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.

Hanging the Dems on their own Race Chad.

The Democrats New/Old Southern Strategy

By Scott Wheeler & Buckley Carlson, from the National Republican Trust

As many have known for years and warned frequently, the Democratic Party strategy of race-baiting was merely a tactic to gain political power for their White leadership. Sound really cynical? Take a look at the new strategy. Old habits die hard, as the saying goes.  And so, too, do deeply-rooted, institutional policies reflective of a rotten core...like the Democratic Party's harboring of bold racial animus and disdain while claiming the mantle of "diversity," and at the same time, employing the most overtly divisive racial political strategies seen in this country during the past 60 years.

If not for racism, how else to account for the pervasive corruption in the Democratic party, and yet, under the authority of the Democrat-controlled Office of Congressional Ethics, only one White member is under investigation, while at least eight Black members are?  Coincidence?  Seems unlikely.

Chris Dodd.  Barney Frank.  Nancy Pelosi.  Jim Moran.  These are just some of the names that swiftly percolate to the surface during any man-on-the-street interview with regular Americans when you ask their views on corrupt politicians.  And yet, not a one of them is currently under investigation by the Democrat-controlled Office of Congressional Ethics.

So, what is it, exactly, that differentiates those members of the Democratic Party from, say, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Melvin Watt, or Jesse Jackson, Jr., all of whom are currently enjoying "official, enhanced scrutiny"?  Time in office? Power at hand? Intelligence? Good luck?  Or, have they garnered special treatment simply because of the color of their skin?

Seem far-fetched? Here is how Democrat cheerleader Froma Harrop described Pelosi's strategy in her Real Clear Politics column:

"That the Democrats under the microscope -- New York Rep. Charles B. Rangel and California Rep. Maxine Waters -- are both black only underscores the seriousness with which the Democratic leadership supports a new set of standards for conduct."

In the 45 years since the inception of Civil Rights legislation in America, Democrats have taken Blacks from the back of the Democrat bus, propelled them up to the front of the bus when the microphones and the cameras were in evidence - festooning their likeness throughout - and then chucked them unceremoniously under the bus in order to get back what they consider their lost redneck voters.  And yet, this is the political party that consistently "earns" over 90% of Black support at the polls?

Nancy Pelosi, who famously claimed to an un-skeptical press corps that she was going to "drain the swamp" of Washington corruption, has turned into the Creature from the Black Lagoon, mossy barnacles of corruption affixed to all but the surgically-enhanced square inches of her tight visage.  The Democrats' ranks are literally rife with corruption; even a limp-wristed, blind swing of the piñata paddle would yield burst pustules of theft, bribes, and lies.  And yet, Pelosi's efforts have yielded no white members, while ensnaring a full 38% of the Congressional Black Caucus.

According to David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, "PMA was shut down last year and raided by the FBI in the wake of several reports that its employees and clients were allegedly trading contributions for hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks from certain members of Congress. This accusation has never been proven, and the Office of Congressional Ethics dropped its investigation last year." An investigation that would have netted half a dozen or so White Democrats for allegedly taking millions of dollars in bribes, making what Rangel and Jefferson had done look like petty theft by comparison, until that investigation was shut down by the very same "office of Congressional Ethics" that has taken up investigating Black Democrats, at a very suspicious time- right before the November elections.

Pelosi isn't draining the swamp, she is holding Rangel's and Water's heads under the swamp water. According to the guidelines as established and aggressively heralded by Pelosi and the Liberal Left, the Democratic Party is guilty, at minimum, of "racial profiling"...of the kind they routinely accuse our nation's police of employing.  At a minimum.

But, if we apply the same standards that Pelosi and the Liberal Left force American private businesses to adhere to, then what we are witness to is racism, pure and simple.  If this was an affirmative action case, does anyone doubt that the evidence as presented would lead to a conviction?

To believe otherwise makes one a racist by Democrat standards.  This is what they have demanded from the rest of us for years.

If you run a company and your employee base does not reflect the "racial make-up" of the community in which you are located, regardless of who has applied to work there?  The verdict is swift and clear: Racial Discrimination!

If law enforcement arrests a disproportionate number of minorities?  Again, the "evidence" is incontrovertible: Racial Discrimination!

