Israel Through the Eyes of a High School Senior: “Eh, Surviving”

Israel Through the Eyes of a High School Senior: “Eh, Surviving”: "“How are you doing today?” She asked, leaning forward in her seat to give the man her full attention, a look of concern and complete and utt..."

Where is TSA when you need them?

If they had enhanced body scanners--or better yet, aggressive pat downs--at Target,
scenes like this might be avoided:

Outrageous.

Not all the TSA horror stories are quite as bad as advertised. For instance the "shirtless" little boy in the video that has gone viral did not have his shirt removed by the TSA agent as alleged. But this one, about the man from Detroit with the urostomy bag, is undoubtedly true, and ought to be the textbook example of all that is wrong with the government's invasive and unconstitutional pat-down policy:

Wednesday is Opt Out Day

Introducing Obamacare's new government-approved prostate exam:


What is Opt Out Day from George Donnelly on Vimeo.

Chris Christie is...

Awesome.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/20/awesome-chris-christie-tells-of-apology-from-president-of-teachers-union/.

Obama an "Embarrasing Disappointment"

You know things are bad for Obama when he loses even Bob Schieffer of CBS News:

RealClearPolitics - Video - "I Had My Moment": Bush Views Politics As A Chapter In Life

RealClearPolitics - Video - "I Had My Moment": Bush Views Politics As A Chapter In Life

Voted Yet?

His "work" may be done, but we can't start making it undone unless both Pelosi and Reid are gone.  And they won't be gone unless conservatives take over the House and Senate.

So vote.  Your life--as you know it-- depends on it.

CItizen Christine of Delaware

You may have heard that a certain local cable outlet "forgot" to air this 30-minute paid advertisement for Christine O'Donnell over the weekend:

We the People of the First State from Friends of Christine O'Donnell on Vimeo.

I guess this is just the latest example of the Leftstream Media's attempt to marginalize Christine. I guess their attempt to discredit her as an extremist flake hasn't worked, so now they are simply refusing to let Christine make her case to Delawareans to be their next Senator.

Thanks to the internet, though, Christine's message is getting through.  If you have half an hour to spare, please watch this well-crafted video.  I feel confident that you will be inspired by this would-be citizen legislator.  You may even shed a tear or two, as I did.

Win or lose, Christine has shown poise and class in the face of some of the worst attacks in American political history.  Liberals hate her; Democrats demean her; the media mocks her and the GOP cuts her loose.  I hope she makes it to the Senate and gives them all fits.

"Finish Strong."

Remember November.

Remember November: The Final Act from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Fenn Little for Congress: GA 05

Ok, so as the picture illustrates, maybe Fenn is not so Little.  But after meeting him the other evening in the Atlanta metro City of Sandy Springs-- just inside I-285 near the Glenridge Connector--I can attest that Fenn is a man whose heart is as big as his waistline.  It takes a lot of heart, after all, to engage in what many initially saw as a valiant but ultimately hopeless struggle to topple his opponent, civil rights icon and 24-year incumbent Congressman John Lewis (D-GA 05).

If Fenn manages to upset Lewis on Tuesday, he will likely become instantly famous as a Giant-killer, as would Sean Bielat of Massachusetts should he prevail in his contest to unseat liberal icon Barney Frank.  In normal election years, Little would be guaranteed a one-way ticket to obscurity on the Wednesday after Election Day.  But in a wave election that promises to be historic, one has the sense that anything is possible, including a self-described North Georgia redneck succeeding one of the longest serving black liberals in Congress.

Fenn considers Lewis a hero for his role in the civil rights movement, including the famous 1960s march to Selma, Ala., during which Lewis got his head bashed in on the Edmund Pettis bridge.  He challenges Lewis's policies and voting record, not his personal character, which is refreshing in an election year in which negative personal attacks are the norm.  Little's focus is on the issues, not on personal attacks.

That Little admires Lewis' civil rights record is not surprising.  Little is himself a civil rights lawyer, representing individuals, including many minorities, in civil rights, police misconduct and free speech cases.  He has also defended first amendment rights in the arena of freedom of religion, and so has some real "street cred" when talking to people of faith of all colors and affiliations.

Fenn has been asking for votes everywhere throughout his district, which includes a vast number of minorities who are reliable Democrat voters.  Through his legal work Fenn has established deep personal ties with clergy and other leaders in the black community, which gives him entree into churches and other venues where he can meet regular folks.  When he gets a chance to convey to them his message of jobs, lower taxes, faith, freedom and smaller government he is amazed at how many people who have never voted for a Republican come up to him to shake his hand and say they will vote for him.

Fenn is careful to state that he is not a "Tea Party" candidate, although he respects and values the Tea Party's contribution to politics.  He has received endorsements from some Tea Party groups, and shares many of the same positions on spending, taxes, government, and the Constitution.  Both as an article of his Christian faith and his geo-political sensibilities, Fenn is pro-Israel, and is dismayed at the lengths the Obama Administration has gone to alienate one of our best friends in the world.

Little is clearly not a politician, and that is one of his strengths.  He doesn't claim to have extensive or detailed knowledge of the "legislative process," but he is obviously quick enough to catch on.  In an election in which the voters are willing to boot the experienced pols, Fenn's status as a Washington outsider can only help.

As far as I can tell this race is not on the radar screen of the pundits and pollsters.  I don't even know if this race has been polled, other than by the Lewis' campaign's internal pollsters.  Thus, it is fair to say that if Fenn does triumph over Lewis on Tuesday, he will catch the nation's political and media class by surprise--and not  a happy one for most of them.

Could Fenn Little, husband, father of two young girls and accomplished chef, become Georgia Fifth's next congressman.  The odds are long, but then again, in this political year, I wouldn't bet against it.

To help Fenn cross the finish line, please visit his website here.

25 Minutes to Change America.

Having trouble deciding whether to vote on Tuesday? Think the stakes aren't high?

Please watch the video "Breaking Point," in 3 eight-minute segments, and pass to everyone you know.   The National Republican Trust (not affiliated with the national GOP) produced this compelling review of the past 20 months since Obama the Destroyer took office.

Just in case you forgot why you should vote on Tuesday.

Click here to watch "Breaking Point: 25 Minutes to Change America."

