Third Party & Independents Archives

Around Every Corner, Behind Every Door

So let me get this straight, Grover Norquist is a plant for the Muslim Brotherhood. He has infiltrated the ACU and has been their step and fetch it guy in America for years. Norquist, while parading around as a conservative’s conservative, has actually been recruiting others such as Suhail Khan to do their bidding according to the latest conspiracy theory from those in the know. Who knows just how far this has infiltrated into the movement. How many operatives are there in the different organizations supporting the conservative movement?

Before we get to far into it I would like to thank 1776 for bringing this issue to our attention in a previous post. Because of the importance of the issue I have chosen to give it it's due with it's own post .

Americans for Tax Reform, the organization headed by Mr. Norquist has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood! Can this be? Suhail Khan is on the board of the ACU which means the ACU is a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood? This sure explains a lot,doesn't it. But is this just the tip of the iceberg or is it the iceberg?

Evidently we are fortunate to have fellow ACU travelers such as David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney and Pam Geller to help root out these ne'er-do -wells and put them on the boat back to where they came from. How do we know that they have the bona fides to ferret out the infiltrators? The question is where have they been the past 12 years while Norquist and his minions have done their work unabated.

Well as conservatives start fighting amongst themselves over this revelation we can only wonder how many more conservative organizations have been infiltrated by the Brotherhood and where this crusade against their fellow conservatives will end. Do we get HUAC type inquiries from the Congress or do we trust the conservatives to police their own? Can we trust a HUAC type committee knowing that conservatives are in the majority in the HOR and could well have many infiltrators in the Congress that could be on the committee. What say you?

Posted by j2t2 at February 17, 2011 9:32 AM
Comments
Comment #318758

Considering the fact that Muslim Brotherhood represents the conservative faction in Egyptian politics I’m not suprised to hear that they’ve made connections with conservatives in the United States. ;)

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 17, 2011 12:02 PM
Comment #318759

Warped

That shows the bias built into liberal use of the word “conservative.” In American, conservatives are for less government interference and free markets. The Muslim brotherhood wants a more involved government and more programs.

A similar thing happened after the fall of communism. Communism was and is a religion on the left. True adherents support large government control over almost everything and they detest a truly free market. Yet, when old communists resisted free market reforms, a lessening of government control and more freedom for business to operate, they were called “conservatives”

Let’s remain clear about these things. It doesn’t matter what you want to call it, we have to describe things consistently.

What do you call someone who believes in greater government involvement in the society, more state subsidies and programs to support what he calls “just” causes, protection of the rights individuals primarily as members of defined groups and heavier regulation of private enterprise? In the 1930s, this guys would have been a fascist. In Russia in 1990, he would have been a communist. In Egypt today, he is likely to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Call it what you want in the American context, but “conservative” is very far from fitting the definition.

Posted by: C&J at February 17, 2011 12:31 PM
Comment #318760

J2T2,
Still looking for proof about this rumor. For if true than the Comservatives in America haave a serious problem; however, I wonder if this is not another WMD moment.

C&J,
Why I understand what you are trying to say, allow me to twist tour words for a minute. For whom is it that “believes in greater government involvement in the society, more state subsidies and programs to support what he calls “just” causes, protection of the rights individuals primarily as members of defined groups and heavier regulation of private enterprise”

Could that be those Conservatives in America who are against Abortion?

Could it be those Conservatives in America against Gut Rights?

Could it be those Conservatives who are against Smoking”

So could it be that by any other name the Muslim Brotherhood has become a part of the Conservative Movement considering the connections of C Street?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 17, 2011 1:36 PM
Comment #318761

C&J it seems you also have a bias built into the use of the word conservative. To think that the only beliefs of conservatives is a small government and free markets is a very narrow definition isn’t it? It seems Grover Norquist would fit your definition to a “Tee” yet he is being accused of not being one of you by Geller.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 17, 2011 2:02 PM
Comment #318762

“Still looking for proof about this rumor.”

Not really Henry. I followed up on 1776’s need to get this information out on this new post because I didn’t see the relevance between the Tea Party Caucus largely voting for the renewal of the Patriot Act provisions and the accusations from members of APAC claiming to be infiltrated by the MB.

