Yoda

It's a toss-up: which is more impotent and hypocritical? The UN or the Obama Administration.

2011-03-01T19:37:00.000-08:00

Recent events have revealed the vacuity of "experts" on the Middle East, the hypocrisy and uselessness of the U.N. ( March 18 was supposed to witness the release of a report LAUDING the human rights record of Gaddaffi and sons ) and Obama refrains from doing (or even saying ) anything about revolutionaries being murdered in the streets of Tehran and belatedly joins in a weak denunciation of Gaddaffi ( whose terrorists, until Al Qaeda, murdered more Americans than any other agency ) but throws Mubarak under the bus so quickly a democratic opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't have time to form.

http://tinyurl.com/4k7r8ms

What was the purpose of Obama's WH remarks after Mubarak's speech?

2011-02-01T16:48:00.000-08:00

It is curious that President Obama thought it necessary to interject his own remarks to an American audience after Mubarak had announced that he wouldn't run for re-election. He didn't endorse or gainsay the idea that Mubarak would preside over an "orderly transition" and not stand for re-election. He piously proclaimed that, whatever the Egyptian people decided, the U.S. would continue to stand in support. Perhaps motivated by simple narcissim, some of what he said might be counterproductive.

Now, the best thing for peace and stability in the region is for the military to assume an important role so as to preclude the dominance of the Muslim Brotherhood or even the broad "democratic" will which is anti-American and anti-Israel and will almost certainly jeopardize the peace agreement of thirty years' standing. This would require some time for such a transition to be effected. Obama has essentially committed himself to continuing support ( presumably the aid that he threatened to withdraw if Mubarak didn't do the right thing ) even if the rule in Eqypt becomes quickly Islamist and radicalized. Precipitate action has invariably led to takeover of revolutions by more radical elements. (Cf the Bolsheviks taking over from the Mensheviks, Nasser taking over from General Naguib, Saddam Hussein taking over from those who overthrew the Hashemite king of Iraq, ...even the Ayatollah taking over from the immediate revolt against the Shah and the interim rule of Baktiar.

It has been only the military in Muslim countries that has prevented the otherwise inevitable drift to Islamism. Turkey has only recently, after almost a century of military-led restraint, turned Islamist. Likewise, Algeria and others.

Obama is likely to follow in the footsteps of the feckless Carter, who turned a stanch Iranian into a committed and lethal enemy, and preside over the transition of Egypt from friend to foe, likewise.

Once again, Israel will see the folly of trading a piece of paper for tangible resources. Only between stable democracies, can treaties be counted upon to mean something after the passing of those who signed them ( although, even here, Obama and Clinton have abrogated some agreements put in writing by Bush.)

Unrest in the Mideast finds a Jimmy Carter clone mucking up US foreign policy

2011-01-28T12:32:00.001-08:00

The situation in Egypt is very unstable. Mubarek is old and sick and his sons are reported to have just defected to the U.K. with the rest of his family.The Tunisian example makes all regimes unstable and the people, largely young, suffer from umemployment and food shortages. Just as in the Iranian Revolution, a revolution that started off secular is likely to transmute into a religious revolution with the Muslim Brotherhood a clear winner, as were the mullahs in Iran in 1979. Obama is likely, as did Carter, to stay hands off as radical elements take over. Support for El Baradej might do some good if the CIA is on top of the situation ( which, unfortunately, they probably are not.) Obama's position is inconsistent and, amazingly, so far wrong. A year ago, there was a potential revolution in Iran and Obama pissed away the opportunity to endorse it. It was a dominated decision for anyone but an Obama because the regime in power is unalterably hostile to our interests so ANY CHANGE would have been for the better. So Obama endorses the status quo. There was no downside because, even had the wrong side won ( as it did anyway ), those against the mullahs would have remembered and thought they could on the U.S. (Reagan supported the Solidarity Movement in Poland at a speech but then got shot immediately thereafter so it was forgotten...except by Lech Walesa who subsequently said that he drew great support from Reagan's words. ) Carter undermined the Shah and boosted the Ayatollah, without knowing that Iran was going from the frying pan into the fire. Obama should act gingerly until he knows ( assuming his "people" know and that they can convince him ) who is going to replace Mubarek. The difference between Egypt now and Iran a year ago is that Mubarek is presently an ally and the Ahmadinejad was ( and is ) definitely NOT.

It is reflexive but stupid for Obama and Clinton to urge Egypt to reconnect the internet and social networks that were instrumental in spreading the Iranian revolt of a year ago.

The price of oil is likely to go up both because of unrest among oil-producing countries but also because the Suez Canal is at risk. Oil producers well outside the region of instability are likely to profit, provided they can expand their production. This excludes American domestic producers who are hampered by the Obama administration, itself. More promising by far is PBR and STO, the national oil companies of Brazil and Norway, respectively. Other forms of available energy ( i.e. not the blue sky versions of Obamamians ) like coal and natural gas should benefit since they are expandable.

Gold and silver are likely to benefit from the uncertainty as are agricultural commodities because of the food shortages and threat to transportation through the Suez.US aid to Egypt has been largely to aid the military ( which is peculiar given that it is likely directed against Israel with whom the US has counted on Egypt maintaining peace. ) Aid should be redirected to food and consumer goods that might mitigate complaints. Ironically, it might be Bernanke whose policies have exported inflation to other countries resulting in rising food prices in Egypt and other places.

If, as is likely, the Muslim Brotherhood achieves power ( or, at least, great influence ) peace between Egypt and Israel is threatened and more military aid ( albeit not, one hopes, for Egypt ) will be required. That means defense companies will get increased business at least for those things that don't involve American military personnel but, rather, materiEl that will have to be supplied to Israel and other allies in the MidEast with Turkey being a potential hotspot, probably more critical than Egypt because its government has already turned Islamist.

Oil is going 'way up; probably gold as well since inflation will spike all over.Domestic American oil companies will still be hobbled by the environuts of the Obama administration.

What Obama doesn't say about Muslims...he's wrong but is it deliberate?

2011-01-25T20:57:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/6zc77bj

It ain't all the things you don't know; it's all the things you know that ain't so.

2011-01-24T07:44:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/m8hgpd
Resisting climate hysteria by Richard Lindzen
****The effects of politically-motivated junk science are not benign.Environmentalist nuts have prevented the construction of dams that would have palliated the flooding in Queensland, Australia and the changing of levees that would have reduced the effects of Katrina in New Orleans. Also, vaccines do NOT cause autism in children but many children were denied vaccination while the false claims had to be dealt with.What accounts for the Left's embracing of all this folly? Perhaps it's a desire to save the world by endorsing some simplistic position that makes them feel useful without the necessity of actually learning scientific method and the humility that comes with it. It is the certainty of religious faith that stokes fervor.For professional scientists, going along with nonsense is lamentably due to the desire for notoriety and grant money that causes them to endorse positions that are unsustainable by actual science.The politicization of science is quite dangerous because remediation of natural disasters is often precluded.****

Muslims and Truth: not much overlap

2011-01-12T07:25:00.001-08:00

Muslims and Truth - Benny Morris
In the wake of the New Year's Day bombing outside the church in Alexandria, Egypt, in which 23 Coptic Christians were murdered, Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Qabbani, Lebanon's Grand Mufti, immediately announced: "This assault...is not an individual internal Egyptian act, but a criminal act with Zionist...fingerprints." A spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Munim Abu al Fattouh Abdel, said: It could not have been Egyptians. Perhaps it was the Mossad. Iranian TV put it: "It goes without saying that no Muslim...will ever commit such an inhuman act."
This raises a serious question. What are the bounds of credulity in the mendacity-ridden Muslim societies of the Middle East? Is there no limit to what the infidel can be accused of - and to the expectation that the charge will stick? Which raises the still more profound question: What are the long-term prospects for peaceful cohabitation on planet Earth between us in the West and these Muslim societies in which truth has absolutely no traction or importance, where the masses believe that the CIA or the Mossad knocked down the Twin Towers on 9/11? (National Interest)

Despite their protestations, it's the Left that owns violence.

2011-01-10T18:47:00.001-08:00

****There are two Leftist precepts that they trot out repeatedly: 1) Accuse others of the things you know to be true of yourself; 2) The RAHMANTRA: Don' let a crisis go to waste. Amidst the phony accusations, one might well ask: Is the far left-wing Daily Kos to blame for instigating the murders in Tucson?****
http://tinyurl.com/37tvxbe
Is Daily Kos to blame for Gifford attack?
Rick Moran
There's no link to the diary entry at Daily Kos that is described in this posting from Hillbuzz. That's because Kos scrubbed it. Thankfully, several bloggers were able to capture screen shots of the post that used the word "dead" in relation to Rep. Giffords several times.
Diary headline: "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!" There are also several references to "dead" in the comment thread.
All of it now deleted - something Kos does on a regular basis when he wishes to change history. Kos also seems to have forgotten a posting of his calling for putting a "bullseye" on Giffords' district. The New York Times insinuated something about Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs in connection with the shooting, but so far as we have noticed, has not mentioned leftist violent rhetoiric and imagery...
****Now, of course we don't really blame DK for causing the murders but it points up the utter hypocrisy of Paul Krugman, the NYTimes, Sen Durbin,and many others of the left-wing hysteriate trying to blame Tea Partiers or Republicans or the right-wing for instigating the murders. It just happens that the loon who committed the crimes is characterized by an acquaintance as a "left-wing pothead" and self-described as admiring The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Not yet mentioned is the fact that Cong. Giffords is Jewish and most American anti-Semitism comes from the Left (e.g. Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, Baghdad Jim McDermott, James Traficant, Keith Ellison et al); Mein Kampf might have some relevance here.****

http://tinyurl.com/2exjsq6
The Left, Not the Right, Owns Political Violence By Michael Filozof
It took less than 24 hours for the political left to seize upon the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six people on Saturday to blame the political right for the shooting.
Perhaps the most egregious example came from Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who wrote, "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was." (The newspaper that published plagiarized and fabricated accounts of the "D.C. sniper" by affirmative-action hire Jayson Blair in 2003 is still publishing unsubstantiated suppositions without "proof," eh?)...

The 0.22 caliber solution, not great but best.

2011-01-10T11:03:00.000-08:00

The horrendous shooting in Tucson has some lessons, one perhaps counterintuitive. After shooting 19 people, the gunman was incapacitated by three heroes. A 61-year old woman grabbed his empty magazine and also the full one he was trying to reload. Another bystander tackled the gunman, joined by a third person who heard the commotion and ran over to help (toward the sound of gunfire rather than the perhaps more circumspect direction away). The last hero was armed ( covered carry being legal in Arizona ) and said that he would have shot the gunman had it been necessary but was happy that it wasn't since he was able to assist in the takedown.

Of course, there are the reflexive calls from the kneejerk Left for banning guns. There are several responses to this: 1) the gunman was known in some quarters to be mentally unstable and should have been prevented from purchasing a handgun, let alone the extended magazine, under PRESENT Federal law. 2) No law is going to suffice to keep guns away from criminals. Gun laws only suffice to keep guns away from ordinary citizens, usually the victims. 3) While Arizona has liberal gun laws ( and Congresswoman Giffords was a proponent of the Second Amendment ), no-one in the immediate crowd was armed.

Rather than limit gun ownership, it should be encouraged in the following way. Every citizen volunteer who can pass a legitimate and rigorous background check (possibly involving some quasi-deputization )should be encouraged to carry a small 0.22 caliber weapon after appropriate training. It's hard for a single person to do multiple lethal damage with such a weapon. A hail of bullets from several such weapons, however, should be enough to bring down an illegitimate gunman once he has identified himself as such. While this suggestion is not a panacea and wouldn't in all likelihood have prevented the "first-strike" shooting of Cong. Giffords, it likely would have prevented, or at least ameliorated, the shooting of 18 other people.Knowledge of the likely certainty of such a result might even provide an extra deterrent for even a first striker.

Mass public killings are fortunately rare but in many such cases, the extent of the killings would dramatically have been palliated by this policy. In the Virginia Tech shootings, also done by known loon who should never have been allowed to purchase a gun under PRESENT law, one of the bystanders had a weapon in his car but couldn't reach it in time since the school policy was to ban weapons from the campus, a stricture obviously not likely to be followed by either a crazy person or a criminal.In the V-Tech case, the shooter wasn't even stopped at the crime scene and had to be apprehended later. Without distance weapons, it takes extraordinary heroism to stop such a shooter before armed security people can arrive.