"I Worked so Hard to Get that Title"

From David Zucker of "Airplane" fame:

Bnei Akiva Hachshara Gap Year Program

Michelle, you might want to take a look at this video and also click here to see more about this program, called Tafnit.

Thatcher Honored by Murdoch

Please read this inspiring essay by Rupert Murdoch about the importance of Margaret Thatcher in her generation, and the necessity of her virtues in our.

Why Democrats Hate Our Guts

They Hate Our Guts...and they’re drunk on power.

by P.J. O'Rourke (from The Weekly Standard, October 23, 2010)

Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.

I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.

They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.

Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.

Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?

No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.

Armed with the panoply of lawmaking, these moonstruck fools for power go about in a jealous rage. They fear power’s charms may be lavished elsewhere, even for a moment.

Democrats hate success. Success could supply the funds for a power elopement. Fire up the Learjet. Flight plan: Grand Cayman. Democrats hate failure too. The true American loser laughs at legal monopoly on force. He’s got his own gun.

Democrats hate productivity, lest production be outsourced to someplace their beloved power can’t go. And Democrats also hate us none-too-productive drones in our cubicles or behind the counters of our service economy jobs. Tax us as hard as they will, we modest earners don’t generate enough government revenue to dress and adorn the power that Democrats worship.

Democrats hate stay-at-home spouses, no matter what gender or gender preference. Democratic advocacy for feminism, gay marriage, children’s rights, and “reproductive choice” is simply a way to invade -power’s little realm of domestic private life and bring it under the domination of Democrats.

Democrats hate immigrants. Immigrants can’t stay illegal because illegality puts immigrants outside the legal monopoly on force. But immigrants can’t become legal either. They’d prosper and vote Republican.

Democrats hate America being a world power because world power gives power to the nation instead of to Democrats.

And Democrats hate the military, of course. Soldiers set a bad example. Here are men and women who possess what, if they chose, could be complete control over power. Yet they treat power with honor and respect. Members of the armed forces fight not to seize power for themselves but to ensure that power can bestow its favors upon all Americans.

This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.

P. J. O’Rourke, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, is the author of a new book, Don’t Vote: It Just Encourages the Bastards (Atlantic Monthly Press).

Our Chinese Masters?

Ken Buck: "They Will Ignore us No More."

Israel's Front Porch

By Moshe Feiglin

2 Cheshvan, 5771
Oct. 10, '10

Translated from Ma'ariv's NRG website.

I get to Elmatan almost every morning - on my mountain bike. The dried creek beds and mountains on the way there and back provide me with half an hour of solace and physical fitness that are the dream of every mountain rider. After ten years of riding here and playing catch with the sun's first morning rays, I thought that I had already seen all the different views from Elmatan. Nevertheless, it is important for me to share this picture of the Elmatan synagogue with you:

Elmatan is a "mixed" outpost - a neighborhood of the Ma'aleh Shomron settlement that is open to everyone - with or without a kippah on his head. They built the synagogue pictured here about a year ago. Israel's Supreme Court has ordered the synagogue to be sealed off. Mosques are popping up like mushrooms after the rain in this entire area - which is under Israeli jurisdiction - and nobody dares touch them. But the synagogue within the boundaries of the Elmatan settlement unhinges the "rule of law" clan. Their norms dictate that the Arabs here are permanent while the Jews are a passing phenomenon. I am talking about Tel Aviv, of course.

Due to the fact that last week it looked like the government was going to seal off the synagogue, the residents of Elmatan asked the residents of Ginot Shomron, where I live, to come and boost the regular prayers there. And so, after my bike ride and shower, I picked up my son and we drove over to Elmatan for the morning prayers.

There are more panoramic views of the country than from Elmatan. From Moshe Zar's house at the top of the mountain, for example, the entire State of Israel is laid out on the palm of your hand; from the slopes of the Carmel Mountain all the way down to the shores of Gaza. I stood there once on a clear day and watched the unloading of coal for the power plant in Hadera through my binoculars. In his better days, Arik Sharon would bring US senators to the home of his buddy from Israel's famous battles and explain the strategic importance of Judea and Samaria to the American lawmakers from Moshe Zar's back yard. "Israel's front porch," he would call it.

I do not believe in basing our claim to the Land of Israel on security interests. It simply does not work. We are here in the Land of Israel because it is ours, because this is our Land and our home and this is our life. Without it, we have no ability to build, strengthen our character and fulfill our destiny. We are here in the most simple and natural way and whoever tries to take this Land from me will have to kill me first. If you are not feeling up to the task of keeping and guarding this Land, you can leave. But nobody has the right to uproot Jews from their homes and their Land. This is very simple and has no connection to the welfare of Tel Aviv with or without the Shomron.

Nevertheless, when a photographer arrived in Elmatan, I asked her to take a picture of the view glittering before my eyes at 6:30 a.m. from the synagogue that the High Court ordered sealed.

Never mind the fact that from here they will fire Katyushas at Tel Aviv, just like they fire them now at Be'er Sheva from the ruins of Gush Katif. That is really not the point. I just felt that there is so much symbolism in this surrealistic sight of the state of Tel Aviv spread out below the small synagogue from which - among other things - it draws the justification for its existence - and which it insists on destroying.

All the towers there, at the feet of the small synagogue, all the modern interchanges and even the permanent cloud of pollution over Tel Aviv that can be detected in the photo - all this amazing achievement of Zionism is planted on shifting sands. The more that we have disengaged from our Land and our identity, the more we have lost the legitimacy for the very existence of a Jewish state on the face of the earth. We have all the military prowess necessary to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. But we lack the fortitude and courage to do what we must for the coming generations because deep down, we have lost our faith in the justice of our existence here.

If it is illegal to build a synagogue in Israel's heartland, then certainly the Azrieli Towers there on the coastal lowlands are not legitimate. Soon there will be Congressional elections in the US. Afterwards, the cat in the Oval Office will come back to derisively torment the Israeli mouse and invigorate world anti-Semitism. And then what will we do? On whom and on what will we rely after we have invalidated the justice of our existence here with our very own hands?

Physically, Elmatan hinges on Tel Aviv. But the opposite is also true. Just look at what happened to the State of Israel after the destruction of Gush Katif. Just look at how our international legitimacy has eroded, how the dangers surrounding us have intensified and how the ability to defend ourselves has been abrogated.