“For if true than the Comservatives in America haave a serious problem; however, I wonder if this is not another WMD moment.”

Depending upon how widespread the infiltration of MB activist into the conservative movement actually is it could be rather destructive to the movement. I know many conservatives claim that others are not really conservative while claiming to be conservative, so this could be just the tip of the iceberg. After all Grover has had 12 years of free run at planting the MB infiltrators into the movement.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 17, 2011 2:21 PM
Comment #318763

C&J,
Just to clarify: communism involves workers owning the means of production. I think you’re looking for a term other than communism. Socialism involves government owning the means of production. Modern industrialized governments all have centrally planned economies, with the amount of centralization and planning merely a matter of degree.

The confusion for conservatives comes with the idea that, if government is less involved with markets, the markets will somehow be more free, and therefore the citizens will be more free. This ignores the existence of large corporations, which co-opt government in order to increase short-term profits. In the US, it has reached an extreme, where markets are actually considered persons with many of the same rights as citizens. The conservative model advocates corporatism, which is essentially a fascist model. (Please note I am using the term properly, and not as a perorative). We have seen the results most clearly in the failure of the S&L’s some years ago, and the complete collapse of America’s financial sector in 2007 - 2008.

“All history is the history of class struggle.” Recognize that line? There is a lot of truth in it. The conservative economic model simply does not work for 99% of the citizens of the United States. It works very well for the top 1% of country who benefit from corporate ownership (with 60% of that top 1% inheriting- not earning, but inheriting- that wealth).

As a result, we see the US falling further and further behind other industrialized countries by virtually every measurement: the US pays lower mininum wage, offers less unemployement benefits, lower life expectancy, and higher birth mortality than the other OECD countries; it is more violent, with 270,000 at home gun deaths over the past decade, and gun massacres which simply do not occur in other OECD countries; and 27% of its homeowners are underwater on mortgages.

We see corporate influence so strong that an established industry, like Big Oil & Fossil Fuel, can literally stop the addressing of Global Warming in its tracks.

And that is what conservatism is all about today: using government to advancea corporate agendas at the expense of flesh and blood human beings.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2011 2:26 PM
Comment #318766

phx8 writes; “(The US) is more violent, with 270,000 at home gun deaths over the past decade.”

“Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/30/suicides-half-of-gun-deat_n_110043.html

phx8 also writes; “Modern industrialized governments all have centrally planned economies, with the amount of centralization and planning merely a matter of degree.”

I don’t think that’s true. We have a “market economy” as does much of the industrialized world.

“In the 20th century, most planned economies were implemented by states that called themselves socialist. Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, i.e. the market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factories of production based upon their individual interests rather than upon a macroeconomic plan.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2011 4:16 PM
Comment #318768


It doesn’t surprise me that CPAC has right wing Islamists as members. They let homosexuals and even a handful of black people in the door. They will even let teachers in if they sign a statement denouncing the teachers union and give up all undeserved wages and benefits they may have received from collective bargaining.

The majority of the poor that are immigrating illegally to our country come from countries that have a long history of right wing government. aligned with our own government, and dedicated to the advancement of wealth and the corporate agenda to the detriment of a majority of their citizens. Banana Republics where wealth owns all the bananas.

The corporate agenda is one of the injustices that brought the Egyptians out into the street. While here, the tea party marches in support of the corporate agenda among other things.

Posted by: jlw at February 17, 2011 4:28 PM
Comment #318769

RF,
Nations print their own money through the equivalent of our Federal Reserve. Most nations insist on government ownership of industries critical to national defense & security, including the US. With the exception of the US, other industrialized countries have universal health care, which is essentially centrally planned health care. The US provides this for veterans because they simply must have a good socialist health care system as repayment for service.
Like I said, the amount of central planning is a matter of degree.

By the same token, it is a matter of degree to which socialism and capitalism are mixed in order to create successful economies. The US failed to sufficiently regulate its financial sector, resulting in the catastrophic meltdown and massive government intervention in 2008.

We see more successful economic models in Germany, and even China and India.