So, if the Democratic Party engages in a "comprehensive effort" to rid its own body of corruption - a body that has long emitted the sights, sounds, smell of corruption - and then identifies ONLY Black members, when they represent just a small percentage of the total?  Well, apply the Democratic Party Racial Calculus, and you can only conclude: Institutional Racism!

Democratic Party racism aside, we're not suggesting that Rangel, Waters, William Jefferson, etc. have been vindicated.  But we think it's clear they were under the delusion that they, too, were free to participate in the wanton looting that has always firmly - if sort of quietly - defined the soul- the rich, White liberal soul of the Democratic Party.  It is now clear that they were never part of the "elite," and that no one bothered to tell them that "carte blanche" in the Democratic Party is delineated with a "hard c", as in blanc, for white...In other words, you DO get a free pass, IF you're rich, WHITE, and liberal.

Pelosi and the Democratic Party have wielded the racial baton for years, silencing dissent, undermining opposition, engaging in the most egregious of personal attacks, and always for political ends.  And most often without even the slightest morsel of evidence.

"Evidence" was never important; THEY were the arbiters of racism.  In fact, how often does one hear that charge of racism now?  How about every time a conservative defends States Rights...declares affection for the 10th Amendment...or displays opposition to ObamaCare?

But perhaps the Democrats' favorite tactic - aided and abetted by a sympathetic, sycophantic media - has always featured the slander of "unintentional racism," meaning someone could be guilty of racism, but not even conscious of it.  Although slightly mitigating - "2nd Degree Murder", anyone? - this was also the most insidious of charges, because by it's very nature it could not be accounted for...or defended against.

Well, Pelosi and her liberal leadership are guilty of much worse than even "unintentional racism."  Their racism is active, passionate, and very much pre-meditated.  In fact, it's part of a much larger strategy to win back key Southern political districts.  Abhorrent, for sure.  But also risky: will the Democrats' strategy of hanging their Black members out as bait bring back their historically racist caucus?  Does that constituency even exist anymore?  And can the media, the Congressional Black Caucus, and concerned Americans everywhere tolerate this disgusting racism any longer?  We thought this type of politics - surely the "Politics As Usual" historically practiced by the Democratic Party, and subsequently decried by its leader - were relics of the past.  They sure should be.

The "Ground Zero Mosque"

From the editors of Redstate.com.

In Praise of Financial Reform (Satirical Version)

From David McAlvany at McAlvany Wealth Management:


The Financial Reform Bill passed.  We will have consumer protections. There will no longer be unsound lending practices. Capital requirements for banks will be managed and regulated. The unwinding of systemic threats will be left to the most capable of market operators (business experience not required).

These and other goals have been reached with this massive (2,300-page) piece of legislation.  Let’s thank Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, along with the courageous Republicans and Democrats that supported the bill, for their efforts to make America safe.

With gratitude, we should reflect on what has made America great.  Surely the greatness of this country derives from its rules and regulations.  What would we be without legislation?  Surely it has always been about safety.  Can you imagine a world where risk abounds and people flit around carelessly – without every possible protective measure guiding them peacefully through life?

Surely the “seen hand” of government can add more to productivity and growth in our economy than “free” markets.  If Barney Frank has taught us anything, it is surely that the unseen hand of the market is an evil that can only be overcome by the sheer weight of moral outrage measured in pages and pontification, and weighing in at about 23.5 lbs. (I have to guess at the weight, not knowing the stock of paper our DC heroes use on these epic projects).

This weekend, I’ll wonder, in fact, how we came this far (over 200 lucky years) without so profound a contribution.  I’ll always wonder where we would be if only we had had the state in control of the financial world from the outset – and everything else for that matter (they do a better job).

I’m so glad to see bi-partisan participation.  Isn’t it neat to see differences set aside on issues that will determine the fate of this nation – voting as one on our behalf?  It is comforting to know that, with all the confusion and chaos in the world, you really don’t even have to choose between parties. They both generously serve the American public and our interests.   Every two- and four-year election is really more about entertainment as we go to the polls and cast our votes for the same team.

At the end of a week like this, I’m surprised the market ended on such a dour note.  With so much hope for reform and so much control shifting from New York to DC (where the truly noble people congregate), it’s odd to see the market sell off so strongly.  Doesn’t the market know that this is a good piece of legislation?  Don’t investors see that the benefits of this legislation are as numerous as the pages it contains — and more?  Mr. Market is getting it all wrong.