This week the sealing of the synagogue in Elmatan has been postponed. Tel Aviv can breathe a sigh of relief.

EarMarx

I've had my doubts about the Republican leadership's commitment to earmark reform.  This article by Rep. Eric Cantor, current House minority whip, is therefore a welcome sign that the Republican leadership (in the House, anyway) "gets it."


Words are not deeds, but they are a starting point.


A step toward curing Washington’s spending disease – eliminating earmarks 

Originally published in Politico
By: Rep. Eric Cantor

October 13, 2010 12:20 AM EDT
House Republicans took an unprecedented stand in March, imposing an immediate moratorium on earmarks for the remainder of the Congress. Yet, because the governing rules of one Congress cannot bind the next, this moratorium will expire on Jan. 3, 2011. I do not believe that should be allowed to happen.


A lot has happened over the last eight months. Unfortunately none of it has done anything to rein in spending, eliminate waste or send the message to frustrated people across this country that Washington gets it.


That is why the next Republican Conference should immediately move to eliminate earmarks. Should Republicans be elected as the majority party, I believe that we should extend the moratorium to the entire House – to Democrats and Republicans alike. And I encourage President Barack Obama and the White House to take a similar step.


There is no question that earmarks – rightly or wrongly – have become the poster child for Washington’s wasteful spending binges. They have been linked to corruption and scandal, and serve as a fuel line for the culture of spending that has dominated Washington far too long. These reasons alone would justify completely eliminating earmarks, but the basis for my position doesn’t end there.


The old adage that he who can’t be trusted to reform the “small” problems can’t be trusted to reform the “large” ones applies as much to government as to individuals. Both Republicans and Democrats have an enormous task before us if we are going to get America’s fiscal house in order.


We will have to propose and execute real reductions to existing programs. If we hope to preserve Social Security and Medicare for seniors, younger workers and our children, we must begin the conversation about common-sense ways to reform both programs.


These are big things – and there is little question that turning trillion-dollar deficits into surpluses, while starting to pay down our national debt, is an enormous mountain to climb. Yet the long climb to fiscal responsibility must begin with a few smaller, but necessary, steps.


If Republicans put forward real federal spending reductions while simultaneously returning to the old way of earmarking billions of dollars, we will rightfully forfeit the people’s trust. After all, how can anyone defend reducing spending for housing programs, for example, while still earmarking for their favorite local museum?


Additionally, over the last decade, Congress has spent too much time in the process of earmarking. Not only did the number of earmarks explode, but the amount of time spent by members and their staff soliciting, vetting, submitting and attempting to secure earmarks soared as well.


Congress must change its ways from the inside out. That means time once spent securing earmarks would be far better spent overseeing federal agencies, reforming federal programs, cutting spending or eliminating barriers to job creation and economic recovery.


The challenges confronting our country — and our Congress — are far too great for so much time and money to be spent on earmarks.


I have little doubt that this position is going to be controversial in Washington. I have heard the arguments from those who believe we need to return to earmarking. I believe it’s important to answer a few of them:

• Some assert that members should represent their constituents’ needs. Of course they should! Yet we, as conservatives, must not lose sight of the fact that Congress is the national legislature. It is our duty to consider those things that cannot be accomplished by state or local governments or, even better – private associations. When Congress spends a single dollar, that dollar is taken from the paycheck of a family in Culpeper, or a young worker in Richmond, or, as is now the case, borrowed and placed on their already maxed out credit card. We have an obligation to uphold the national interest, and that means ensuring that decisions about funding local streetscape improvements are returned to local officials.
• Some make the case that if Congress doesn’t earmark, unelected bureaucrats will decide how to spend the same money. In the next Congress, however, our mission must be to ensure that time is spent reducing spending — period. If bureaucrats are misspending funds or wasting them on low priority projects, our responsibility should be to conduct the proper oversight to hold them to account and fix the problem. Taxpayers deserve that we hold the administration accountable. In recent years, earmarking has taken the place of setting guidelines and conducting strong oversight. We will change that.

Earmarks are a symptom of a disease — and that disease is Washington’s runaway spending. There is no silver bullet. For us to successfully eliminate the sickness, several prescriptions are needed. One is to apply the current House Republican earmark moratorium to all House members.


Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is the House Republican whip.

Christine O'Donnell's New Ad: "The Taxman"

Devastatin'.

Re: Israel: Obama's Underwater Fantasy

Courtesy of the satirical group "Latma:"

"J" Stands for "Jackals"

J Street, Down the Rabbit Hole

SEP 30 2010, 3:00 PM ET

by Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for The Atlantic. 

[From the editor of Eye of the Beholder: Right- leaning Jews always knew that the liberal "pro-Israel" J Street lobbying group was a front for self-hating, Israel-bashing leftist Jewish activists trying to influence American policymakers to abandon the U.S. bias towards Israel and adopt a more "even-handed" (i.e., pro-Palestinian, Arabist) point of view.  Now, it seems, thanks to the revelations that Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's chief, has engaged in a lying campaign to cover-up J Street's funding sources (most prominently the well-known anti-Israel financier George Soros), even left-of-center opinion leaders have concluded that J Street's days are numbered.

Jeffrey Goldberg's Atlantic magazine article detailing this delicious scandal, follows below:]                                                        

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder and president of J Street, the liberal Jewish group, e-mailed Goldblog last night: "Reports of our demise (including from you) are greatly exaggerated...." He was referring to a question I posted earlier in the day: "Will J Street even be around in its current form in coming days, now that it is enveloped in a scandal (more of a cover-up than a crime, in the traditional Washington style)?"

The scandal grows from a decision by Jeremy Ben-Ami to cover-up, over a long period of time, something he knew to be true: That George Soros, the billionaire investor and non-friend of Israel, provided J Street with almost $750,000 in funding. James Besser, at The New York Jewish Week, frames the impact of this cover-up in stark and simple terms:

There's no way this isn't going to make the politicians supported by J Street and those who may be considering accepting its endorsement incredibly nervous. Instead of  providing protection for the politicians they supported, J Street essentially hung them out to dry - not by accepting Soros money, but by lying about their connection to the controversial philanthropist.