Government is a tool. When it comes to freedom and our cherished values, the question of large governments or small governments is not the issue. There are examples of large governments which are terrific in providing for their citizens, and small ones too; their are examples of large governments which are totalitarian and despicable, and examples of small governments that are the same, and the economic model does not necessarily translate into a measure of freedom.

This is why the conservative movement appears in such disarray at meetings like CPAC. The economic model promoted by C&J and others failed very badly in 2007 - 2008, just as it failed on a smaller scale during the S&L debacle. Recognizing the failure is very difficult if such basic terms as ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ and ‘free markets’ become confused. As a result, meetings like CPAC provide megaphones to some first class loons.

You have conservatives denouncing infiltration of the movement by the Muslim Brotherhood. You have conservatives supporting Mubarek and condemning democratic movements in Egypt. You have Beck ranting some silliness about Islamic Caliphates.

Conservatives need to understand their terminology, recognize what recently happened with the economy, and fit their ideas to reality. The attempt to make reality fit the ideology results in the idiocy spouted at CPAC.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2011 5:04 PM
Comment #318770

phx9 writes; “Most nations insist on government ownership of industries critical to national defense & security, including the US.”

Which ones would those be?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2011 5:31 PM
Comment #318771

Most industrialized countries own their own airlines. Airlines in the United States are privately owned, but heavily subsidized by government in a number of ways. There is a good reason for subsidizing airlines which many people do not know; in the case of a national emergency, the government will confiscate the planes to move troops. The names of the airlines may change, but the industry will always be maintained as a matter of national defense.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2011 5:39 PM
Comment #318772

The auto industry provides another example. When the economy collapsed in 2007 - 2008, the government stepped in and nationalized GM. Part of the reason was economic, of course, because the country could not stand the economic consequences of GM closing its doors. That would have knocked down too many dominos. Another part of the reason involves defense and national security.

Other industrialized nations have very close relationships between their auto industries and government, both to subsidize and make the manufacturers internationally competitive, and also to ensure national security.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2011 5:57 PM
Comment #318777

Since WR was the first to comment on this post, I will respond to him first. He said:

“Considering the fact that Muslim Brotherhood represents the conservative faction in Egyptian politics I’m not suprised to hear that they’ve made connections with conservatives in the United States. ;)”

I’m sure you consider this comment to be cute, but as C&J commented, you are totally incorrect. Since I am responding to WR; I would also ask you to clarify the below statement, since you failed to answer it on the previous post:

“After saying all that; I ask WR to explain what he means by “Americans spreading their values by the barrel of a gun”? If this means what I think it does, then WR is no different than the democrats in the House, who have lost their way and are resorting to lying fear tactics.”

J2t2, thank you for continuing the thread on the Muslim Brotherhood, but I believe you have failed to understand the problem. It is not only a problem with infiltration of the MB into the conservative movement, but also in every political organization in America. I don’t know if it is true or not, but what if it is true? Where does that put the American people?

Posted by: 1776 at February 17, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #318778

I asked phx8 to name US government ownership of industries critical to national defense & security as he claimed.

His answer was heavy subsidizing of our airline industry and the governments unintended ownership of GM. Hmmm, that’s a pretty weak argument to support your statement phx8.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2011 6:51 PM
Comment #318779


Don’t tell me I am dumb because I already know that, but what is APAC.

Posted by: jlw at February 17, 2011 6:59 PM
Comment #318781

Military. Mail delivery. Communications security. The strategic oil reserve. NIH.

In the US, individual corporations within industries which are important to national security are allowed to be privately owned, but heavily subsidized by the government. Individual companies may be allowed to fail, but under no circumstances will the industry be allowed to fail. Industries such as steel manufacturing, agriculture, and most defense contractors fall into this category in the US economy.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2011 7:21 PM
Comment #318782

jlw, APAC is my unintended mistake of putting ACU and CPAC together. It should be ACU not APAC, sorry for the confusion. ACU is of course the American Conservative Union which outs on the CPAC event each year.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 17, 2011 7:45 PM
Comment #318784

How about the housing industry, perhaps the single most important industry in the US? How about agriculture, energy? Each is highly subsidized by the US government.