Tawfik Hamid on The Real Reasons Behind the Arab-Israeli Conflict

2011-01-04T18:32:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/34ujpsz
The Real Reasons Behind the Arab-Israeli Conflict By Tawfik Hamid
...Despite peace treaties such as the Oslo Accords, hatred toward Jews and Israel has risen to unprecedented levels in the Palestinian areas and continues to rise in much of the Muslim world...Israel proved its dedication to peace when it withdrew from Sinai, Lebanon, and Gaza in hope of peace with its neighbors...What perpetuates the stalemate? One ..Palestinians do not accept the existence of Israel...their participation in negotiations is fake, hypocritical, and doomed to fail. It is impossible to negotiate with a partner about borders if this partner does not accept your existence to begin with..second..is the selfish mentality of the Palestinian leadership....True leaders must be ready to make concessions to ensure a better life for their people....third..is the international community's naive belief that less radical Palestinians are “moderates.” Fatah is not much different from Hamas in its refusal to accept that Israel is an established country ...Fatah is also virtually identical to Hamas with regard to its promotion of extreme anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propagandist incitement....fourth...is that the Palestinian leadership prefers to live — and to make their population live — in delusions rather than in reality. Just recently, an official Palestinian report claimed that a key Jewish holy site — Jerusalem's Western Wall — has no religious significance to Jews... impossible to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict if the Palestinian leaders insist on living in such delusions ...fifth factor...is that the Palestinians of Gaza who elected Hamas have not had to pay the price for their choice....Allowing Palestinians to see that Hamas is unable to fulfill its promises would weaken radical Islam in the area. European and American economic support for Gaza...masks the realities of the radical group's poor governance and enables them to survive.
With Hamas still strong,...their version of Islamic doctrine forbids any accommodation with the Jewish state.
What about Israel's role in the stalemate? What mistake does Israel continue to make?
...inhibiting progress has been insufficient use by Israel of negative consequences, perhaps in part because their American and European "allies" would balk at such tactics....until Fatah and Hamas accept the minimal principles necessary for Israel to participate in any further negotiations. These principles would include:
1. Declaration of the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist;
2. Cessation of both verbal incitement and physical violence against Israeli civilians and;
3. Implementation of all previous agreements between Palestinians and Israelis.
Lastly, what of America's role? Blaming Israel for Palestinian hostility is counterproductive....Concrete evidence shows that unilateral concessions from the Israeli side without significant concessions from the Palestinian side are counterproductive.
Unfortunately, given the mentality of the Palestinian leadership, a strategy by Israel and its allies of negative consequences is probably the only strategy with potential to, at last, give peace a chance.

Do liberals even understand what patriotism IS?

2011-01-03T18:20:00.000-08:00

"Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own."
-Benjamin Disraeli
Oikophobia Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.
http://tinyurl.com/36rr33h

NYC sanitation workers strike during 20"snowfall

2011-01-03T18:00:00.000-08:00

A mere 20" of snow brought New York to its knees because 10% of sanitation workers didn't show up for work (undisputed fact) and (reportedly) the New York Post said that the union advised workers to slow down, skip streets, etc and that supervisors would not "write them up." The union unhappiness is over budget cuts resulting in less over-time and fewer promotions to supervisor.

If there is a dispute between two parties (e.g. Bloomberg and the union ) and someone willfully targets innocent bystanders not directly part of the dispute, it is clearly an act of terrorism. The fact that deaths resulted merely reinforces the point.

Napolitano and Holder should take note ( if they cared about terrorism, that is.)

It was Calvin Coolidge who first insisted that "there is no strike against the public good." Where is old Cal when he is needed? Public service employees can NOT be allowed to strike.

US foreign policy is in shambles. Obama's not just bad on domestic issues.

2010-12-30T10:10:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/2g9c86q
Why Latin American turned By Caroline B. Glick
There is no doubt that the Venezuelan-Iranian alliance and its growing force in Latin America goes a long way towards explaining South America's sudden urge to recognize "Palestine." But there is more to the story...
Those trends are the rise of Hugo Chavez, the influence of the Venezuela-Iran alliance, and the cravenness of US foreign policy towards Latin America and the Middle East...Largely out of hatred for America, Chavez has turned toIran...Chavez's choice of Iran as a strategic ally was not a fluke.
Iran's footprint in Latin America has grown gradually. Beginning in the 1980s, Iran has used Latin America as a forward base of operations against the US and the West. It deployed Hizbullah and Revolutionary Guards operatives and other intelligence and terror assets along the largely ungoverned tri-border area between Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. That staging ground in turn enabled Iran to bomb Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s....With Chavez's assistance, Teheran is expanding its web of alliances throughout Latin America at the expense of the US and Israel...."there is information from international agencies that indicate that uranium from Bolivia and Venezuela is being shipped to Iran."...the WikiLeaks sabotage campaign against the US gave us a first person account of the magnitude of Ahmadinejad's electoral fraud....reported a conversation with an Iranian source regarding the true election results. The Iranian source referred to results as a "coup d'etat." The regime declared Ahmadinejad the winner with 63% of the vote. According to the Iranian source, he received less than a tenth of that amount. ...****And what did Obama/Clinton do/say about this fraud and the uprising? They supported the regime in Iran!***the impact of US foreign policy - in South America and the Middle East alike - has had on the positions of nations like Brazil and Argentina towards Israel. During the Bush administration, US Latin America policy was an incoherent bundle of contradictions....Under the Obama administration, the US Latin American policy has become more straightforward. The US has turned its back on Colombia and Honduras. US President Barack Obama is interested in appeasing the Chavez crowd...April 2009 Obama sat through a 50-minute anti-American rant by Ortega at the Summit of the Americas. He then sought out Chavez for a photo-op. In his own address Obama distanced himself from US history saying, "We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations." ...Obama's attempted appeasement hasn't done any good. Nicaragua invaded neighboring Costa Rica last month along the San Juan River. Ortega's forces are dredging the river as part of a plan with Iran to build a canal along the Isthmus of Nicaragua that will compete with the Panama Canal.Indeed, even Obama's ambassador in Managua admitted in a recent cable that Ortega remains deeply hostile to the US. In a cable from February illicitly published by WikiLeaks Ambassador Robert Callahan argued that Ortega's charm offensive towards the US was "unlikely to portend a new, friendly Ortega with whom we can work in the long-term."...Brazil's President...and Argentina's President...are also responding the US's signals towards Iran and Israel. Obama's policy ...has no chance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and just like the Arabs and the Europeans, the South Americans know it....From (their) perspective, there is no reason...to participate in the US charade of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.(They)might as well be on the winning side. And since Obama doesn't mind Iran winning, Iran will win....Like the Europeans, the Arabs, the Asians and everyone else, the Latin Americans have clearly noted that Obama's only consistent foreign policy goal is his aim of forcing Israel to accept a hostile Palestinian state and surrender all the land it took control over in 1967 to the likes of PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas and Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. They note that Obama has refused to rule out the possibility of recognizing a Palestinian state even if that state is declared without a peace treaty with Israel. That is, Obama is unwilling to commit himself to not recognizing a Palestinian state that will be in a de facto state of war with Israel.
The impression that Obama is completely committed to the Palestinian cause was reinforced this week rather than weakened with the cancellation of the Netanyahu-Clinton deal regarding the banning of Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. The deal which was to see Israel banning Jewish construction for an additional 90 days in exchange for a US pledge not to ask for any further bans, to support Israel at the UN Security Council for a limited time against a Palestinian push to declare independence without peace, and to sell Israel an additional 20 F-35 fighter jets sometime in the future. It came apart because Obama was unwilling to put Clinton's commitments - meager as they are - in writing. ...signals to the likes of Brazil and Argentina and Uruguay that they might as well go with Chavez and Iran and turn their backs on Israel. No one will thank them if they lag behind the US in their pro-Iran, anti-Israel policies. And by moving ahead of the US, they get the credit due to those who stick their fingers in Washington's eye...

Left-handed honesty

2010-12-28T23:02:00.000-08:00

BEST OF THE WEB TODAY DECEMBER 27, 2010
Happy Easter!
The Obama administration has hidden surprises in store for you.By JAMES TARANTO
We'll be on Sean Hannity's "Great American Panel" tonight, assuming we can get to the studio through the 20 inches of global warming that fell on New York overnight"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government," the newly inaugurated President Obama declared in a memo to department and agency heads in January 2009. "Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing."
How's that working in practice? The New York Times reports on how an Obama ally in Congress, Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, responded after the administration made a regulatory decision he had urged:
After learning of the administration's decision, Mr. Blumenauer's office celebrated "a quiet victory," but urged supporters not to crow about it.
"While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren't out of the woods yet," Mr. Blumenauer's office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. "This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the 'death panel' myth."
Moreover, the e-mail said: "We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are 'supporters'--e-mails can too easily be forwarded."
The e-mail continued: "Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it."
Even though Blumenauer sent the warning not to send emails about the regulation by email, both the regulation and the effort to keep it a secret remained secret until yesterday when the Times reported them.
The regulation imposed a prospective ObamaCare provision that, amid public outcry, had been cut from the law Congress enacted. "Under the new policy," the Times explains, "the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment." Although this provision was part of the "death panel" controversy, even Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute, a leading opponent of medical homicide, acknowledges that "the new regulation is not alarming in and of itself."

So why the coverup? It's partly a matter of form: It looks bad for the administration to impose by executive fiat a provision that the people's representatives had expressly rejected, though of course the inevitable discovery of the effort to keep the secret only compounds that problem.

But there is also a substantive reason why the administration and its allies wanted to keep this quiet: It reminds people that ObamaCare's promise to deliver "universal health care" while saving money can be kept only if the government assumes the power to deny medical treatment in the name of controlling costs. Death panels are intrinsic to the ObamaCare scheme, as Shikha Dalmia of the Daily Beast explains:

The administration is defining Medicare fraud down to include "unnecessary" and "ineffective" care. And to root this out, it plans to make expanded use of private mercenaries--officially called Recovery Audit Contracts--who will be authorized to go to doctors' offices and rummage through patients' records, matching them with billing claims to uncover illicit charges. What's more, Obamacare increases the fine for billing errors from $11,000 per item to $50,000 without the government even having to prove intent to defraud.

It's reminiscent of the Climategate emails, which detailed an effort to deceive the public so as to justify expanded government control of the economy. And the Obama administration is acting in defiance of the citizenry on the global-warming front too, as the Associated Press reports:

Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for new power plants and oil refinery emission standards over the next year.

In an announcement posted on the agency's website late Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.

They timed this to coincide with--forgive the expression--Christmas, when no one would be paying attention. The timing is embarrassing in another way, since yesterday saw a blizzard so severe that it led to the postponement of a professional football game.

The New York Times, however, was prepared lest the global-warmist faithful be tempted to stray. Theologian Judah Cohen appeared on the Times op-ed page Sunday to explain that "the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes":

As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.

The sun's energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools.

But wait. Greenhouse gases are supposed to prevent the sun's energy from escaping back into space, aren't they? A careful reader noted with delight that Cohen has denied a central doctrine of global warmism. Even skeptics find an easter egg from time to time.
****Funny as this inadvertent denial is, the idea that one can modify one's theory ex post facto to use contradictory evidence as affirmative, bespeaks of either a complete misunderstanding of scientific method, of logic, of basic reasoning OR a disingenuous attempt to say anything that might work for a general public for whom the Anthropic Global Warming clerics have contempt. One of the AGW clerics was asked what, if any, disconfirming evidence there could POSSIBLY be since warming proves AGW and cooling proves AGW. The answer was even worse: disconfirming evidence would be only if NO CHANGE in the weather occurs! *****
Stop Global Warming Before the Snow Storm Bears Go Extinct!
"Snow Storm Bears Down on Mid-Atlantic, Northeast"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 26

The danger of liberals and substituting Gov for God

2010-12-27T13:49:00.000-08:00

C.S.Lewis - "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims my be the most oppressive.Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience..."

W.D. by James Kavanaugh
One thing God should never do
Is answer anyone's prayers.
If He answered but a single prayer
He wouldn't be God anymore.
But King of the Welfare Doles.

Ralph Waldo Emerson
God is not a cosmic bellhop.

Voluntarism and a suggested addendum to the progressive agenda

2010-12-27T10:55:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/23z2qem
Tea Partiers and the Spirit of Giving Charitable gifts are a cheerful protest vote against the growing state.By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
...The tea party activists...and...the nearly one-third of Americans who classify themselves as "supporters" of the movement, according to Gallup—endure endless abuse ...One particular line of attack focuses on their supposed selfishness.
...the millions of Americans who advocate for private entrepreneurship and limited government...may be stingy when it comes to giving away other people's money through state redistribution, but they are surprisingly generous when it comes to giving away their own money privately.
...When it comes to voluntarily spreading their own wealth around, a distinct "charity gap" opens up...Your intuition might tell you that people who favor government redistribution care most about the less fortunate and would give more to charity.....the data tell a different story....a large, nonpartisan survey asked people about both redistributive beliefs and charitable giving was 1996. ...the General Social Survey (GSS) found that those who were against higher levels of government redistribution privately gave four times as much money, on average, as people who were in favor of redistribution...they also gave about 3.5 times as much to nonreligious causes. Anti-redistributionists gave more even after correcting for differences in income, age, religion and education....there are other ways to give than with money. Here again the results may be different from what you might expect. The GSS in 2002 showed that those who said the government was "spending too much money on welfare" were more likely to donate blood than those who said the government was "spending too little money on welfare." The anti-redistributionists were also more likely to give someone directions on the street, return change mistakenly handed them by a cashier, and give food (or money) to a homeless person.
...
****Given that liberals don't trust voluntarism and prefer to defer to the coercion of the IRS, let me propose an addition to the progressive agenda. The blood supply is too important to leave to invidivual altruism ( and we have seen that redistributionists don't donate much). Rather, the obligation to give blood ( or have it extracted ) should be levied as a tax to create sufficiency.