And there's no way this doesn't sow mistrust among commentators and reporters who write and speak about J Street, and who were repeatedly misled by its officials. J Street sought to create a climate of trust with a press corps that was being spun heavily by its opponents; this news undoes a lot of that effort.

An Atlantic reporter, Chris Good, was one of the journalists lied to by J Street; he ripped the organization a new one once he learned he was the target of a disinformation campaign.

News of the Soros donation, first brought to light by Eli Lake of the Washington Times, was accompanied by disclosures about a larger, and stranger, donation, by a resident of Hong Kong named Consolacion Escidul, who according to Ben-Ami, is a "business associate" of a prominent J Street supporter named William Benter, a well-known Hong Kong-based horse bettor. Escidul is responsible for contributing seven percent of all the money collected by J Street since its founding, but nothing is known about Escidul, or about the sources of her wealth, but the mere fact that she is not, as far as anyone can tell, an American citizen has J Street supporters on Capitol Hill worried that the organization is using foreign money to provide help to American political candidates.

And now there is a completely new scandal, brought to us, again, by Eli Lake and another Times reporter, Ben Birnbaum. According to an article posted on The Washington Times site last night, J Street helped arrange visits by Judge Richard Goldstone, the South African jurist appointed by the U.N. to investigate the most recent conflict in Gaza, to Capitol Hill. Goldstone's work, heavily reliant on Hamas for uncorroborated information, has been condemned on both the left and right, here and in Israel (including by the left-wing Israeli human rights group B'Tselem), for its fairly obvious biases. From the Times story:

Colette Avital -- a former member of Israel's parliament, from the center-left Labor Party and until recently J Street's liaison in Israel -- told The Washington Times that her decision to resign her post with J Street earlier this year was a result in part of the group's "connection to Judge Goldstone."

"When Judge Goldstone came to Washington, [J Street leaders were] suggesting that they might help him set up his appointments on Capitol Hill," she said.

In the Times story, Jeremy Ben-Ami denied that his group assisted Goldstone in his visit in any way:  "J Street did not host, arrange or facilitate any visit to Washington, D.C., by Judge Richard Goldstone." Then, in the same response, he contradicted himself, acknowledging that J Street assisted Judge Goldstone in his efforts to meet members of Congress: "J Street staff spoke to colleagues at the organizations coordinating the meetings and, at their behest, reached out to a handful of congressional staff to inquire whether members would be interested in seeing Judge Goldstone."

This statement is of a piece with Ben-Ami's non-denial denial concerning Soros. On the J Street website, however, Avital issued a more straightforward denial:

I made clear (to The Washington Times)  that I was and am completely unaware of any effort by J Street to facilitate visits by Judge Richard Goldstone to Capitol Hill.

I do not know how it is possible for a newspaper to run a story like this after I have specifically told them they have the story wrong.

Unfortunately for Avital, and for J Street, the reporter who interviewed Avital by telephone, Ben Birnbaum, recorded their conversation, and The Washington Times has posted the audio. The recording shows that Avital was quoted accurately, and more than that: It shows that it was Avital, and not Birnbaum, who first raised the subject of Goldstone.

On one level, I understand what is happening here: J Street is made up of liberal Zionists, as well as non-Zionists, and even a few anti-Zionists, and it has been difficult for it to please its differing constituencies. This is why Ben-Ami, its president, might have felt the need to cover-up the involvement of George Soros, because liberal supporters of Israel know that Soros is unfriendly to the Jewish state, and some, presumably, would not want to be part of a group that counted Soros as a prominent supporter.  But on another level, what is going on here is inexplicable, and terribly dispiriting to people who thought that J Street was going to make a useful contribution to the debate over the future of Israel.  

Israel's Leaders: When will they ever Learn?

In 2003, the late Israeli political activist, thinker and commentator Shmuel Katz penned an essay entitled "Sharon's Egregious Blunder"  bemoaning then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's determination to nursemaid into existence a "demilitarized" and severely limited Palestinian state.  According to Katz, the very idea of a state accepting permanent limitations on its sovereignty along the lines of Sharon's vision (and presumably current P.M. Netanyahu's as well) was the height of political naivete and, if implemented, would lead only to heartache and bitter recrimination:

If Israel were to reach the nadir of political inanity of actually helping to establish a state for the Palestinian Arabs, the Arabs would reject with all vigor the idea that their state would be hobbled by a denial of major armaments. No less emphatic would be the hostile reaction of a large segment of the European and other nations.

Even friends, appalled and distressed, would find themselves bound, albeit reluctantly, to deplore such a limitation of sovereignty. They would find it intolerable.

For the Arabs the military issue is doubly critical. First because the very idea of demilitarization would be regarded as a blow to their honor; second, because a sovereign state has never been the ultimate purpose of Arab policy. The purpose is the destruction of Israel. A state could represent only the penultimate 'phase' in the policy of phases. It could be the staging ground - with a large and variegated arsenal - for the 'final phase.'

That is the original Arab game plan. 

Arabs made their purpose clear from the very beginning of Israel's existence. In the UN debate on Palestine in November 1947 which led to the partition plan, Jamal Husseini, the spokesman of the Arab League States (there was no entity called Palestinians) announced that the Arabs would not tolerate the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine. The UN partition plan actually also offered them a state. They brushed the offer aside, rejected the plan, and on the morrow of the British government's departurefrom Palestine, the Arab states launched their war for the annihilation of the infant Jewish state.

Nineteen years later, when the Arab leaders calculated again that they could win, they launched what became the Six Day War. The leader of the Arab coalition, president Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, confidently, repeatedly and vociferously announced its aim. 'The liquidation of Israel' he declared 'will be liquidation through violence. We shall enter a Palestine not covered with sand, but soaked in blood.' This is pounded out every Friday in the mosques. It is part of textbooks in the Arab schools and is the highlight of political speeches in the Muslim world.

If the Arab objective is achieved, the sovereign state of Palestine could join the Arab League. There, a pact for mutual security exists. Any Arab state attacked may call on the other members of the League to come to its assistance. A ready-made casus belli exists: The Arabs have long laid it down that the very existence of Zionism is an 'aggression.'

Does it not seem that Katz's words are as true today as they were 7 years ago?  Perhaps it is not too late for Israel's leaders to heed them.

