact with Greenspan?

No, I don't.

Have Objectivists largely disavowed him?

I think so, but I think he's disavowed us, as well, so it's mutual. I don't think he would have dinner with me if I asked.

What do you think of the various and numerous bailouts?

They're horrible. I think that the biggest mistake that was made was probably the bailout of Bear Stearns. I think they should have let Bear Stearns fail. The fact that everybody else now wants a bailout makes complete sense. Why bailout AIG and not General Motors? General Motors employs more people.

But scholars like Ben Bernanke, current head of the Federal Reserve, says one reason the Great Depression was so severe was that government waited three years before intervening, and let scores of banks fail before then.

Unfortunately, just because economists understand what caused the Great Depression doesn't mean they understand what needs to be done to prevent one. People today mistakenly think that FDR saved us from the Great Depression. But from 1932 until at least 1940, the U.S. was still in a depression. Government grew during the 1930s more than in any decade in history, and yet at the end of the 1930s, we still had more than 15 percent unemployment. So government growth and regulation is not a solution to a depression. I would argue it's the exact opposite.

What does that mean for the current situation?

Everything that [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson and Bernanke have done since day one of this crisis has made things worse, not better, if only because they have been so panicky and hysterical, and changed their minds so many times and offered so many different plans. The market has come to the conclusion that they have no idea what they're doing.

You want to do away with the Federal Reserve, but something that radical isn't going to happen, at least not anytime soon. In the meantime, wouldn't more regulation of the financial sector make sense?

No, I think quite the opposite—more financial regulation would be a disaster. Financial regulations created this mess. The Community Reinvestment Act, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae—they're the institutions and proposals that got us into this. Regulators are not good at managing financial institutions. Think about the [savings and loan] crisis: the S&L industry was the most regulated industry in the United States. Did that stop the crisis from happening? No. Regulations don't prevent crises; they cause them.

But AIG's downfall was due largely to credit-default swaps.

There's nothing wrong with credit-default swaps. If they'd let AIG fold, we would have discovered that. There's been no problem with the credit-default swap-market to date. It's actually working better than the securitized mortgage market, which is a government creation through Fannie and Freddie.

But AIG had too many credit-default swaps on its books, and almost collapsed as a result. Shouldn't we prevent that level of risk-taking? Yes, AIG made mistakes. And the company should suffer for those mistakes. But do you think that if federal regulators were regulating the credit-default-swap market, things would be better or worse? I suggest that things would probably be worse.

With free markets now in disrepute, what's going to happen to the popularity of Ayn Rand's most famous book, "Atlas Shrugged"?

I think it's going to go up dramatically. I think it already has. [People] are saying, "We're heading toward socialism, we're heading toward more regulation." "Atlas Shrugged" is coming true. How do we get out? How do we escape? Unfortunately, there is no escape. Businessmen are panicking, and I think they should be panicking. Many of them understand that this was not a crisis of free markets. There was no free market to fail. What we have is a regulated market, and the regulated market has failed.

5) Obama's Plan to Transform America
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama has garnered praise from center to right -- and has highly irritated the left -- with the centrism of his major appointments. Because Obama's own beliefs remain largely opaque, his appointments have led to the conclusion that he intends to govern from the center.

Obama the centrist? I'm not so sure.

Take the foreign policy team: Hillary Clinton, James Jones, and Bush holdover Robert Gates. As centrist as you can get. But the choice was far less ideological than practical. Obama has no intention of being a foreign policy president. Unlike, say, Nixon or Reagan, he does not have aspirations abroad. He simply wants quiet on his eastern and western fronts so that he can proceed with what he really cares about -- his domestic agenda.


Similarly his senior economic team, the brilliant trio of Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Paul Volcker: centrist, experienced and mainstream. But their principal task is to stabilize the financial system, a highly pragmatic task in which Obama has no particular ideological stake.

A functioning financial system is a necessary condition for a successful Obama presidency. As in foreign policy, Obama wants experts and veterans to manage and pacify universes in which he has little experience and less personal commitment. Their job is to keep credit flowing and the world at bay so that Obama can address his real ambition: to effect a domestic transformation as grand and ambitious as Franklin Roosevelt's.

As Obama revealingly said just last week, "this painful crisis also provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people." Transformation is his mission. Crisis provides the opportunity. The election provides him the power.

The deepening recession creates the opportunity for federal intervention and government experimentation on a scale unseen since the New Deal. A Republican administration has already done the ideological groundwork with its unprecedented intervention, culminating in the forced partial nationalization of nine of the largest banks, the kind of stuff that happens in Peronist Argentina with a gun on the table.

Additionally, Henry Paulson's invention of the number $700 billion forever altered our perception of imaginable government expenditure. Another $20 billion for Citigroup? Lunch money.

Moreover, no one in Congress even pretends that spending should be pay as you go (i.e., new expenditures balanced by higher taxes or lower spending), as the Democrats disingenuously promised when they took over Congress last year. Even some conservative economists are urging stimulus (although structured far differently from Democratic proposals). And public opinion, demanding action, will buy any stimulus package of any size. The result: undreamed amounts of money at Obama's disposal.

To meet the opportunity, Obama has the political power that comes from a smashing electoral victory. It not only gave him a personal mandate. It increased Democratic majorities in both houses, thereby demonstrating coattails and giving him clout. And by running on nothing much more than change and (often contradictory) hopes, he has given himself enormous freedom of action.

Obama was quite serious when he said he was going to change the world. And now he has a national crisis, a personal mandate, a pliant Congress, a desperate public -- and, at his disposal, the greatest pot of money in galactic history. (I include here the extrasolar planets.)

It begins with a near $1 trillion stimulus package. This is where Obama will show himself ideologically. It is his one great opportunity to plant the seeds for everything he cares about: a new green economy, universal health care, a labor resurgence, government as benevolent private-sector "partner." It is the community organizer's ultimate dream.

Ironically, when the economy tanked in mid-September, it was assumed that both presidential candidates could simply forget about their domestic agendas because with $700 billion drained by financial system rescues, not a penny would be left to spend on anything else.

On the contrary. With the country clamoring for action and with all psychological barriers to government intervention obliterated (by the conservative party, no less), the stage is set for a young, ambitious, supremely confident president -- who sees himself as a world-historical figure before even having been sworn in -- to begin a restructuring of the American economy and the forging of a new relationship between government and people.

Don't be fooled by Bob Gates staying on. Obama didn't get elected to manage Afghanistan. He intends to transform America. And he has the money, the mandate and the moxie to go for it.