In the spirit of fairness of our progressive income tax code, the blood tax would exempt approximately fifty percent, the skinniest, in the population. Fat people have more blood and should obviously have more extracted from them than should thinner folk and the amount should be progressively higher for the fatter parts of the population if it is deemed that some do not "pay their fair share.". As the burden falls increasingly on a decreasing fraction of the population we might finally get an answer to the question: "How much is too much?"***
,

2010-12-24T17:36:00.000-08:00

Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START U.S. Naval Institute - December 23, 2010
President Barack Obama was outmaneuvered by the Russians and should have abandoned the New START negotiations instead of seeking a political victory, says former nuclear plans monitor Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret).
“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action - so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”
After meeting resistance from several Republicans, the U.S. Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia by a vote of 71-26 on Wednesday.
“The Soviets/Russians were done in by Reagan and our missile defense program because they cannot afford to build such a system,” said Miller. “They instead try to counter our program with rhetoric at the bargaining table. And they won by outmaneuvering Obama. START plays right into their hands.”
Former President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is often credited with bankrupting the U.S.S.R. because the Soviets were unable to keep pace with the technology being developed by the United States.
“We have always been superior in quality of our nuclear force, so we did not have to negotiate with a party we do not trust,” said Miller. “If Obama wanted to save some money and improve national defense, he should have gotten out of the nuke negations and acted unilaterally. START is simply a political victory for Obama.”
Miller, who helped prepare the National Strategic Target List and Single Integrated Operational Plan for waging nuclear war and later participated in arms control meetings with the Soviet government, expressed concern that START could leave the United States vulnerable to other emerging threats.
“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”
Miller’s book “Stockpile: The Story Behind 10,000 Strategic Nuclear Weapons” details the buildup of nuclear arms and the policies to keep the stockpile under control.
Showing comments
Thunderstorm Patriot • Actually, Obama was not outmaneuvered by the Russians at all. That would require that Obama actually cares that America got a fair deal. But Obama has proven time and time again that he is more concerned with the image of what he accomplishes than having details that actually work. The man is shallow and goal oriented. As long as he reaches his goals he does not seem to sweat how much of a mess he makes for the future.
• ABU HUSSAIN
Is everybody STUPID? Or ...just lazy? "Obama was outmaneuvered"? How does this guy figure that? He must think that it was Hussain's objective, to get the best deal he could, for US? "The Treaty prohibits the conversion of existing Ballistic Missile Systems in to a Missile Defense System."
What's your point? Little Barry Soetoro doesn't WANT us to have a Missile Defense. He's a DEMOCRAT. He's a LIBERAL. He's a MARXIST.
Has ANYONE read his books? Does ANYONE know ANYTHING about his life?
We're talking about a guy who thinks that the Good Guys LOST the Cold War. A guy who's Father was a Muslim Marxist. His Mother was an Atheist Communist. His Grandparents were Communists.
His 1st Mentor - Frank Marshall Davis - was a Communist. He sat in the pews of his next Mentor - Jeremiah Wright - listening to his White-Hating, Jew-hating, America-Hating, diatribes for 20 YEARS.
He began his political career in the Living Room of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.. Two Domestic Terrorists. who KILLED Police Officers. BLEW UP Recruiting Stations. And BOMBED the Pentagon.
I'm trying to figure out why you think that this AMERICA-HATING MUSLIM MARXIST was snookered? I guarantee ya, that this Treaty is EXACTLY what Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro/Abu Hussain wanted.
Try doing a little RESEARCH next time, Admiral.//
****It is perhaps a good time to review the Constitutional requirement that the President be a “natural-born” American citizen. This has often been challenged and an issue has been made of the LEGALISM of whether President Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen (i.e. whether he was in fact born in Hawaii or whether he gave up his American citizenship at some point.) This is not the place to argue the legal, factual issues but only to address the “why” of the requirement. It might be the case that the President fulfills the LETTER of the requirement but not the SPIRIT of it.****
“…Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has proposed to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized Americans to become President. If his amendment were adopted any person who had been a United States citizen for at least twenty years would be eligible to hold the Presidency. This is not a new idea. However, Senator Hatch's proposed amendment places emphasis on contemporary political leaders who otherwise never would be eligible to become President.
Perhaps no better person could refute the proposed Hatch Amendment than the late Balint Vazsyoni, Director of the Center for the American Founding. I had the honor of knowing this gentleman, a concert pianist who came to our country from his native Hungary while it was under Communist rule. More than most, Vazsyoni appreciated the wisdom that was displayed by the Founding Fathers in framing the Constitution and our country's unique heritage of offering freedom and liberty to all people. Vazsyoni witnessed for himself and knew of the damage done to countries whose guiding principles were set -- often arbitrarily -- by despotism and the ideologies of fascism and Communism.
A hearing by the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution was held on July 24, 2000 to review amending the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to become President. Vazsyoni both testified in person before the Subcommittee and submitted prepared remarks.
Vasyoni noted that the Founding Fathers created three branches of government and placed no stricture requiring citizenship to become a member of the Legislative or Judicial Branch. However, power is centralized in one person in the Executive Branch. Vazsyoni insisted that he did not view it to be an "excessive requirement" to have a native-born American to hold that one office. America presents immigrants with a great deal of leadership opportunities.
In his prepared remarks, Vazsyoni stated: "It is well known that the Founding Fathers were mindful in the extreme of foreign influences, and the dangers therein to the Republic. While experience has shown that a native-born Chief Executive is not necessarily immune to foreign influence, the odds are certainly more favorable if the President is an American plain and simple, who has never been, and is not at the time of taking office, anything else…."
****The thrust of Vazyoni’s insights is that the Founders wanted the President to have no question about his having only American values and allegiances. It was naturally assumed in the more-circumscribed world of 1787 that people didn’t travel as much as they do today let alone be subject to foreign influences before they reached adulthood.
Consider the second set of comments and note additionally that the President spent formative years in a foreign country ( and not, as Senator McCain was, still thoroughly under American influences, perhaps HYPER-American influences of military bases), had a natural father who was Kenyan and an influential step-father who was Indonesian. Indeed, although abandoned by his natural father early in life, Obama’s own books reflect the great influence this father had on him ( e.g. Dreams FROM My Father ). Hawaii is not mainstream America as EVEN CALIFORNIA would have been. It’s no wonder Obama seems to have no appreciation of American exceptionalism and on almost every occasion where the matter appears, seems to prefer being a “citizen of the world.” George Soros is a naturalized American citizen but there is little doubt that he shares this attitude. The point is that one can be a “natural-born” American citizen according to the letter of the law and still be as loyal as George Soros or the natural-born Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers.****

Mozart and Vivaldi make for happiness - these are especially delightful

2010-12-24T16:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnplU5hgVw0&feature=related vocal Rondo Alla Turca

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOxXwxe6TCc&feature=related Carmel A Cappella Eine Kleine Nachtmusik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxs5O6hMBvg&feature=related Carmel A Cappella
sings Vivaldi (Spring)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eZw0bXmlWw&feature=related Swingle Singers Rondo Alla Turca

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk0ROE0V4HI&feature=related Swingle Singers Eine Kleine Nachtmusik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10LU2tBPD5A&feature=related Swingle Singers Zauberflote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJV5zT8DugA&feature=related Swingle Singers Vivaldi fugue

Wow! "Pro the facts and pro the truth..." Unique!

2010-12-24T15:15:00.000-08:00

Abu Toameh: What the Western Media Misses
...Arsen Ostrovsky

A few days ago, I was fortunate to attend a talk by Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh in Jerusalem.

Toameh gave an incredibly wide ranging talk about the peace process, the double standards rife in the West and the media when it comes to coverage of the Middle East and his perspective as a Muslim Arab of Palestinian descent living in Israel (and you thought you had identity issues!).

Toameh has been working as a journalist for almost 30 years now, covering Palestinian affairs, focusing predominantly on the West Bank and Gaza, including for the Palestinian press under the PLO and for various international media outlets in the US and Europe. He is currently at the Jerusalem Post writing on Palestinian issues. Toameh is also an Israeli citizen living in Jerusalem. In other words, he is aptly qualified to comment on the issues of his discussion.

However, if you expected Toameh to jump on the anti-Israel bandwagon with the familiar cries that Israel is an un-democratic apartheid state responsible for all that is wrong including the bubonic plague or to have a single-minded focus on the occupation, you would have been sorely disappointed.

Instead, he spoke openly, courageously and in his words, said it “as it is . Asked what he thought was the essence of the conflict, Toameh said it was not about money or even settlements, as many so-called pundits often imply, as a precursor to blaming Israel. Rather, his answer was very simple: “This conflict is about Israel’s very existence in this part of the world.

But before you get any conclusions, Toameh is not a card-carrying Zionist or as somebody once asked him “when did you get on the Israel lobby payroll . In his own words, he says:

“I’m not pro-Israel, I’m not pro-Palestinian and I’m not pro-American. But as a journalist, I’m pro the facts and pro the truth.

Here are some of Toameh’s illuminating comments:

I asked Toameh how, as an Arab Muslim Israeli, he responds to accusations that Israel is an apartheid state.

His response:

“Israel is not an apartheid state. But there are problems and some discrimination with the Arab minority inside Israel. If Israel were an apartheid state, I, for example, would not be allowed to work for a Jewish newspaper or live in a Jewish neighborhood or own a home. The real apartheid is in Lebanon, where there is a law that bans Palestinians from working in over 50 professions. Can you imagine if the Knesset passed a law banning Arabs from working even in one profession? The real apartheid is also in many Arab and Muslim nations, like Kuwait, where my Palestinian uncle, who has been living there for 35 years, is banned from buying a house. The law of Israel does not distinguish between a Jew and an Arab.

As for the uniqueness of the Israeli media in the middle East, Toameh added:

“Israel is a free and open country with a democracy, that respects the freedom of the media. You can basically write any anti-Israel story and still walk in downtown Jerusalem or Tel Aviv without having to worry about your safety. Anyone can be a journalist in Israel.

Toameh says he finds it ironic that as an Arab Muslim living in this part of the world, the only place he can express himself freely is in a ‘Jewish newspaper’, noting that:

“We don’t have a free media in the Palestinian area, we didn’t have one when I was working there in the late 70’s and early 80’s, we didn’t have one when the PLO came here after the signing of the Oslo accords and we still don’t have one under Fatah and Hamas.

But what about the media’s need for an anti-Israeli angle on stories? Toameh says that when he tried to alert many of his foreign colleagues that Palestinians were dying because of an internal power struggle or gross corruption by Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, their reflex response was:

Where’s the anti-Israel angle to the story? Give us an anti-occupation story. Make our lives much easier. An Arab killing an Arab, that’s not a story for us.

Toameh notes that the same foreign journalists would then ask him: “Are you on the payroll of the Israel lobby? “Do they [the Jews] pay you to say these things against Arafat and the PLO? Toameh’s response to them:

“What do the Jews have to do with this? I’m telling you what the Palestinians are saying about there being corruption in the Palestinian Authority. I’m even telling you that the PA is saying that the PA is corrupt.

“It is a sad reflection on the state of society, and in particular, the media industry, that not only are they not sufficiently concerned or outraged at the death of Arabs by Arabs (which coincidentally has claimed many more lives than the Israel – Palestinian conflict), but that they will only muster even an iota of concern if they can put in an ‘anti-Israel’ angle.

On the proposed loyalty oath as well, Toameh offered a pragmatic response: “I have no problem with it because it applies equally to both Jews and non-Jews alike.

One of the biggest and most intractable sticking points has consistently been the Palestinian demand for a right of return, which Israel will not agree to because it would mean the death knell of Israel as a Jewish state.

However, Toameh offers a very simple and pragmatic three stage solution, where the Palestinian refugees could:

1. Go to the future Palestinian state;

2. Resettle elsewhere, including other Arab states; and

3. Be offered compensation.

Most tellingly though, and in a statement seldom ever heard from Arabs (or the West), Toameh then asked: “And what about Jewish refugees that were forced to flee Arab nations , suggesting that the issue of Jewish refugees must also be part of any future solution.

Focusing on the problem from Arab dictatorships and their insistence on inciting their people against Israel, Toameh says that we have a problem in the West in failing to believe what people tell us.