The Coming Obamafada

by Scott Italiaander

Our feckless President is apparently not content to merely confuse our allies and seek to appease our rivals and enemies.  Now he has managed to significantly weaken the strategic position of our greatest ally, Israel, vis a vis its already hostile Arab and Persian neighbors.  By prematurely pushing Israel into peace talks with the weak and disingenuous  Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, he ensured that those talks would fail and that Israel would be held responsible for the collapse.  

The whole world knew before the start of "peace" talks just weeks before the expiration of Israel P.M. Bibi Netanyahu's 10-month freeze on building in the West Bank settlements that Abbas would break off the talks if the freeze wasn't extended indefinitely.  And the world knew that Netanyahu would be forced into deciding whether to play the spoiler of those talks.  It is a virtual certainty that Obama intentionally put Bibi in the no-win position of either (1) caving to American pressure to extend the freeze, thus putting him at odds with his own ministers and voter base in the Likud; or (2) caving in to domestic pressure and letting the freeze expire, thus putting the P.M. crosswise with the international community.

Well, Netanyahu seems to have made his choice:  the building moratorium expired at midnight Sunday without action by Netanyahu or his security cabinet.  And, according to the pro-Israel intelligence website Debkafile.org., Abbas has left the talks, as threatened.  The predictable results are already being felt:

The breakdown of the talks was widely predicted by every seasoned Middle East hand. Many political observers therefore wonder: What was the point of filling the air waves for 26 days with the extravagantly upbeat phrases heard from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak calling the process "a historic opportunity for peace in the region?" The letdown was inevitable and leaves none of them looking good.

Perhaps the last word has not been said. Washington may go back for another try to restart the talks in a few weeks or months, but the process has already had a negative impact in the region, hardening the moderates and strengthening the rejectionists:

1. Israel is bracing for a fresh round of terror in the light of Hamas threats;

2.  The feuding Fatah and Hamas are talking again, a process that will force Mahmoud Abbas into continuing to harden his posture;

3. Egypt and Israel have drawn apart on the Palestinian issue;

4. Cairo and Damascus have begun talks to bury the hatchet.

All four developments are a triumph for the Middle East radical camp and strengthen the hands of Hizballah and Hamas.

So, Obama has finally notched his first real foreign policy victory: by teeing up the media narrative that Israel's failure to extend the freeze was the proximate cause of the talks' collapse he simultaneously (further) isolated Netanyahu and his government, handed Israel's enemies a club with which to beat up the Jewish State and drove a wedge between Israel and the so-called moderate Arab States, which have apparently decided to make common cause with Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.  The hapless, self-righteous Jimmy Carter could have never pulled off such a feat.


Already on Sunday, a Jewish woman was shot by "gunmen" (code for "Arab terrorist" in mediaspeak) near Hebron, thankfully not fatally for mother or child.  But one can reasonably expect increasing violence and murder  of Jews in the weeks and months to follow, thanks in large part to the fallout from the so-called peace talks forced upon Israel and their predictable failure.  


Perhaps it is not premature to honor Obama's great success by labeling the next round of violence against Jews the "Obamafada."

Jimmy Carter: Southern for "Pompous Jerk."

The headline I wanted to use was "Jimmy Carter: "What a Jew-Hating Prick!"  But then I thought that would be unfair to pricks.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"Obamacare: The Sequel"

Dr. Scott W. Atlas, professor at Stanford University Medical Center and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, predicts a last gasp effort by the doomed Democrat majority to drive a nail in the coffin of
the private health insurance industry and perhaps severely restrict the ability of the nations' doctors to practice medicine as they see fit.  :

When Congress passed the health legislation plan that the president sought, it radically changed health care in the United States and audaciously imposed a strong-armed federal government onto perhaps the most personal of all segments of American life. In the ensuing months, the opposition has tried to understand what it can do when governmental power is enacted despite the will of the people. Legal battles questioning the constitutionality of the legislation are already under way in more than 20 states. Political activists are targeting the rogue politicians who flaunted their own agenda in the face of the constituents who elected them in the first place. But indications are that this Congress and this administration may not care what the American public wants. Ultimately, they may be prepared to commit political suicide in a last-ditch effort to push their unwanted agenda on the nation.


Scary stuff, indeed. 

A Whole Lotta Mama Grizzlies.

“Fire From the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman" was previewed at the Redstate.com gathering in Austin this past weekend.  According to Redstate, the film is a must-see for every citizen concerned with the direction of our country.

It will premiere on Wednesday, September 22nd, in Washington, DC.  Here's the trailer:

 If If you cannot see the embedded video, view trailer here.

"The Power of Ten"

Whatever you think of Newt Gingrich's presidential aspirations, there is no denying that (unlike Karl Rove and others like him) he is no Inside the Beltway establishment groupthinker.  After all, Newt is the guy who pulled off what at the time was the greatest outside political shot of its kind--the Revolution of 1994.

Newt is not the mercurial firebrand he was 16 years ago, but this self-styled historian still has an unerring sense of history and a passion for crafting policy solutions. He also knows a once-in-a-generation political moment when he sees one.

I know you are voting this November. But you may want to also consider giving Newt's Power of Ten a try:

(If you cannot view the video, please click here.)

Where else but Israel?

Please watch this 6 minute video, and ask yourself where else but in Israel would this touching reunion have happened. After watching, please go to Honestreporting.com and sign up for their email alerts.

Mike Pence: Give 'em Hell in November!

By Connie Hair, Human Events, 9/12/10

The 9-12 Taxpayer March on Washington in the nation's capitol Sunday began at the Washington Monument and concluded at the Capitol building where thousands in attendance heard from grassroots conservative leaders like former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), Erick Erickson of RedState.com (an HE sister publication) and Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Chairman of the House Republican Conference spoke at the rally where people from around the country again made their presence known on Capitol Hill by the thousands.
Pence's remarks as prepared for delivery:
"I'm Mike Pence. I'm from Indiana. Welcome back to your nation's Capitol!

"I'm sure the press is going to focus on the numbers again, at this and other 9-12 events. But the only numbers that really matter are 51, 218 and 1.

“In 51 days, there will not be 218 Democrats left in Congress, and one liberal from San Francisco will no longer be Speaker of the House!