Posted by: Rich at February 17, 2011 8:16 PM
Comment #318786

“It is not only a problem with infiltration of the MB into the conservative movement, but also in every political organization in America.”

What evidence do we have that every political organization has been infiltrated by the MB,1776? From the available information I only noticed the ACU mentioned and the culprits, named by Greer, being Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan. Of course the ATR which is headed by Norquist must also be considered infiltrated as well. The Americans for Tax Reform have been co-opting elected officials for years insisting they sign the ATR manifesto. Perhaps they were signing up for more than we know.

Of course eternal vigilance as they say demands that the conservative movement purge these infiltrators from their ranks. Perhaps loyalty oaths need to be added by the movement help thwart these infiltrators.

“I don’t know if it is true or not, but what if it is true? Where does that put the American people?”

Well you certainly stuck up for Horowitz who is one of those naming names. Hopefully you wouldn’t stick up for him simply because Horowitz is anti Islamic. Because conservatives are well known for proclaiming the virtues of self reliance perhaps they should disassociate themselves with the organizations such as the ATR and the ACU rather than to continue to promote the MB activities in this Country.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 17, 2011 8:47 PM
Comment #318787

Henry

Re abortion - could be. It depends on when you think life begins. Most would just be happy enough to not fund it.

I don’t know what “gut” rights is. I suppose it is a typo, but I really cannot figure it out.

re against smoking - I don’t think that is a conservative issue.

And I don’t think the Muslim Brotherhood has embraced free markets, less regulation or individual instead of group rights.

j2t2

Almost half of all Americans call themselves conservative. It is a big movement that includes lots of different types of people. You are right about that.

The core of conservative belief in American (not the same worldwide as I mentioned) is believe in free markets, less intrusive government and individual not group rights.

I am not particularly fond of these labels. As far as I am concerned, people who support free markets, less intrusive government and don’t support group rights are doing what I like. If they call themselves liberal, fine with me. Do you know of anybody like that?

phx8

I read Marx and found him silly, although I see why people might be drawn to his bloody minded fairy tale.

The details of Marx’s theory are not important. Look at what Marxists do. They seek to control the means of production; they treat people are members of groups instead of as individuals and they don’t allow free markets. In addition, they usually kill lots of people and ruin countries, but those are just collateral issues.

I don’t believe in this class struggle crap. Even Engels questioned that idea when he visited America. Marx never understood the economy. His thinking did a lot of damage and carnage.

Re free markets - let me repeat for the 100th time, free markets require government to enforce the rule of law. Government has a legitimate role. But its legitimate role is to create conditions for the people to prosper, not to micro-manage the people’s business.

Posted by: C&J at February 17, 2011 9:05 PM
Comment #318791

I actually find Marxism more interesting now, with the benefit of age and experience, than I found it when studying in college and in the Air Force. At that time I was fluent in German, but I carried a lot of prejudices into the reading of Marx. That’s not surprising, considering the conflict between the USSR & the US, and the threat of totalitarianism to humanity.

In retrospect, Marx was obviously wrong about many things. He completely failed to foresee the development of labor unions and their effect upon the relationship between owners and workers. However, he did make some astute observations about the nature of classes in society.

As a young man, I liked to think individuals were free, and large social forces largely imaginary. Now, I suspect the opposite is true.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2011 11:11 PM
Comment #318794

phx8

What is good in Marx is not original and what is original is not good.

Marx was a world-class academic researcher. He dug through lots of stuff and cobbled together cool ideas. I like the “seeds of its own destruction” which you can find in Polybius, or “to each according to his need” which restated parts of the New Testament, or religion being the opium on mankind, which he got from some Irish bishop.

But when you get past the one liners, you are left with his system of dialectical materials and class, which really doesn’t work. It didn’t work even in his limited experience and Marx ignored evidence that didn’t fit his ideas.

It is a very appealing system to academics because it is a comprehensive theory. The fact that none of the specifics work does not bother them, since the one-liner and characterizations are so compelling.

Marx wrote a massive amount of what is a lot like science fiction. He created an alternative world, enough like our world to be recognized but different enough to inspire thought. If he had been left in academia, it would have been harmless and maybe even useful construct for understanding some aspects of society.