“If Hamas say they want to destroy you, you have no reason not to believe them. And if Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy you, there’s no need to start analyzing what he means by that. Stop fooling ourselves, and if anyone thinks that Hamas will ever recognize Israel’s right to exist, you’re also living in an illusion. Take it from their mouth directly…the PLO however is different – they will tell you one thing in English and then another in Arabic.

On the subject of Arab dictatorship, Toameh says:

“Arab dictators survive by constantly blaming the misery of their people on Jews and the West and never accepting responsibility for anything. And by inciting against Israel and the West, you divert attention from problems at home. Why? Because you always need to make sure that your people are busy hating someone else. If they’re not hating Israel and the West, they might wake up one day and come to you, and God forbid, demand reform and democracy.

The crux of the message is:

“If you keep inciting your people, then they ask ‘well, why are we then making peace with the Jews?’ We should be killing them as Hamas is saying’.

So what does Toameh think about Mahmoud Abbas, the PA President?

“Abbas is corrupt, discredited, weak and does not have much power. He is reliant on Israel, whose presence in the West Bank is ironically the only reason he has managed to stay in power.

And if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders as demanded by Abbas and the PLO:

“Abbas will collapse and Hamas will take over the West Bank in less than a day. If I were Israel, I would not give Abbas one inch of land in the West Bank – not for ideological reasons, but to avoid a situation where Hamas and others would take over the area.

When we asked him how best to defeat the extremists, radicals and terrorists like Hamas and Hizbullah, Toameh answered:

“The first and most important thing is you go to the Arab governments and tell them, “Stop the incitement that’s feeding these radicals and driving people into their hands. Sometimes there’s no difference between what is written about Israel and the Jews in the papers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia with what is written by Hamas.

Noting again the billions of dollars in aid provided by the US and EU to various Arab dictatorships, Toameh says: In other words, and even more clearly, they should tell them: “Stop calling for my death with my money.

I asked Toameh about what steps were needed to move forward. According to him, the answer is “very simple and involves the following steps:

1) The Palestinians must start investing money (provided to them mainly by the US and EU) for the welfare of their people instead of incitement. Then dismantle all militias, establish a free press and democratic institutions, end the infighting, insist on good governance and speak with one voice so at least we know who we’re talking to. And then, he suggests, they should go speak with Israel and see what it has to offer them.

2) Deal with the enemies of peace – if you weaken the enemies of peace, like Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, the moderates will rise and start speaking out. But as long as Iran is breathing down the neck and threatening, together with Hamas and Hizbullah, who are threatening to kill anyone who makes concessions, no moderate Arab will ever dare sign an agreement with Israel. Toameh says:

“I don’t even rule out military action against any of them because this is the only language these guys understand. Talking to them and appeasing them is even more dangerous.

3) “We can’t move forward when you don’t have a clear, strong, reliable and credible partner on the Palestinian side says Toameh. According to him: “Abbas is not a partner. He and Fayaad might be nice guys with good intentions – but they cannot deliver. So the PA are not partners because they cannot deliver and Hamas are not partners because they don’t want to be partners.

Addressing the issue of whether there was a clear and credible partner on the Israeli side, Toameh said:

“I don’t care who is in government in Israel. There is a partner. And my partner is the Jewish people. Why? Because a majority of Jews have already accepted a two-state solution. I see a majority of Jews who don’t care anymore about Gaza. I see a majority of Jews who want to disengage from the Palestinians. I see a majority of Jews over the last 15 years marching toward moderation and pragmatism. I don’t know today of one Jewish mother that wants to send her son back to the streets of Ramallah or Gaza. I don’t know of one Jew who wants to control the lives of the Palestinians and run their education and health system. Sadly though, while the Jewish public has been marching towards pragmatism and realism and moderation, on the Arab side the message remains no, no and no.

In an incredibly candid address, for me perhaps the most defining statement Toameh made was when I asked him: Would you rather continue living as a member of a minority in Israel or move to another Arab country? Toameh’s response was simple, honest, and telling:

“Israel is a free and open democratic country. I enjoy living here and I would rather live as a second-class citizen in Israel, even though I’m not, than a first-class citizen in any Arab country.

In a world where it’s all too easy to turn a blind eye to courage, Khaled Abu Toameh is a welcome breath of fresh air. A man, deeply committed to peace, who is seen as a traitor by many and who bravely continues to put his own life on the line each day, Toameh perhaps says it best himself:

“I’m not pro-Israel, I’m not pro-Palestinian and I’m not pro-American. But as a journalist, I’m pro the facts and pro the truth.

it's outrageous that privileged information is leaked.

2010-12-21T18:45:00.000-08:00

Parent and Guardian
"Lawyers for Julian Assange have expressed anger about an alleged smear campaign against the Australian WikiLeaks founder," the Australian reports:

In a move that surprised many of Mr Assange's closest supporters on Saturday, The Guardian newspaper published previously unseen police documents that accused Mr Assange in graphic detail of sexually assaulting two Swedish women. One witness is said to have stated: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

Bjorn Hurtig, Mr Assange's Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain. "It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defence in a bad position," he told a colleague.

"I do not like the idea that Julian may be forced into a trial in the media. And I feel especially concerned that he will be presented with the evidence in his own language for the first time when reading the newspaper. I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing--trying to make Julian look bad."

This is the sort of story that makes our job difficult. What, after all, could we possibly say that would be equal to the absurdity of Hurtig's own words? Well, how about this:

Finally, it is pointed out that college is NOT like volunteering for the military

2010-12-21T18:09:00.000-08:00

James Taranto in Best of the Web:
'...What's really objectionable about Klein's Saturday evening post, however, is the implication that higher education and military service are morally equivalent. We did spend several years in college, and we did it for the same reasons that most people do--to improve our employment prospects and to kill time while we figured out a direction in life. As a former college student, we can attest that going to college is not a patriotic act but a self-serving one.

Nothing wrong with that, but society has no moral obligation to reward self-serving actions. If the Dream Act made it possible for illegal aliens to earn citizenship by serving honorably in the military, and no more than that, we would support it unreservedly. Perhaps the act's higher-education provisions would have economic benefits. But if so, why does Klein need to rest his argument on a false equivalence between soldiers and students?..."

***Conflating the promise to attend college with actual service in the defense of the nation is absurd.It's not even clear why the "reward" for being illegal is citizenship. If something extraordinary is done, like serving in the military ( not merely promising to do so ), it's more the case that this is the appropriate reward. If the justification is merely to allow illegals to come out of the shadows, it should be sufficient to provide permanent residency without the ability to use citizenship as a justification (under the misguided Family Unification policy )for bringing in countless relatives. ***

Palestinians don't even pretend that peace is possible but the Left (everywhere) ignores this

2010-12-19T14:14:00.001-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/2d94lh5
Bringing Bibi Downby Caroline Glick 12/17/2010
...Last Friday, Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian Authority's chief peace negotiator with Israel published an op-ed in Britain's Guardian newspaper in which he declared eternal war on the Jewish state. This he did by asserting that any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that does not permit the immigration of some 7 million foreign Arabs to Israel will be "completely untenable."

So as far as the supposedly moderate chief Palestinian negotiator is concerned, a peace deal in which Israel cedes Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem to the Palestinians as the Israeli Left desires will not be sufficient for the Palestinians. Unless Israel also agrees to commit national suicide by accepting 7 million foreign Arabs as citizens, the Palestinians will continue to wage their war. With or without a Palestinian state, as long as Israel exists, the Palestinians will continue to seek its destruction...

***Incredibly, the Left everywhere, even in Israel, ignores this statement ( indeed, it is because they could be expected to ignore it that Erekat could afford to be so candid )and blithely proceeds as if this admission and the actual position behind it don't exist. It's not just the Left ( e.g. the NY Times et al ) but the U.S. State Department as well. (Of course, this includes Barack Obama whose antipathy to Israel transcends even his Leftist nature. )We have already seen from the WikiLeaks information that other Arab governments care much less about the Palestinians than they do about the threat from Iran. Privately, they probably find the Israelis easier to deal with than the always-obstreperous Palestinians. The only cultural feature to distinguish Palestinians from other Arabs is not language, religion, literature or other usual characteristic: it's that they have historically always been a pain in the ass to everyone.It's no accident that "Black September" refers to Jordan's reaction to them and that other Arab countries have been singularly unwilling to assimilate Palestinians into their societies (or even to expel hundreds of thousands of "guest workers" after the Palestinian leadership endorsed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait). ****

http://tinyurl.com/28guqlx
Erekat Pulls Wool Over 'Guardian' Readers' Eyes by Gil Ronen
...What Erekat failed to note was that the Arab world bluntly rejected Bernadotte's plan for peace between Jews and Arabs and opted for war against the nascent state of Israel instead...The Arabs refused to accept even this plan, however, and the Jews rejected the plan after the Arabs did.
Bernadotte noted in his journal that the "Palestinian" Arabs had little desire for independence."The Palestinian Arabs had at present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any specifically Palestinian nationalism. The demand for a separate Arab state in Palestine is consequently relatively weak. It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan."
...it was the Arab side that was first to reject Bernadotte's generous***i.e.generous to the Arabs*** plan. The Arabs then launched a genocidal war against Israel - and lost it. The result included many more refugees, whom the Arabs now wish to put back into Israeli territory, along with their descendants. ***Erekat refers to the Palestinians as the oldest and largest refugee group but, by uniquely including descendants, he makes the two points tautological.(If you identify two rabbits, the more time passes the more rabbits you have.) Actually, more Jews were displaced from Arab countries after 1948 than were Arabs from Israel but they (and their descendants) are not counted because they were assimilated into Israal. However, they were forcibly expelled without their property and should be included in any plan for "reparations." What this candid admission reveals, however, is that the Palestinian Arab position is intransigent and intractable and that further concessions are useless and counterproductive. Peace will only come three generations after they have decided to make peace and cease fomenting irredentism among their children. So far, they have not started to stop doing so.****

Not every problem has a solution even if you increasingly pressure someone to make concessions.

2010-12-17T06:47:00.001-08:00

Can Israel Turn Enemies into Peacemakers? - David Suissa
The State of Israel was built not by whiners but by Jews for whom no miracle was impossible - whether that meant defending against an Arab invasion or turning a desert into lush fields of agriculture. This can-do attitude has been the life force behind Israel's military success as well as its economic and cultural renaissance. There is one area, however, where Israel's can-do attitude has been a big failure, and that is in making peace with the Palestinians.
With making peace, it's far from clear whether Israel has a product the Palestinians want to buy. Israel has been under enormous pressure over the years, internally and externally, to "do something" to bring peace. Israel has been too embarrassed to admit that "we can't solve this one," that the parties are too far apart, that peace, no matter how desirable, is simply not in the cards at the moment. What if there is nothing Israel can offer the Palestinians to get them to accept and deliver a durable peace with a Jewish state? What if the truth is that Israel can evacuate 300,000 Jews from the West Bank tomorrow and give up half of Jerusalem and that this would still not bring peace - and might even bring more war?
The Palestinian demand for a "right of return" is a deal-killer. So is a return to nondefensible borders, and so is the presence of a terrorist state in Gaza. The fact that peace is immensely desirable has nothing to do with the reality that it is immensely unobtainable. If anything, the more Israel has shown its desire, the more the price has gone up. The Palestinians have said "no" to every peace offer Israel has ever put on the table. The status quo may be untenable, but a fake peace process makes it even worse. Israel should fess up that it doesn't have the power to turn enemies into peacemakers. (Los Angeles Jewish Journal)

****The issues have been misrepresented over the years: the emphasis now often seems to be on the creation of a "Palestinian state." In fact, this is not at all the issue. The Palestinians ( Arabs living in the area defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, whether they lived there before the Mandate or moved there after --and then had progeny, since the originals are long-since gone ) could have had a state on many occasions and long before the present time. When Churchill spun out Trans-Jordan from the Mandate (all of which was intended by the Balfour Declaration and international agreement after the poat-War splitup of the Ottoman Empire), many Arabs were living there and all could have moved there. There could have been a Palestinian state before the 1948 War at the time of the UN partition. Likewise, between 1948 and 1967 there was no impediment to a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, ostensibly the present goal of the Palestinians, when the former was controlled by Arab Egypt and the latter by Arab Jordan. In fact, there was no effort to do so. The Palestinian Arabs have been, until energized by the nationalism created out of whole cloth by Yasser Arafat, satisfied to be Arabs living in an Arab state. (Although they identified as Syrians more than anything else and the first mention of "Naqba", or "catastrophe", referred to the 1920s devolution of Palestine to the British Mandate rather than to the French one that included Syria.) The Palestinians are, in fact, indistinguishable from other Arabs albeit with a possible bias to, and affinity for, Syria: they have no separate language, culture and, indeed, their history is not unique in the way that is Syria's or Iraq's or Eqypt's or Saudi Arabia's. There are pitiful attempts to create a history of affinity with the land of Israel (historical Palestine, renamed such by the Romans after crushing the last Jewish revolt ) but these are manufactured and phony.