“The truth is there is nothing that ails this government that could not be solved by paying more careful attention to the principles enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

“And the Pelosi-led Congress is about to get a crash course in the Constitution, especially the meaning of ‘consent of the governed.’

“We, the governed,

• Do NOT consent to a government takeover of health care and will not rest until we repeal Obamacare -- lock, stock and barrel!
• We do NOT consent to runaway federal spending by either political party. And we demand an end to the borrowing, spending and bailouts once and for all!
• We do NOT consent to one more failed stimulus bill. The American people know we can’t borrow and spend our way back to a growing economy.
• We do NOT consent to higher taxes on any American in the worst economy in 25 years. When did higher taxes ever get anybody hired?

“No American should face a tax increase in January …not one. We will not compromise our economy to accommodate the class warfare rhetoric of this administration.

“You know, it is becoming more clear every day (to paraphrase one of my heroes) that a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose your job and recovery is when Nancy Pelosi loses her job!

“You have come to our nation’s Capitol at a historic moment in the life of this still-young republic.

“A nation conceived in liberty has come of age in bondage to big government. We've lost respect in the world. We are going broke. The American dream is dying and our social and cultural fabric is unraveling.
"People are scared. If we do not succeed in November, all that once was good and great about this country could someday be gone.
"But we will remember in this November and every November to come, not only our rights under the Constitution, but our duty to defend them.
“November 2nd is not about controlling the reins of power. It is about reining in the power!

“America is not about free stuff; it is about freedom.

“But this is the moment, now is the time, to take your stand for what makes this country great.

“And as you take to the field in the next 51 days to do freedom’s work, know this: you will not fight alone.

“Engraved on the Liberty Bell are words of admonition from an ancient text. It reads, ‘Proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.’ The Old Book also says, ‘Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.’

“Translation: when we proclaim liberty, when we do freedom’s work, we make His work our very own.

“Men and women of the 9-12 March, the time has come to take our stand. We must not be afraid, and we must fight for what has always been the source of American greatness: our faith in God and our freedom.

“And if we hold that banner high, I believe with all my heart the good and great people of this land will rally to our cause.

“We will win this Congress back in 2010 and win this country back in 2012 so help us God.
“Remember in November, and let’s give them a November they’ll never forget!”

A Christian Speaks Out about a Divided Jerusalem

Dividing Jerusalem 

By MIKE EVANS

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approached the peace talks in Washington last week uttering words and phrases we’ve not heard from him before, i.e., “President Abbas, you are my partner…I see in you a partner for peace…I am fully aware and I respect your people’s desire for sovereignty.” 


The questions are myriad, “Is he simply trying to appease President Obama before it becomes necessary to attack Iran? Is relinquishing part of the West Bank compulsory in order to acquire approval from the Obama administration for a direct strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Will he include Judea and Samaria in his talks with Abbas?” After all, Mr. Netanyahu uttered the dreaded words “concede territory.” Perhaps for the first time in his political career he is walking in the footsteps of those prime ministers before him. 


His nemesis, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is to lead the next round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in Jerusalem, starting September 15. The setting dramatically focuses attention on the core issue of Jerusalem, particularly after Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced his plan to re-divide the city in an eventual peace deal. 


Barak set tongues wagging in March, when he told Al-Jazeera that some Jerusalem neighborhoods might become part of a Palestinian capital. "We can find a formula under which certain neighborhoods, heavily populated Arab neighborhoods, could become, in a peace agreement, part of the Palestinian capital that, of course, will include also the neighboring villages around Jerusalem," Barak said. 


This assertion was not surprising, given Barak’s record. When he was prime minister, he pulled the Israel Defense Forces out of Lebanon, proposed giving the Golan Heights back to Syria, and even offered the late and unlamented Yasser Arafat the Temple Mount. 


Barak’s “solution” for Jerusalem, as he floated it again on September 1: "West Jerusalem and 12 Jewish neighborhoods that are home to 200,000 residents will be ours. The Arab neighborhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs. There will be a special regime in place along with agreed upon arrangements in the Old City, the Mount of Olives, and the City of David." 


Is this the same Ehud Barak, who as prime minister publicly declared on Jerusalem Day, in June 2000—marking the city’s reunification in the Six Day War—that Israel’s sovereign capital would never again be divided? 


"Jerusalem shall forever remain ours, because it is in our souls. Never again will Jerusalem be under foreign sovereignty. Only someone who has no sense of reality, who does not understand anything about Israel's yearning and longing and the Jewish people's historical connection to Jerusalem for over 3,000 years would even consider making any concessions over the city," Barak said a decade ago. 


The topic of a united Jerusalem has bound the Jewish people together for some 3,000 years. It stands as the eternal, undivided City of God. It was King David’s capital and housed both the First and Second Temples whose only remains is the Western Wall where the Jewish people gather to pray each day. 


Between 1948 and 1967, under Jordanian oversight, conditions in Jerusalem were deplorable, even by medieval standards. Jews were barred from worshiping at the Western Wall, the Jewish quarter in the old city was destroyed, and synagogues were demolished. Three-fourths of the tombstones in the Mount of Olives Cemetery were ripped out and used to build a hotel and to pave a path leading to army latrines. Many Christians were denied access to their revered Holy sites. 


Having experienced Arab rule in part of Jerusalem, why would Ehud Barak again want to subject the Jewish people and Christians worldwide to such indignity? Israeli prime ministers have allowed themselves to be dragged from one bargaining table to another and have been forced to give up land for a peace that has never materialized. The only thing the Jewish people received from the Palestinians has been two intifadas, terrorist attacks too numerous to recount, civilians maimed and slaughtered, and the disdain of the world at large. 


Ehud Barak has tried before to give Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Will his plan prevail at the bargaining table? Which Ehud Barak is the real one regarding Jerusalem? Maybe this doesn’t matter; maybe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has the same position today as he stated at the Jerusalem Conference in January 2009: 


“We have demonstrated in the past, and will continue to demonstrate our commitment to a complete, undivided Jerusalem... Everyone knows what will happen if we were to leave those areas and divide Jerusalem. Someone will enter—and that someone will be Hamas.” 