Mr. Market, go up now.  All is well.  All is properly legislated.  You can go up now!  Take Courage, be filled with hope … you have to, according to page 1700, paragraph 3, section 7. 

Sure he made us mad, but...

This was forwarded by a friend.  I don't know if it is true.  I hope it is.  It sure sounds like the GWB we know and love.

Class shows up...

 The doctor  had his TV on in his office when the news of the  military base shootings at Ft. Hood , TX came on.  The husband of one of his employees was stationed  there.

He called her into his office and as he  told her what had happened, she got a text message  from her husband saying, "I am okay."  Her  cell phone rang right after she read the message.  It was an ER nurse,” I’m the one who just sent you  a text, not your husband. I thought it would be  comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am  sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been  shot 4 times and he is in surgery."

The  soldier's wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan , AL  and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. 

She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors  there to comfort him. 

He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors  by his side. The nurse took this picture.

What?  No news crews and cameras?  This is how people with class respond and pay respect to those in uniform.

I sent my cousin in Fayetteville , N.C. (Retired from Special Forces) that picture of Geo. W. visiting  the wounded at Ft. Hood.  I got this reply:

 What is even better is the fact George W. Bush heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood.  He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped.   Bush only asks for directions to the hospital then drove on.  The gate guard called that "The President is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital."
 
 The base went bananas looking for Obama.  When they found it was Bush, they immediately offered escort.  Bush simply told them no escort, just let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead.
He stayed  at Fort Hood for over six hours, and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.

 Obama flew in days later, held a "photo" session in a gym, and did not even go to the hospital.  All this from two soldiers who happened to be at Fort Hood when it happened.  This Bush/Obama/Ft.Hood story is something that should be sent to every voter in the US .  Those who wanted "change" certainly got  it.

"Obama's Greek Tragedy"

From Victor David Hanson.

Anti-Semitism: Coming to America?

It's not here yet, says writer J.R. Dunn at The American Thinker.   Helen Thomas's outrageous and virulent comments show that in some precincts, ant-Jewish rhetoric is tolerated if not encouraged.   But the swift reaction against her by the American mainstream (which trickled up to influence elite opinion) indicates that anti-semitism has yet to grab a foothold in American society as it has in Europe and elsewhere, argues Dunn.

Dunn ties the fall of France and Germany as great powers directly to the modern, intellectual variant of anti-semitism that grew like topsy within their societies beginning in the 19th century.  In France, the Dreyfus affair in the 1890's caused a decades-long split among the ranks of intellectuals, between those who believed that Dreyfus was framed (he was) and those who needed his Jewishness as the only proof of treason.  According to Dunn, many among the "ultramontane, ultranationalist" elements in France wore anti-semitism as a badge of honor.

In Germany, heavy-duty intellectuals like Richard Wagner in the 1850s pushed anti-semitism from the fringes of polite society to the salons of the elites that held enormous influence over popular opinion.  They gave anti-semitism the intellectual weight and heft necessary to penetrate the consciousness of the masses and move to the center of "Deutsche Politik." Less than a century later, both France and Germany lay in ruins, the former destroyed by the latter and the latter defeated by the America and her allies.

So far, says Dunn, anti-semitic (disguised as pro-Palestine or anti-Israel) rhetoric in America is confined to "second-rank or over the hill" activists and entertainers like Danny Glover and Jane Fonda (and hack journalists like Helen Thomas) with an assist from pseudo-intellectuals like John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt of "Israel Lobby" fame and Jewish liberals like Peter Beinart.  The Obama administration has introduced some figures of low repute and standing who harbor anti-Jewish sentiments, like diplomat Charles Freeman.  But there exists no popular figure in America with wide-ranging appeal to the masses a la Wagner in Germany that could give anti-semitism the respectability and intellectual grounding necessary for it to spread into the heartland.

What the Helen Thomas affair shows, says Dunn, is that European-style anti-semitism has not spread to America in any significant sense.  Dunn wonders, however, whether there lurks in our future a dark and evil figure with the stature and renown to influence the masses into adopting the "oldest hatred" in its most virulent form.