The real issue is that Palestinian Arabs, and Arabs in general, (perhaps all Muslims!) don't want a Jewish state or even the presence of any Jews in Arab lands. It is not even clear that they would allow dhimmi status for Jews since 900,000 dhmmi Jews were expelled from Arab lands after the 1948 War ( of course, without their property and after pogroms ). It is strange that it is unremarked that discussions of a Palestinian state ASSUME it would be completely Judenrein. Since the existence of Jews anywhere ( except perhaps in Madegascar or Alaska, as was historically suggested by Arab sources after the Holocaust failed to be total despite Arab endorsement and participation ) is anathema, national suicide is the only option offered to Israel. The "right of return" is a phony joke for several reasons. Land and population swaps have been the world norm for millennia. Not ever before has the status of "refugee" been granted to the third or later generation of people who have actually left a place. How really can one return to a place if she was never there and never personally had a family member who was? It strains credulity and derives only from the fact that other Arab nations had no wish to absorb Palestinian Arabs into their societies both to maintain the issue as a festering sore ( deriving, in all likelihood, from the Islamic animus against Jews mentioned in the chronologically later parts of the Koran ) and because they had no wish to have the Palestinians in their midst since they have the reputation even among Arabs of being pains in the ass. (Note Black September refers to Jordan's need to suppress a Palestinian Arab insurgency and the Gulf state expelled 400,000 Palestinian workers after Arafat endorsed Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.)

It has been truly said that, If the Palestinians lay down their weapons there will be peace, and no more war and terror in Palestine; if the Israelis lay down their weapons, there will be no more Israeli Jews.****

It is a fiction that the post-1967 border is the barrier to peace in Israel

2010-12-13T17:00:00.000-08:00

Or even that a Palestinian state is.The antipathy of Arabs to Jews in Palestine ( N.B. Palestine used to refer to Jewish land e.g. Daniel Barenboim as a youth was referred to a "Palestinian prodigy.")antedates even 1948. The Grand Mufti even before he got the title was a prime instigator ( and he was related to Yasser Arafat, Arafat being an alias. )
http://masada2000.org/Arafat-Husseini.html
U.S. Report: German Nazis Paid "a Fortune" to Jerusalem Mufti - Sam Roberts (New York Times)
A report published Friday by the U.S. National Archives reveals the close working relationship between Nazi leaders and the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who later claimed that he sought refuge in wartime Germany only to avoid arrest by the British.
The report says the Muslim leader was paid "an absolute fortune" of 50,000 marks a month (when a German field marshal was making 25,000 marks a year).
It also said he energetically recruited Muslims for the SS, the Nazi Party's elite military command, and was promised that he would be installed as the leader of Palestine after German troops drove out the British and exterminated the Jews there.
The report details how Husseini was allowed to flee after the war to Syria - he was in the custody of the French - and how high-ranking Nazis escaped from Germany to become advisers to anti-Israel Arab leaders and "were able to carry on and transmit to others Nazi racial-ideological anti-Semitism."
In October 1945, the report says, the British head of Palestine's Criminal Investigation Division told the assistant American military attache in Cairo that the mufti might be the only force able to unite the Palestine Arabs and "cool off the Zionists. Of course, we can't do it, but it might not be such a damn bad idea at that."

Jihadi imams infest the military's chaplain corps.

2010-12-02T17:08:00.000-08:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/01/exclusive-concerns-military-chaplain-vetting-policy/
http://tinyurl.com/26xrskw
EXCLUSIVE: Former Defense IG Raises Concerns About Military Chaplain Vetting
By Jana Winter
Former Defense Department Inspector General Joseph Schmitz is calling for an investigation of the vetting process for Muslim clerics who serve as U.S. military chaplains.
In a letter sent earlier this month to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, former Inspector General Joseph Schmitz outlined what he believes is the potential risk to national security posed by the military’s current chaplain vetting system...

The American Narcissus

2010-12-02T09:33:00.001-08:00

The world's foremost experts on psychiatry have decided to eliminate narcissistic personality disorder from the 2013 edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

When asked by reporters why they decided not to include the disorder any longer, members of the panel cited the existence of two case studies of extreme narcissism with which the Manual could never compete. So they gave up. One is Dreams of My Father. The other is The Audacity of Hope.

Political correctness makes all the difference for the NYTimes

2010-12-01T20:23:00.000-08:00

New York Times editors, as cited in James Taranto's Best of the Web Today column at WSJ.com, Nov. 29:

"The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."—New York Times, on the Climategate emails, Nov. 20, 2009.

"The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match."—New York Times, on the WikiLeaks documents, Nov. 29, 2010.

A brilliant speech that marks the start of a Churchillian career (probably done w/o teleprompters!)

2010-11-30T10:56:00.000-08:00

"The most brilliantly audacious defence of Israel since Moses parted the Red Sea" --The Irish Independent
UN Watch Briefing

Vol. 264,
Nov. 19, 2010

The remarkable speech below was presented by Gabriel Latner, a 19-year-old Cambridge student, at a recent debate of the prestigious university’s debating society. UN Watch is proud to announce that Mr. Latner will be coming to the United Nations in 2011 as an intern with our organization.

The Cambridge debate centered on the motion that “Israel is a rogue state.” It was proposed by England's Lauren Booth, an extreme opponent of Israel who works for Tehran’s state-run global TV channel, and who recently converted to Islam on a visit to Iran. Her side of the debate was joined by Mark McDonald, founder of the Labor Friends of Palestine, and Mr. Latner.

The Irish Independent has called Mr. Latner's speech “the most brilliantly audacious defence of Israel since Moses parted the Red Sea.”

________________________

Israel is a Rogue State
Gabriel Latner

This is a war of ideals, and the other speakers here tonight are rightfully, idealists. I'm not. I'm a realist. I'm here to win. I have a single goal this evening -- to have at least a plurality of you walk out of the “Aye” door.

I face a singular challenge -- most, if not all, of you have already made up your minds. This issue is too polarizing for the vast majority of you not to already have a set opinion. I'd be willing to bet that half of you strongly support the motion, and half of you strongly oppose it.

I want to win, and we're destined for a tie. I'm tempted to do what my fellow speakers are going to do -- simply rehash every bad thing the Israeli government has ever done in an attempt to satisfy those of you who agree with them. And perhaps they'll even guilt one of you rare undecided into voting for the proposition, or more accurately, against Israel.

It would be so easy to twist the meaning and significance of international “laws” to make Israel look like a criminal state. But that's been done to death.

It would be easier still to play to your sympathy, with personalized stories of Palestinian suffering. And they can give very eloquent speeches on those issues.

But the truth is, that treating people badly, whether they're your citizens or an occupied nation, does not make a state “rogue.” If it did, Canada, the U.S., and Australia would all be rogue states based on how they treat their indigenous populations. Britain’s treatment of the Irish would easily qualify them to wear this sobriquet. These arguments, while emotionally satisfying, lack intellectual rigor.

More importantly, I just don't think we can win with those arguments. It won't change the numbers. Half of you will agree with them, half of you won't. So I'm going to try something different, something a little unorthodox.

I'm going to try and convince the die-hard Zionists and Israel supporters here tonight, to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech I will have presented five pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is, if not a “rogue state,” than at least “roguish.”

Let me be clear. I will not be arguing that Israel is “bad.” I will not be arguing that it doesn’t deserve to exist. I won't be arguing that it behaves worse than every other country. I will only be arguing that Israel is “rogue.”

The word “rogue” has come to have exceptionally damning connotations. But the word itself is value-neutral. The Oxford English Dictionary defines rogue as “aberrant, anomalous; misplaced, occurring (esp. in isolation) at an unexpected place or time,” while a dictionary from a far greater institution gives this definition: “behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a destructive way.”

These definitions, and others, center on the idea of anomaly -- the unexpected or uncommon. Using this definition, a rogue state is one that acts in an unexpected, uncommon or aberrant manner. A state that behaves exactly like Israel.

The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051%. In comparison the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least £10 is 0.017% -- more than twice as likely. Israel’s Jewishness is a statistical aberration.

The second argument concerns Israel’s humanitarianism, in particular, Israel’s response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis -- for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that -- but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened and is still happening in Darfur is genocide, whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such. (I actually hoped that Mr. Massih would be able to speak about -- he's actually somewhat of an expert on the crisis in Darfur, in fact, it's his expertise that has called him away to represent the former dictator of Sudan while he is being investigated by the ICC.)

There has been a mass exodus from Darfur as the oppressed seek safety. They have not had much luck. Many have gone north to Egypt -- where they are treated despicably. The brave make a run through the desert in a bid to make it to Israel. Not only do they face the natural threats of the Sinai, they are also used for target practice by the Egyptian soldiers patrolling the border. Why would they take the risk?

Because in Israel they are treated with compassion -- they are treated as the refugees that they are – and perhaps Israel's cultural memory of genocide is to blame. The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world.

But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel. Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets.

Compare that to the U.S.’s reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst -- and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behaviour anomalous is an understatement.

My third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns -- it negotiates with terrorists. Forget the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a man who died with blood all over his hands -- they're in the process of negotiating with terrorists as we speak. Yasser Abed Rabbo is one of the lead PLO negotiators that has been sent to the peace talks with Israel. Abed Rabbo also used to be a leader of the PFLP -- an organisation of “freedom fighters” that, under Abed Rabbo’s leadership, engaged in such freedom-promoting activities as killing 22 Israeli high school students.

And the Israeli government is sending delegates to sit at a table with this man, and talk about peace. And the world applauds. You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA -- the British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing -- and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue -- behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal.

Another part of the dictionary definition is behaviour or activity “occurring at an unexpected place or time.” When you compare Israel to its regional neighbours, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbours. At no point in history, has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle East -- except for Israel. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only one where the LGBT community enjoys even a small measure of equality.

In Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and Syria, homosexual conduct is punishable by flogging, imprisonment, or both. But homosexuals there get off pretty lightly compared to their counterparts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, who are put to death. Israeli homosexuals can adopt, openly serve in the army, enter civil unions, and are protected by exceptionally strongly worded ant-discrimination legislation. Beats a death sentence. In fact, it beats America.

Israel’s protection of its citizens’ civil liberties has earned international recognition. Freedom House is an NGO that releases an annual report on democracy and civil liberties in each of the 195 countries in the world. It ranks each country as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has earned designation as a “free” country. Not surprising given the level of freedom afforded to citizens in, say, Lebanon -- a country designated “partly free,” where there are laws against reporters criticizing not only the Lebanese government, but the Syrian regime as well. I’m hoping Ms. Booth will speak about this, given her experience working as a “journalist” for Iran.

Iran is a country given the rating of “not free,” putting it alongside China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Myanmar. In Iran, as Ms. Booth I hoped would have said in her speech, there is a special “Press Court” which prosecutes journalists for such heinous offences as criticizing the Ayatollah, reporting on stories damaging the “foundations of the Islamic republic,” using “suspicious (i.e., Western) sources,” or insulting Islam. Iran is the world leader in terms of jailed journalists, with 39 reporters (that we know of) in prison as of 2009. They also kicked out almost every Western journalist during the 2009 election. (I don't know if Ms Booth was affected by that.)

I guess we can’t really expect more from a theocracy. Which is what most countries in the Middle East are. Theocracies and autocracies. But Israel is the sole, the only, the rogue, democracy. Out of every country in the Middle East, only in Israel do anti-government protests and reporting go unquashed and uncensored.

I have one final argument -- the last nail in the opposition's coffin -- and it’s sitting right across the aisle. Mr. Ran Gidor’s presence here is the all evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr. Gidor is a political counsellor attached to Israel’s embassy in London. He’s the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them at the UN. He knows what he’s doing. And he’s here tonight. And it’s incredible.

Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off, to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy. That’s remarkable.

Do you think for a minute, that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was “This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world,” that Britain would allow any of its officials to participate? No.

Would China participate in a debate about the status of Taiwan? Never.

And there is no chance in hell that an American government official would ever be permitted to argue in a debate concerning its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

But Israel has sent Mr. Ran Gidor to argue tonight against a “journalist”-cum-reality TV star, and myself, a 19-year-old law student who is entirely unqualified to speak on the issue at hand.

Every government in the world should be laughing at Israel right now -- because it forgot Rule No. 1. You never add credence to crackpots by engaging with them. It's the same reason you won't see Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins debate David Icke. But Israel is doing precisely that. Once again, behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Behaving like a rogue state.

That's five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here's an argument for all of you – Israel wilfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed Osirak -- Sadam Hussein’s nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq.

That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom-loving peoples. But it hasn't. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something: while you're here, Khomeini's Iran is working towards the Bomb. And if you're honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity, act in a way that is the not the norm, and you'd better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a rogue Israel than a Nuclear Iran. Except Ms. Booth.