Jerusalem has been a bone in the throat of the world. It is one of the most ancient capitals not recognized as a capital. International leaders think they can play a tune and Israel will respond like a cobra in the basket of a snake charmer. There is no fear of being bitten. They should beware the venom of the cobra. 


The ancient prophet Zachariah cried out, “I will make Jerusalem a cup that will send all the surrounding people reeling … an immovable rock for all nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.” 


Mike Evans is a New York Times bestselling author, most recently of Atomic Iran.

A Cautionary Note from Erick Erickson

The founder and head honcho of Redstate.com--the conservative activist website-- reminds us that notwithstanding some impressive primary victories conservatives have won nothing---yet.

In the face of petty feuds and squabbles among Republicans in the wake of primary upsets, etc., Erick urges conservatives and moderate Republicans alike to act like grownups and unite to defeat Democrats in November.

Erick has his finger on the pulse of the conservative movement.  His words ought to be heeded.

Meet Imam Rauf, Liberal Icon

by Scott Italiaander

The man of the moment for virtually the New York Times  and the entire New York-based elite media is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the promoter of the Cordoba Initiative Mosque--oops, I mean Park51 "community center"-- near Ground Zero.   So busy are they defending the religious freedom of Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan (never mind the fact that not one critic of the proposed project--NOT ONE--has challenged it on religious grounds), and attacking mosque opponents (except for Harry Reid and Howard Dean, who are given a pass) as intolerant Islamophobes, the legacy media has willfully avoided asking questions about the political views or the character of the promoters themselves. 

Well,  across the Hudson River from the New York Times building--worldwide headquarters of erudite opinion-- the editors of the Bergen County Record have found the time and energy to do a little digging, and found that the good Imam owns several taxpayer-subsidized apartments in northern New Jersey which are, shall we say, not exactly maintained as luxury flats

In conjunction with others, Rauf is now taking on the largest project of his life with a track record showing that, despite government subsidies, he has had trouble maintaining small apartment buildings in North Bergen, Palisades Park and Union City.  Page after page of municipal health records examined by The Record show repeated complaints ranging from failure to pick up garbage, to rat and bedbug infestations and no heat and hot water...

Cynthia Balko, 48, of Union City — a longtime tenant of Rauf’s — said she’s had to live with rats, leaks and no heat: “I don’t have anything nice to say about the man.”  

She finds it hard to believe Rauf’s going to build a world-class Islamic community center, with fitness facilities, auditorium, restaurant, library, culinary school and art studios, as well as a Sept. 11 memorial and space for Muslim prayer services.

“He can’t even repair the bells in the hallway. He doesn’t take care of his properties. But he’s going to take care of a mosque?

The Record asked for a response from Daisy Khan, who replied that the Imam's track record as a landlord has no bearing on his promotion of the mosque. “He invests in real estate, much as someone would invest in stocks, bonds or other assets to secure one’s future and provide an income stream. He has dedicated his life to helping others working as an Imam.”  By suggesting that her husband is merely a passive investor in a variety of assets, Khan is unwittingly confirming the allegations of the Imam's New Jersey tenants, to wit: the Imam's "passivity" seems to extend to taking care of his properties for the people who pay him (i.e., the tenants and the taxpayers who subsidize them) to do so.

Whatever this says about his fitness to run the mosque project, it gives the lie to any claims by Daisy or the Imam that Muslims in general and the Rauf-Khans in particular have suffered from anti-Muslim discrimination.  By apparently securing millions in taxpayer funding for renovations that he either never completed or failed to maintain, the Imam seems to have reaped the benefits enjoyed by many a big-city slumlord and political operator--slurping at the government trough while flipping the bird to the rest of us.

If indeed the taxpayers of New York subsidize $70 million in tax-exempt industrial bonds to help finance the Ground Zero mosque  as reported Friday, then Imam Rauf's taxpayer ripoffs in New Jersey will seem like child's play.

Jesse Jackson could learn a few things about public extortion from Imam Rauf.

Judea Pearl: Why I am Against the G.Z. Mosque

Daniel Pearl's father, Judea, a professor at UCLA and the president of a foundation named in Daniel's memory, weighs in on the Ground Zero mosque controversy.  Professor Pearl stands with the vast majority of Americans who oppose the mosque for reasons having nothing to do with the denial of religious freedom. In a sense, Pearl  blames America for the status of so-called "moderate" Muslims in this country:

[We] have not helped Muslims in the confidence-building process. Treating homegrown terror acts as isolated incidents of psychological disturbances while denying their ideological roots has given American Muslim leaders the illusion that they can achieve public acceptance without engaging in serious introspection and responsibility sharing for allowing victimhood, anger and entitlement to spawn such acts.


Yes, America is to blame for the plight of Muslims, asserts Pearl, but not in the way that the pro-Mosque grievance-mongers would have you think.  By bending over backwards to appease Muslim sensibilities we have encouraged American Muslims to think that they are owed respect and legitimacy without being held accountable for their words and deeds, or their silence in the face of the words and deeds of their more extreme co-religionists.

I believe when it comes to "moral authority," Mr. Pearl has more of it in spades than do those on the other side of the Mosque divide.  He should be listened to.

Marco Rubio (R-Fl) for Senate

Anyone gotta a problem with this? Cause I sure don't....

Rosett: Imam Cashing In on Ground Zero

The following article by Claudia Rosett appeared today on Forbes.com:


Freedom's Edge
Cashing In On Ground Zero


Among the prime planners of a $100 million Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero, it's not just Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who is visiting the Middle East this summer at U.S. taxpayer expense. The State Department is also about to send Rauf's wife and Cordoba Initiative fellow director, Daisy Khan, on her own taxpayer-funded "public diplomacy" trip to the United Arab Emirates. Khan is scheduled to visit the UAE from Aug. 29 to Sept. 2, overlapping there with Rauf, for whom it will be the final leg of a three-country trip including Bahrain and Qatar.

The U.S. Embassy in the UAE capital of Abu Dhabi has posted on its website an announcement of the impending visit by this husband-wife team. Rauf and Khan will be there, the announcement says, "to engage foreign audiences and build people-to-people ties" and to "discuss their experiences as Muslims living and working in the United States."