Unfortunately, it was employed by evil men, such as Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro and others, as an effective tool to seize power and exert tyrannical control, while still being able to keep lots of the intellectual community ostensibly on board.

A social theory has to be understood by its practical effects. Nothing in the real world works like the theory, so we have to look to the corruptions. The reality of free markets has lots wrong with it, but it produces reasonably free systems that are more productive than the alternatives. When Marxism in put into the real world, literally millions of people die and the economies of formerly prosperous countries collapse

So I agree with you on the academic sense. The problem with Marx is that people tried to make a work of literature and fiction work in the real world. I like to read classical Greek stories and theories, but I don’t actually try to apply them as they are. Marx is not harmless. Nearly 100 million people died of Marxism in the 20th Century. This is beyond the usual political murders and the very bloody wars of that very bloody time.

IMO - of the Marx brothers - only Karl’s jokes were deadly :)

Posted by: C&J at February 18, 2011 8:27 AM
Comment #318808

1776, see the original thread for my response

j2t2, I thought you meant AIPAC when you wrote APAC; thank you for the clarification.

C&J,

Do you have a source for what you claim to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s economic policy proposals? Mubarak’s government intervened quite a lot in the Egyptian economy (technically, the NDP was a socialist party). I think it would be very hard for the MB to increase the government’s intervention in the Egyptian economy. Social and personal religious matters though are a different matter.

I admit that many progressives today do a poor job of demonstrating liberalism.

The core of conservative belief in American (not the same worldwide as I mentioned) is believe in free markets, less intrusive government and individual not group rights.
Then why do American conservatives advocate using the government to enforce particular interpretations of Judeo-Christian moral codes? Why do conservatives support letting certain people pervert the free market by doing things such as externalizing their costs?
I am not particularly fond of these labels. As far as I am concerned, people who support free markets, less intrusive government and don’t support group rights are doing what I like. If they call themselves liberal, fine with me. Do you know of anybody like that?
I don’t support the notion of group rights and I’m a liberal. “Intrusive government” and “free markets” are ill-defined phrases so I’m not sure what to say. I support reasonable regulations in order to prevent people from externalizing their costs (thereby perverting the free market). Otherwise, I generally prefer to let the market to sort things out. Only when the market demonstrates that it can’t handle a task would I advocate more government (such as the recent Health Care law). I’m also a big supporter of equalizing opportunity in this country, which is why I support government subsidized education.

BTW, I’m not the only person who supports the free market and opposes too much government intervention.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 18, 2011 6:12 PM
Comment #318890

Warped

I don’t think the Brotherhood want to increase government, but they are not advocating reducing it and, as you say, the Egyptian economy is already very state controlled.

Re free markets - You know that I have said over and over that the free market requires government to enforce rule of law.

re education - IMO - most people on all sides of the debate accept government roles in education. We sometimes disagree about the means of delivery. Public education does not need to be delivered by a public monopoly bureaucracy.

I understand that you don’t agree, but it seems to me that many of your ideas will evolve into conservatism as time goes on.

Posted by: C&J at February 19, 2011 7:24 PM
Comment #318903
it seems to me that many of your ideas will evolve into conservatism as time goes on

I don’t know why you keep on saying that I’m a proto-conservative of some sort. I can see myself evolving into a libertarian, but not a conservative. I do know that I’ve been exposed to a lot of libertarian ideas since I started attending university (I don’t know why universities have such a reputation for statist politics; I’ve never observed this).

Nonetheless, Conservatism runs against my beliefs. I came of age during the 2004 election cycle and that’s when I began to form my own political beliefs. The definitions of liberal and conservative that I was exposed to then are the ones I use today. The Tea Party has sought to rebrand conservatism as advocates of a utopian ideal of minarchy, but I don’t buy it. Most conservatives advocate increasing governmental intrusion, even if they say otherwise. Conservatives advocate enforcing a particular interpretation of Judeo-Christian morals with governmental coercion. Conservatives advocate weakening civil liberties in the hope of preventing a terrorist attack. Conservatives often advocate preserving market inefficiencies, especially those posed by externalized costs, all in the name of “small government”.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 19, 2011 11:34 PM
Post a comment