The author, a Cambridge University law student, will be a 2011 intern with UN Watch. Text edited for publication from the original.

The hypocrisy of the "tax-us-more" billionaires.

2010-11-29T11:15:00.000-08:00

ABC's Amanpour Trumpets 'Tax Us More' Liberal Democratic Quartet
At a time when the American mood has turned against excessive government spending, Christiane Amanpour devoted Sunday’s This Week to four liberal Democratic billionaires, though she failed to identify their political orientation, who want higher income tax rates on the wealthy. Unmentioned during the pre-taped interviews with Warren Buffett, Bill and Melinda Gates, Ted Turner and Tom Steyer revolving around their participation in “The Giving Pledge” – the promise to give away at least half their wealth: how they are free now to give all the money they want to the federal government.Amanpour began by touting: “Warren Buffett has been practically begging the country, begging Congress to tax him more. In fact, many of the richest Americans like Buffett, Bill and Melinda Gates and Ted Turner say that they should pay higher tax.”
****There might be more sincerity to their statements if deductions for "charitable" giving were not made. That is, what does one want to do with one's money? Providing for one's progeny is a small part for these folks; they really want to dispose of their money in ways that they like. This does NOT include letting it get spent by the Government! They know as well as anyone that the government pisses money away and they don't want to give very much of their money for this purpose. Instead, they set up foundations or give to causes that delight them. This really isn't different from not paying taxes and "spending" your money on the things you like or want to do.****

Tom Jefferson was prescient and right!

2010-11-22T07:38:00.000-08:00

Subject: How Did Jefferson Know?

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
Especially read the last quote from 1802.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.-Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.-Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.-Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.-Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. -Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.-Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.-Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.-Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: 'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Hmmmm!

****If Presidents were Fermions, I'd say that Obama was the "anti-Tom" with opposite charge and chirality but he doesn't have equal weight. Barack is better described as a BOZOn.****

Kyl is right to delay this treaty. Reasons include:

2010-11-17T09:15:00.000-08:00

1) The administration's failure to include warhead modernization before Kyl raised objections leads on to think that they're either stupid or deliberately flaccid on national defense.
2) So far, Obama has gotten NADA from propitiating the Russians on such matters as the anti-ballistic missile defenses in Poland and Czechoslovakia (while throwing allies under the bus, as is Obama's wont.)
It's hard to think that national defense is predicated on Russian missiles. It IS based on Russia's willingness to endorse actions against a nuclear Iran and the worldwide jihadi menace. Negotiating with the Russians has not been a strong suit for either Obama, Clinton or, indeed, the State Department historically. Agreements to "inspect" have rarely been devoid of loopholes or sheer lying.***
Clinton calls for Senate to act on nuclear treaty
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press – 1 hr 45 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday beseeched the Senate to vote this year on a U.S.-Russia nuclear weapons treaty, saying delay was a threat to the nation' security.
Clinton held a breakfast meeting with lawmakers from both parties a day after a key Senate Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, stunned the administration by coming out against a vote on the treaty during the current lame duck session.
"This is not an issue that can afford to be postponed," Clinton said after the meeting.
She pledged to work with Senate supporters of the pact to overcome resistance. "We will do whatever it takes literally around the clock," Clinton said.
The secretary was flanked by Sens. John Kerry and Dick Lugar, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the main advocates for the treaty. The pact would reduce limits on U.S. and Russian strategic warheads and revive on-the-ground inspections that ceased when a previous treaty expired nearly a year ago.
"I refuse to believe that the door shouldn't remain open" to a vote during the lame duck, said Kerry, D-Mass. "The national security of our country deserves nothing less."
Kerry said there were no substantive disagreements on the treaty itself and that a major objection of Kyl's should have been removed when the administration pledged an additional $4.1 billion for weapons modernization programs.
The country "is unlikely to have either the treaty or the modernization unless we get real," said Lugar, R-Ind.
All three stressed national security: Those in favor of postponing or avoiding a vote "vastly underestimate the continuing threat that is posed to this country," Clinton said.
Kyl, the second-ranked Senate Republican, issued a terse statement Tuesday saying a vote should be put off until next year. That dealt a major blow to President Barack Obama's efforts to improve ties with Russia and to his broader strategy for reducing nuclear arms worldwide. The treaty, known as New START, had been seen as one of the president's top foreign policy accomplishments.
Without the support of Kyl, the leading Republican voice on the treaty, Democrats have little hope of securing at least eight Republican votes — the minimum they would need for ratification in the current Senate.
On the sidelines of the summit of the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) last weekend, Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he believed the treaty could be cleared by the Senate before it leaves for the year, calling it a "top priority" of his administration.
In Moscow Wednesday, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said officials there still expect the Senate to find time for ratifying the treaty this fall.
"We have taken note of Senator Kyl's comment. It's not our business to interfere in the procedure of agenda agreement and the Senate's work," Ryabkov said.
He added: "I would like to remind you that the Russian leadership's line that the ratification processes in Russia and the U.S. should be synchronized remains fully valid."
Unless reversed, Kyl's position would delay the vote until the newly elected Senate, with an expanded Republican minority, has been sworn in January. Democrats would then need the support of at least 14 Republicans.
The White House has been trying to avoid that fate, knowing that ratification could slip out of reach in the face of opposition to the treaty from most Republicans and an increasingly partisan political environment in Washington.
At a minimum, that probably would set the treaty back for months, because Republicans are likely to demand new hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so that newly elected lawmakers would be briefed.
Following Tuesday's setback, Vice President Joe Biden warned that failure to approve the treaty this year would endanger national security. He pointed out that the treaty would renew U.S. authority that expired last year to inspect Russia's nuclear arsenal.
The treaty would reduce U.S. and Russian limits on strategic warheads to 1,550 for each country from the current ceiling of 2,200. It also would set up new procedures to allow both countries to inspect each other's arsenals to verify compliance.
Republicans have argued that the treaty would limit U.S. missile defense options and does not provide adequate procedures to verify that Russia is living up to its terms.
Kyl has argued that it makes no sense to reduce the number of U.S. warheads until more is done to maintain and modernize the remaining arsenal.

Is a liberal approach to defense and foreign policy a result of hormones?

2010-11-17T07:59:00.000-08:00

"...Women also get a boost of oxytocin, the feel-good hormone, when they speak to others, and estrogen enhances its effects. While men get this, too, testosterone blunts its effects. "This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view—men can't defend their families if they are burdened with high levels of a hormone that compels them to make friends of all they meet," says Dr. Legato, author of "Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget." "Thus, men in their prime with high levels of testosterone are the least likely to be interested in social exchanges and bonding to others."

****Perhaps this somewhat explains why women are predominately "liberal" and conservatives think liberals are a bit,ahem, "effeminate."***

The problem is letting a Congressman serve 20+ terms

2010-11-15T11:41:00.000-08:00

The defense that he "didn't intend..." "...forgot..." is a hilarious because it points up the underlying problem:
Rangel, and others of his seniority, are so arrogantly sure that ordinary rules don't apply to them that they
don't even avail themselves of legal means to do the same things. How many of us would merely be subject
to censure for ethics violations if we willfully evaded taxes for over 20 years on $600,000 of assets that we didn't mention?
Term limits should be applied and not require the fortuitous intercession of the Grim Reaper for such as John Murtha and
Charlie Rangel.
http://tinyurl.com/2fkbxwt
Colleagues deny Rangel's plea for delay in trial By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Rep. Charles Rangel of New York walked out of his ethics trial Monday after pleading in vain for a postponement, saying his lawyers abandoned him because he ran out of money after paying them some $2 million. The proceeding went on without him.
With Rangel gone, House ethics committee chief counsel Blake Chisam pushed for a decision on the 13 counts of fundraising and financial conduct that allegedly violated House rules...

Islamic menace is beyond Al Qaeda

2010-11-12T08:46:00.000-08:00

Despite Obama's deliberate blind spot, jihad is embraced by much more of the Islamic world than those identifiable as Al Qaeda. Islam is not just another religion but is a political system whose adherents strive for earthly hegemony and adoption of Sharia.It is hardly necessary to prove affiliation with A.Q. to know that such as Maj. Nidal Hassan is a jihadi terrorist when he screams Allahu Akbar while mowing down over a dozen of his fellow officers. It is past time to jettison the political correctness that fails to recognize the worldwide threat, including from American, home-grown Muslims.

http://tinyurl.com/2g265kq
Empowering our homegrown enemies By Caroline B. Glick

Disturbingly, the establishments in the two countries most actively targeted by the global jihad — the US and Israel — remain in deep denial about the challenges of homegrown jihadist fifth columnists...****These are not economically deprived or uneducated. Jihadism is a conscious and voluntary activity and extending extra rights to the community that engenders them is folly and counterproductive. Europe (e.g. Merkel,Blair...) is starting to recognize this while the most glaring example of denial is the Obama administration. Surprisingly, the Israeli Left is almost as wrong-headed making it a Left phenomenon that endangers Western Civilization ( that the Left doesn't seem to like, anyway.)

The unhelpful "Abu Hussein"

2010-11-11T21:17:00.000-08:00

New York Post

Why Hamas loves Bam
By AMIR TAHERI

"Abu Hussain! Palestine loves you!!!"

This slogan, in English, appears on a poster and other products produced by the Palestinian Hamas movement and put on sale in Gaza. Yesterday, it adorned the front pages of several leading Arab dailies.

The "Abu Hussain" is President Obama. The poster pictures him wearing the signature Arab headgear, the kaffiyeh.

That the most radical Palestinian faction has declared its love for the president may be bad news for the stalled Middle East peace talks, which Obama has promised to help restart before the end of the year.

According to its charter, Hamas wants to eliminate Israel and to replace it with a single Palestinian state covering the territory of the Jewish state and the territories it occupied in 1967.

Iran, Libya and a range of radical Islamist movements, including al Qaeda, support Hamas' policy, sometimes known as the "one-state solution." But Obama has said he supports President George W. Bush's two-state policy.

If Hamas' declaration of love for Obama is based on a misunderstanding, the problem may lie in Obama's ambiguous approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

When Bush said he wanted a two-state solution, he saw the realities on the ground as the starting point. Obama and his special emissary, George Mitchell, however, have talked about a return to the pre-1967 "borders" as demanded by several UN resolutions.

But there were no borders in 1967 -- only cease-fire lines drawn at the end of the 1948 war. And there was no Palestine to have any borders -- the cease-fire lines separated Israel on the one hand from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria on the other. Indeed, a return to those cease-fire lines would be tantamount to recreating a situation that had already led to two wars.

Obama also drops hints that he means to be tough with Israel. To advertise his toughness, he makes occasional statements about Jewish settlements. Yet this puts the whole exercise on a different trajectory, with talks focused on the settlements rather than the core issue -- the creation of a Palestinian state.

Pressuring Israel may look good to "Abu Hussain" and his Hamas admirers. But it may reduce the chances of agreement on the creation of a Palestinian state.

Fearful that its chief ally, America, might be trying to abandon it or, worse still, stab it in the back, Israel may revert to what Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called "the hedgehog strategy." Because Israel holds the lands on which a Palestinian state is to be built, there would be no progress in that direction.

History shows that Israel has made concessions -- including withdrawing from vast territories it captured from Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon -- only when it has felt sure of its principal ally.

Peace is made when

1) the winner of a war (or a series of wars) is convinced that he can create a new status quo in his favor, especially by ensuring his security, and 2) the loser also feels that the peace offer is the best it could hope for under the circumstances. Obama's approach meets neither condition.

The winner, Israel, feels threatened by what it feels is a US attempt at bullying it into a deal. The loser, the Palestinian side, is deluded into thinking that, thanks to Obama's support, it can hold out for an ever-elusive better deal. Believing that they have US support, some Palestinians are even talking of declaring statehood without winning prior Israeli approval.

Obama's Mideast policy has made progress toward peace more difficult. His promise of achieving a peace deal before year's end seems destined to join a long list of other broken promises.

Amir Taheri is the author of "The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution."

Obama panders in Muslim Indonesia; refuses to recognize "jihad" while in India

2010-11-10T05:06:00.001-08:00

Guy Benson
Obama Criticizes Israel in Indonesia - UPDATE: Netanyahu Responds
The spectacle of President Obama openly chiding Israel hardly comes as a surprise any more, considering his track record in office and past personal associations. Still, it's jarring to see any President of the United States criticizing our closest Middle Eastern ally while on foreign soil -- especially that of the world's most populous Muslim nation:

JAKARTA, Indonesia – President Barack Obama has criticized Israel construction plans in East Jerusalem, saying they're unhelpful to the pursuit of peace.

The president said he was concerned Israel and Palestinian were not making enough of an effort to advance peace negotiations.

Obama's caution came as the Israeli government moved ahead with plans to build nearly 1,300 apartments in that disputed part of the city.