What might their discussions entail? Rauf, since his Cordoba Initiative's Ground Zero mosque project triggered a national uproar, has spent the summer as an enigma. Before embarking on his State-sponsored tour, he walled himself off for weeks in Malaysia, where he has longstanding ties and keeps an office. His Cordoba website now features a note that Rauf could not be available (apparently not even by phone) to explain himself to the people of New York because "he travels the world in his life-long endeavor to bring the message of moderation, peace and understanding to both Western and Islamic countries."

In Rauf's absence, Daisy Khan has been speaking prolifically from New York about the Cordoba House mega-mosque project (which the developer recently re-dubbed Park 51, and the Cordoba House is now describing as a "community center"). Her message, like the name of the project, has been morphing at speed. When Rauf and Khan won approval for their 15-story mosque-topped Cordoba House from a Manhattan community board this spring, they advertised their project as all about doing their part for harmony and healing near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks.

When it turned out that a majority of New Yorkers, and Americans generally, think this project is more like rubbing salt in a wound, Khan shifted focus. She's now talking about the Cordoba project as a test of American religious tolerance. If a majority of Americans--cognizant that the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out by Muslims, in the name of Islam--think it's inappropriate to stage that test near the edge of Ground Zero, Khan's retort is that they must be bigots. In an interview last week with the Washington Post's Sally Quinn, she lamented: "When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?"

On Sunday, interviewed on ABC TV's This Week by Christiane Amanpour, Khan ratcheted up her complaints. Amanpour asked, "Is America Islamophobic?"

Khan replied, "It's not even Islamophobia, it's beyond Islamophobia. It's hate of Muslims."

For the State Department to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars sending someone with those views on a "public diplomacy" trip to the Middle East is a curious exercise. Rauf's trip is costing $16,000. Khan's will cost $12,000. If Khan will be collecting the same $496 per diem that Rauf will be getting in Abu Dhabi, this will include a joint $982 per day for creature comforts, as Khan spreads her opinions about Muslim life in America--and builds people-to-people ties in an Islamic state loaded with billions in oil wealth. State has told Rauf and Khan to refrain from conducting "personal business" while rubbing shoulders on the taxpayer dime, but how they follow up on any of those ties is presumably up to them.

A broader issue here is why Daisy Khan, self-proclaimed healer and bridge-builder of Ground Zero, is now styling herself as an aggrieved victim. America has delivered to both Rauf and Khan a life in which they have freely practiced their religion and been free to convert others--including a sister-in-law of their real-estate partner, Sharif El-Gamal. Both arrived in this country as immigrants, and had conferred upon them the full panoply of American rights and freedoms.

Rauf is of Egyptian descent, born in Kuwait. Khan hails from India's Islamist hotbed of Kashmir. Rauf by his own account has held forth for more than 20 years at the Al-Farah mosque in lower Manhattan (there has been no outcry for the removal of mosques already extant in the area on Sept. 11; the issue is their plan to build a new one, provocatively close to the site of the destroyed Twin Towers). Rauf sits on the board of trustees of the Islamic Center of New York, a large facility established on Manhattan's Upper East Side by his father, who also ran a big Islamic center in Washington. Rauf serves as an advisor to the Interfaith Center of New York, and, like Khan, has been welcomed to spread his messages by a long list of foundations and institutions, including Jewish centers, churches and schools. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, Rauf has been tapped for three previous taxpayer-funded "outreach" jaunts to the Middle East, two in 2007 and a third earlier this year.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, far from being shunned as Muslims, Rauf and Khan have enjoyed a boom business in "outreach." Their lifestyle includes at least two homes in the U.S. and one in Malaysia, fancy cars and pricey clothes. Last October, in an article headlined "High Five With Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf," Forbes chronicled the imam's pleasure in driving a Lexus GS400. Rauf also detailed how he enjoys Armani and Brioni suits, his wife likes her cashmere scarves, and he mentioned his fondness for handcrafted Persian rugs, especially those woven of silk. He added that he owns about 15 carpets dispersed between his homes in New Jersey and New York, and another 15 carpets "at my home in Malaysia."

As for bigotry in America, the FBI in its most recent report on "Hate Crime Statistics," released in 2008, does point to a group more victimized than any other, targets of 65.7% of all reported religious hate crimes. Those people are not Muslims, but Jews, victims of almost eight times as many hate crimes.

For Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, Ground Zero has become a bonanza. Since their plans hit the headlines this spring, they have achieved celebrity status on a scale that millions in advertising, or less abrasive "outreach" efforts, could not buy. Their names are all over the news. Their project has become a fixture on the summer talk shows. In the escalating furor, along with the criticisms , they have received de facto endorsements from such prominent folks as New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Barack Obama (whose supportive remarks about their project, delivered at an Aug. 13 Iftar dinner at the White House, are now featured on U.S. embassy websites worldwide; but whose later waffling is not). Their real-estate partner, El-Gamal, has told the press, "This might become the most famous community center in the world." Whatever comes of this, Rauf, Khan and El-Gamal are likely to dine out on it--and well--for a long time.

And make no mistake. While the Cordoba Initiative is now implying on its website that the mosque and Islamic center is mainly about serving a neighborhood, and "is not located at Ground Zero," Rauf himself told a very different tale to the New York Times last December. Back then, Rauf said the location's chief attraction was its proximity to Ground Zero--so close that it is, as he noted, "Where a piece of the wreckage fell." In Rauf's view, that made for an ideal venue to make "the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11."

A majority of Americans then dared to disagree with this particular prescription of the self-described "Founder and Visionary" of the Cordoba Initiative. And now, the televised statement reverberating from Khan--on the eve of her $12,000 taxpayer-funded trip to join Rauf in the marble halls of Abu Dhabi and Dubai--is a denunciation of America as a Muslim-hating place, "beyond Islamophobia."

What's going on here is not a gauge of American religious tolerance. It has become a test of the extent to which Rauf, Khan, and their partners and donors, seen or unseen, are willing for their own aggrandizement to cash in on the agonies of Ground Zero. In this scheme, the thousands of Americans murdered on Sept. 11 in the name of Islam have by now become a backdrop for Daisy Khan's claim that she is the victim of a Muslim-hating America. There's an old name for this kind of stunt, and it isn't bridge-building. It's carpet-bagging.

Claudia Rosett, a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly column on foreign affairs for Forbes.