Israel has said the plans to seek public comment on the building plans were merely procedural. But the move comes on the heels of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday.

Obama said he did not receive a briefing on the new construction.

For a president who exhibited profound reservations about "meddling" in the internal affairs of Iran as its government stole an election and lethally suppressed freedom rallies, Obama demonstrates little hesitancy to publicly denounce Israeli domestic policy decision. This presidential tut-tutting of a key US friend is probably not what Congressmen and Senators had in mind when they wrote letters to the president last year urging a thaw in US-Israeli relations.

UPDATE: A reader reminds me that as President Obama was refusing to "meddle" in Iran, his administration was meddling hardcore in Honduras -- and doing so on behalf of the wrong side.

UPDATE II: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushes back:

A few hours later, Mr. Netanyahu’s office responded with a statement, saying that “Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.”
The United States and Israel have well-known differences over Jerusalem, Mr. Netanyahu’s office said in the statement, adding that building plans should have no effect on the peace talks.

The PC attempt to include Islam in the historical American fabric is getting pukeworthy.

2010-11-01T21:53:00.000-07:00

from Best of the Web by James Taranto:
CNN.com has a curious quote in a story about last week's thwarted package-bombing plot:

"Since two of the suspicious packages that were intercepted were addressed to religious institutions in Chicago, all churches, synagogues and mosques in the Chicago area should be vigilant for any unsolicited or unexpected packages, especially those originating from overseas locations," said FBI Special Agent Ross Rice.

Both of the "religious institutions" to which the packages were addressed were synagogues. By what logic does the FBI conclude that mosques need to be vigilant because Islamic supremacists are sending dangerous packages to synagogues?

obama doesn't like America...or Western Civilization

2010-10-27T09:24:00.000-07:00

We’re In Denial, America, About Our President
By Dr.Keith Ablow
http://tags.bluekai.com/site/668
The greatest gift of my training in psychiatry has been the ability my mentors nurtured in me to really listen to what people say. This is harder than it sounds.

It took me years to overcome the natural tendency to gloss over the very important things people say—the ones that might trigger anxiety or sadness or anger if focused upon clearly or at length.

This avoidance of hearing messages that people convey is a very human reaction when what they are saying is almost too big to take to heart.

The same dynamic explains why people fail to recognize predators even in the face of much data that they are unsafe, why they fail to hear the desperation in the words of a loved one who later goes on to commit suicide, why they fail to internalize expressions of genuine (and boundless) love from another person and why they fail to follow-up with questions about true revelations another offers about his or her deepest feelings and most powerful experiences.

It is as if the mind and soul are fitted with shock absorbers triggered only by the biggest bumps in the road—a kind of onboard, on call denial—so that special focus is required to register them.

I believe this internal shock absorber has prevented many Americans from really listening to the most significant messages President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have delivered.

One of these messages is that the Obamas are profoundly ambivalent about whether America and Americans have historically been a force for good or ill in the world. This is why the president has repeatedly apologized for America’s behavior, in a way that not only signals other nations that our leader is at best uncertain about our moral character, but may plant self-doubt about our decency in own population.

It is why the first lady honestly stated during the campaign that "for the first time in my adult lifetime" she was proud of her country.

It is why the president would remain in a church where the pastor has been quoted as saying, “God damn, America!” and would bring his children to that church to listen and learn.

These are not accidental facts. They are not meaningless. They encourage denial because they are so stark and so massive in scope that they make us not want to grapple with the inevitable conclusion that our country is being led by someone who isn’t so certain he likes his countrymen.

Another significant message from the president is that he is sincerely suspicious of businesses—large or small—unless those businesses are controlled by the government in a way that approximates government ownership of them.

This is what is meant by stating plainly that redistributing wealth is good, by teaching businesses to come to the trough to drink up bailout monies, by seeking oversight over which executives companies hire and how much they are paid and by burdening businesses with social agendas like “health care reform” and other red tape that can bring them to their knees.

Again, these are not accidental facts, nor meaningless. We can screen out the huge impact and import of them because they are almost unthinkable—constituting, as they do, this reality: Our commander-in-chief isn’t so sure he likes us, or our way of life. In fact, it certainly sounds, if you listen, to him, that he does not.

Americans are behaving a lot like the children I treat who grew up in homes in which their parents did not love them. They deny it. They do everything they can to believe, otherwise including wondering whether they themselves are to blame.

If we were deprived of denial, if we were willing to really listen and really be shocked, if we were willing to be wrong and wronged, we would have to admit that we elected a man to lead our country who just doesn’t express much love for it—or us.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a forensic psychiatrist

It's about time the housing bubble was blamed on Cuomo ( and also Frank and Dodd.._)

2010-10-22T12:15:00.000-07:00

****Today ( and, if you pay attention, you'll hear this refrain over and over again from liberals speaking what they consider universally-accepted truth) a knee-jerker started a rant with "Everyone should own a home. It's the American Dream. Fannie and Freddie are essential for this." Actually, none of these things is necessary or even true.Not every should, or even wants to, own a home. Renting provides flexibility, leaves maintenance responsibilities to others and, over many periods, is economically advantageous. A good life might be the American Dream and an apartment renter with color TVs and two cars is hardly divorced from this idea. Since ownership entails financial risks, the necessity of Fannie and Freddie is clearly less obvious than our liberal friends would like to pretend.

New York's Paladino blames Cuomo for housing bubble By Daniel Trotta and Edith Honan
Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:08pm EDTNEW YORK (Reuters) - Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor of New York, blames the U.S. housing bubble that triggered the global financial crisis on a single person -- his Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo.
"The housing bubble occurred because of one man -- that was Andrew Cuomo," Paladino told Reuters in an interview on Thursday.
Paladino linked the bubble to policies carried out by Cuomo when he was housing and urban development secretary during Democratic President Bill Clinton's second term from 1997 to 2001.
Paladino, a Buffalo real estate developer with support from the conservative Tea Party movement, faces Cuomo, the state attorney general and son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, in the November 2 election. Paladino, who won an upset victory in the Republican primary, trails Cuomo in most polls.
Paladino has livened up the New York governor's race with a series of colorful comments, including some he has apologized for or admitted were mistakes -- a trend that has coincided with his drop in opinion polls.
He held Cuomo individually responsible for the housing bubble by pressuring the Federal Housing Authority and housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to promote greater home ownership by reducing mortgage standards.
That political goal, he said, was the main reason banks offered millions of mortgages to unqualified buyers, who later defaulted and left the financial system in tatters.
Cuomo's campaign did not immediately respond to calls and an e-mail seeking comment.
Paladino cited former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in his case against Cuomo.
"How did we get into this thing? We got into it by one man. And Alan Greenspan said it. The housing bubble started the subprime meltdown. How did the housing bubble occur? Andrew Cuomo, for his own self-interest, laid on FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their standards," Paladino said.
"He ... was so proud of saying, 'Yes, every American is going to own a home," Paladino told a panel of Reuters reporters.
Greenspan and others have made the link between the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis, and the federal policy of promoting home ownership under Clinton has received some blame.
Experts have cited a number of other reasons for the bubble, including the long period of low interest rates the Fed maintained after the recession of 2001 and the securitization of mortgages into financial instruments by the banks.
Millions of unqualified buyers subsequently lost their homes when they were unable to make their payments.
"The poor people that did that, they bought a home, they took out these mortgages, now all of a sudden they're learning about adjustable rate," Paladino said. "They never understood that. You can't explain that to the normal everyday Joe."
****It was an unholy alliance of HUD Secretary Cuomo, Cong. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd as the salient malefactors, although they hardly take responsibiity.****
Is Barney Frank? By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | You would be hard pressed to find a politician who is less frank than Congressman Barney Frank. Even in an occupation where truth and candor are often lacking, Congressman Frank is in a class by himself when it comes to rewriting history in creative ways. Moreover, he has a lot of history to rewrite in his re-election campaign this year.
No one contributed more to the policies behind the housing boom and bust, which led to the economic disaster we are now in, than Congressman Barney Frank.
His powerful position on the House of Representatives' Committee on Financial Services gave him leverage to force through legislation and policies which pressured banks and other lenders to grant mortgage loans to people who would not qualify under the standards which had long prevailed, and had long made mortgage loans among the safest investments around.
All this was done in the name of promoting more home-ownership among people who had neither the income nor the credit history that would meet traditional mortgage lending standards.
To those who warned of the risks in the new policies, Congressman Frank replied in 2003 that critics "exaggerate a threat of safety" and "conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see." Far from being reluctant to promote risky practices, Barney Frank said, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation."
Every weekday NewsAOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear.
With the federal regulators leaning on banks to make more loans to people who did not meet traditional qualifications — the "underserved population" in political Newspeak — and quotas being given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more of these riskier mortgages from the original lenders, critics pointed out the dangers in these pressures to meet arbitrary home ownership goals. But Barney Frank counter-attacked against these critics.
In 2004 he said: "I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing." He went further: "I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing."
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were crucial to these schemes to force lenders to lend to those whom politicians wanted them to lend to, rather than to those who were most likely to pay them back. So it is no surprise that Barney Frank was very protective towards these two government-sponsored enterprises that were buying up mortgages that banks were willing to make under political pressure, but were often unwilling to keep.
The risks which banks were passing on to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ultimately risks to the taxpayers. Although there was no formal guarantee to these enterprises, everybody knew that the federal government would always bail them out, if necessary, to keep them from failing. Everybody except Barney Frank.
"There is no guarantee," according Congressman Frank in 2003, "there is no explicit guarantee, there is no implicit guarantee, there is no wink-and-nod guarantee." Barney Frank is a master of rhetoric, who does not let the facts cramp his style.
Fast forward now to 2008, after the risky mortgages had led to huge numbers of defaults, dragging down Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the financial markets in general — and with them the whole economy.
Barney Frank was all over the media, pointing the finger of blame at everybody else. When financial analyst Maria Bartiromo asked Congressman Frank who was responsible for the financial crisis, he said, "right-wing Republicans." It so happens that conservatives were the loudest critics who had warned for years against the policies that Barney Frank pushed, but why let facts get in the way?
Ms. Bartiromo did not just accept whatever Barney Frank said. She said: "With all due respect, congressman, I saw videotapes of you saying in the past: 'Oh, let's open up the lending. The housing market is fine.'" His reply? "No, you didn't see any such tapes."
"I did. I saw them on TV," she said. But Barney Frank did not budge. He understood that a good offense is the best defense. He also understands that rewriting history this election year is his best bet for keeping his long political career alive.
****Barney is a real-life version of Groucho Marx: "Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?"****

Tax-funded PC Left apologists for jihad exposed

2010-10-22T12:00:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/2chuyrx
We Owe a Debt of Gratitude to Juan Williams and Bill O'Reilly

Selling seed corn or one's patrimony for a mess of pottage

2010-10-20T06:35:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/28jqrv8
E.g. Selling the parking meters of Chicago for 25 cents on the dollar to Arab sovereign wealth funds.

Jefferson's Koran was better to understand the Islamist enemy

2010-10-06T12:34:00.000-07:00

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad By Ted Sampley
January 2007
Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources. ****Not exactly the correct inference, but a good try by a Muslim ****
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

Gold buyers are targeted by Obamacare! ???

2010-10-06T11:58:00.001-07:00

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/28/politics_versus_gold

Among the many timebombs hidden in the Obamacare bill is this one relating to gold ownership. Henceforth, reports will have to be made of anyone purchasing $600 or more worth of gold. Recall that FDR's administration made every gold owner turn in their holdings to the Federal government and, shortly thereafter, the dollar-gold ratio was revalued thus obviating a citizen's protection against currency devaluation. The only possible explanation is that the Obama Administration is contemplating doing something similar. This is another of the irrelevant items hidden in the Obamacare bill, a previously noted one was the requirement that all business purchases of $600 or more be reported on a 1099 form. Only people with no business experience ( and no common sense ) could not anticipate the negative and job-killing consequences of this.

Is voter fraud bipartisan? Hell no! How else did Al Franken win in MN?

2010-10-02T20:01:00.000-07:00

****With Rahm Emanuel as Mayor of the city, Chicago should be able to deliver more Democratic votes than the population of Illinois.****

ACORN now calls itself “COI” Community Organizations International
23,207 Fraudulent Texas Voters Registered by SEIU Member
“The integrity of the voting rolls in Harris County appears to be under an organized & systematic attack…”
http://www.texasinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ballot-box-fraud.jpgBy Warner Todd Huston

Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN, Texas – Service Employees International Union (SEIU) member Steve Caddle of Houston, Texas has been caught registering 23,207 fake voters in Harris County alone due to the hard detective work of Catherine Engelbrecht and her “True the Vote” project.

This is one of the best examples of what good citizen activism inspired by Tea Party principles can do for their community.

Catherine Engelbrecht was sick and tired of the vote fraud perpetrated by unions and Democrats and set out to expose it herself. Along with many friends who donated their time, computers, and sweat, they’ve uncovered thousands upon thousands of illegal Democrat “voters” in Texas.

“The integrity of the voting rolls in Harris County, Texas, appears to be under an organized & systematic attack by the group operating under the name Houston Votes,” the Harris voter registrar, Leo Vasquez, charged as he passed on the documentation to the district attorney.

A spokesman for the DA’s office declined to discuss the case. And a spokesman for Vasquez said that the DA has asked them to refrain from commenting on the case.

The union thug behind this particular criminal enterprise admitted only that there “had been mistakes made.”

“Vacant lots had several voters registered on them. An eight-bed halfway house had more than 40 voters registered at its address,” Engelbrecht said.

“We then decided to look at who was registering the voters.”

The other registrations included:

o One of a woman who registered six times in the same day

o Registrations of non-citizens

o So many applications from 1 “Houston Voters” collector in 1 day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability, and

o 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.

Does anyone have any doubt that this sort of crime has been perpetrated by Democrats the nation over? How many millions of fake, dead, nonexistent, and/or fraudulent voters have Democrats foisted upon the voter rolls in every corner of the nation?

Well, due to the excellent work of Catherine Engelbrecht and her “True the Vote” project, we see exposed at least some of the criminal behavior of Texas Democrats and Union thugs.

So what was the outcome of Engelbrecht’s hard work?

All of Harris County’s voting machines were torched in a three-alarm fire by person or persons unknown. Bet those shadowy firebugs hold SEIU membership cards, too!

Great work, Catherine. Now let’s see this replicated in every city in the nation.

Obama aspires to omnipotence in domestic affairs and impotence in foreign ones.

2010-09-25T13:30:00.000-07:00

Obama's Unconfirmed Medicare Director Who Called for Redistributing Wealth Through Health Care Won't Answer Questions From Senate
Appointed Without Senate Consent, Medicare Head has Praised UK's Socialized Medicine
By Fred Lucas
Dr. Donald Berwick, re-nominated by President Obama to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after getting the job through a recess appointment on Wednesday, July 7, 2010. (AP Photo/Goodman Media International, Inc.)
(CNSNews.com) – Donald Berwick, an advocate of health care rationing and redistributing wealth through the health-care system, who President Barack Obama appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) without a Senate confirmation hearing or vote, will not answer questions from the U.S. Senate, according to members of the committee that has overisght over his nomination.
“We’ve been trying to get him to answer questions in writing. He won’t do that,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Senate Finance Commmittee, told CNSNews.com Thursday. “We’ve been trying to get him up for a hearing. He won’t do that. He has indicated he might come to a hearing. So far, it’s been unsuccessful, no matter how important these matters are.”
Bypassing the Senate to appoint Berwick during the July 4 congressional recess, Obama later re-nominated the outspoken physician to the position fifteen days later. That means the Finance Committee could hold a confirmation hearing on Berwick now and send his nomination to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. But Hatch said the Senate Democratic majority has done nothing to advance the nomination, and Berwick has not been forthcoming with answers. Hatch predicted there will not be a confirmation hearing for Berwick before the election.
“Oh no. Not that I could see. If you look at this administration, they’ve got like 500 czars down there, or people you could call ‘czars,’” Hatch said. “It’s one thing to have bright people at the White House that don’t every have to report up here, it’s another thing to have them running the country. That’s why we have Cabinet positions, so that people can be accountable in those positions and what they’re trying to do.”
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, also expressed frustration that Berwick again declined an invitation to answer questions from the Senate.
“We invited Dr. Berwick to appear at today’s forum, but as you can see, he chose not to attend,” Grassley said. “The administration has to go out of its way to have a nominee avoid the regular committee review of their nomination. That begs the question, why did the administration go out of its way for Dr. Berwick? By avoiding the committee’s questions and refusing to share important information, the legitimacy and authority of Dr. Berwick to serve as administrator is called into question.”
The lack of responsiveness, meanwhile, did not stop Senate Republicans from holding their own hearing of sorts looking into Berwick and the entire health-care reform law.
“Dr. Berwick is now in charge of an agency that has a bigger budget than the Pentagon, with spending that amounts to more than 5 percent of our nation’s economy,” said Grassley.
“Additionally, when the new health law was signed in March, the agency that Dr. Berwick now leads become responsible for significant changes to federal health programs, including over half a trillion dollars in Medicare payments’ cuts and the largest Medicaid expansions since the program’s creation,” Grassley continued during a Senate Republican forum on Berwick, which Berwick was invited to attend.
Thanks to his recess appointment to run CMS, Berwick can until the end of 2011, under Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, unless the Senate Finance Committee called him in for a confirmation hearing and the Senate held a confirmation vote that failed.
“This may be the greatest transfer of power to a non-elected official,” said Dr. Michael Smith, with the 60-Plus Association, a senior citizens’ advocacy organization, speaking of Berwick's recess appointment.
“This is a potentially ominous sign for every senior or near senior in America,” Smith said earlier during his testimony. “Berwick’s nomination was so controversial that it was never approved by the Senate. His views were never even subject to a Senate hearing.”
On July 19, after Congress was back in session, Obama re-nominated Berwick to the Senate.
Berwick’s nomination was controversial because of comments he had made in favor of rationing and redistribution of health care.
On July 1, 2008, Berwick delivered a speech at the celebration of the 60th birthday of Great Britain’s National Health Service, the bureaucracy that runs that nation’s socialized health care system. He told his audience, “You could have had a monstrous insurance industry of claims and rules and paper-pushing instead of using your tax base to provide a single route of finance.”
Berwick continued, “You could have protected the wealthy and the well, instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker. And that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must—must--redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well.”
He also said in that speech, “I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.”
An adapted version of the speech appeared in the July 26, 2008 issue of the British Medical Journal.
In an interview with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care, the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
On July 7, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to answer whether Obama agreed with Berwick’s statement that, “excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”
Even Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was critical of the recess appointment in July.
“Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee--and answered,” Baucus said. Yet Baucus has failed to convene a confirmation hearing since Berwick's renomination in July.
Robert Moffit, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, found Berwick’s comments disconcerting. But he thought the main focus should be on health law itself.
“In fact, the recent media attention on Dr. Berwick and his views on rationing or the performance of the British National Health Service misses a much larger and far more consequential point. The personality of the CMS administrator or the Secretary of HHS is of secondary importance to the legal framework that Congress itself has erected over the years though thousands of pages of statutory text, which has generated tens of thousands of pages of regulatory interventions into financing and delivery of health care.”
Smith, meanwhile, said there are already signs of rationing.
“For the first time that I can ever recall, an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] advisory board recommended withdrawing government approval of a life-extending cancer drug because of what I believe to be cost concerns,” Smith said.

Disingenuous Dem claims about Defense Bill.

2010-09-23T14:12:00.000-07:00

AMNESTY WAS THE KEY ISSUE IN SENATE BLOCKING
DEFENSE BILL FROM DEBATE YESTERDAY
ANOTHER GREAT DEFEAT OF AN AMNESTY EFFORT
Many of the news media tried to simplify the blocking of the bill as being mainly about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell issue.
It almost seems like they don't want to give us a headline of defeating an amnesty which most of them have campaigned so hard for over the last few years.
But I have laid out in my blog today a few reasons why I think the DREAM amnesty issue was the key one behind the Defense defeat.

REPUBLICANS WERE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD
IF AMNESTY ISSUE DELAYED
Senate Republican Leader McConnell's office explains to us that McConnell offered Senate Majority Leader Reid a deal just before the vote. That deal would have allowed the debate to begin on the Defense bill IF . . .
. . . if the first 20 amendments taken up on the floor were actually related directly to Defense issues
. . . if immigration issues were not part of the first 20 amendments
Did you get that?
The Republicans -- who unanimously voted yesterday to block any debate on the Defense bill -- were willing to allow full debate. If Sen. Reid (D-Nevada) had been willing to put the DREAM amnesty off until after the first 20 amendments, the Senate would be debating the Defense bill right now -- and presumably the next two weeks or so.
The Republicans were willing to go on with debate of the bill even though it included repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and a number of other provisions that many Republicans opposed. They were willing to wait until later in the debate to fight the provisions they opposed.
But the Republicans were not willing to have the DREAM amnesty for up to 2 million illegal aliens be part of the first weeks of debate.
Thus, immigration appears to have been the key issue for the Republican leadership.
REID REFUSED TO DELAY AMNESTY DEBATE
Apparently, immigration was also the key issue for Sen. Reid.
If he had been willing to put off the amnesty issue for awhile, he would have been able to move forward on his Defense bill.
But Reid absolutely objected to Republican McConnell's offer.
Reid wanted to bring up the DREAM Act amnesty on the first day of debate. He apparently wasn't about to wait two weeks and definitely not until after the November elections.
It looks to me that the only reason the Defense bill was blocked was because McConnell insisted on de-prioritizing the amnesty vote and because Reid insisted on the amnesty debate happening immediately.

AMNESTY DOMINATED SENATE LEADERSHIP'S POST-DEFEAT COMMENTS
If you were watching the Defense vote on C-SPAN, you would have noticed that immediately after the Defense bill was declared blocked, Senate leaders launched into emotional speeches about the loss of ability to pass the DREAM amnesty.
The Senate leaders clearly were most distraught that the failure to bring the Defense bill to the floor meant they couldn't try to attach the amnesty to it.
Please join the conversation about the vote and this analysis by clicking here. And also read the rest of my analysis there.
Once again, I want to thank all of you who sent free faxes to your Senators explaining your objections to the DREAM Act amnesty, and who made phone calls, and for those of you who worked even harder by showing up at Senators' offices to register your opinions.
Your constant activism the last two weeks -- and the last two years -- created the conditions that were favorable for us blocking the amnesty this week.
That is not to say that we may not face another attempt at amnesty in the lame duck session after the November elections. But you can have every confidence that we will alert you when you need to be alerted about what you need to do if danger arises again.
And I have every confidence that you will respond in victorious fashion.

The inclusiveness of the liberals' view of the Nanny State.

2010-09-17T09:28:00.000-07:00

again from Jas Taranto:

Can Christine O'Donnell Win?
Don Surber of the Charleston Daily News, dean of the West Virginia political blogosphere, thinks she can. He notes that O'Donnell's victory has driven the left to "lunacy." New York magazine complains that she's "not a big fan of evolution." TalkingPointsMemo.com accuses her of being "anti-masturbation." Seriously, anti-masturbation! These liberals really have a government program for everything. There's nothing they think Americans can do for themselves.

Why liberals support the Victory Mosque.

2010-09-17T09:23:00.000-07:00

Islamic Affirmative Action by James Taranto
...the liberal elite has responded to 9/11 in a totally inappropriate way. When the only tool you have is a hammer, the cliché goes, every problem looks like a nail. To American liberals, every problem looks like the civil rights struggle, the original one of which was their last real moral, cultural and governmental success.

That is why the liberal elite sees 9/11 less as a national security challenge than as an imperative for a kind of affirmative action aimed at ensuring that "inclusiveness" extends to Muslims....****what other Americans see****is what Americans everywhere see in the obnoxious plan to build a fancy 15-story mosque adjacent to the site of an Islamic supremacist atrocity.

But whereas white Americans collectively had a great deal to atone for in their historical treatment of blacks, it is perverse and offensive to suggest that 9/11 leaves Americans with an obligation to atone to Muslims. ...

We've all seen the signs ( cost: tens of M ) boasting of the stimulus' projects.

2010-09-17T07:04:00.000-07:00

L.A.: $111M in Stimulus Saved Just 55 Jobs By William Lajeunesse
]Jan 29: A stimulus project roadsign is posted on Sunset Blvd. in West Hollywood, Calif.

More than a year after Congress approved $800 billion in stimulus funds, the Los Angeles City Controller has released a 40-page report on how the city spent its share, and the results are not living up to expectations.

"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," said Wendy Greuel, the city's controller. "With our local unemployment rate over 12% we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work."

According to the audit, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works spent $70 million in stimulus funds and created 7 private sector jobs and saved 7 workers from layoffs. Taxpayer cost per job: $1.5 million.

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation created even fewer jobs per dollar, spending $40 million but netting just 9 jobs. Taxpayer cost per job: $4.4 million.

Greuel blamed the dismal numbers on several factors:
1. Bureaucratic red tape: 4 highway projects did not even go out to bid until 7 months after they were authorized.

2. Projects that were supposed to be competitively bid in the private sector went instead went to city workers.

3. Stimulus money was not properly tracked within departments

4. Both departments could not report the jobs created and retained in a timely fashion..

"I would say maybe in a grade, a B- in creating the jobs," Greuel told Fox News. "They have started to spend those dollars but it took seven months to get some of those contracts out. We think in the city that we should move quickly and not in the same usual bureaucratic ways."

Where does Obama get his fundamental ideas?

2010-09-13T11:21:00.000-07:00

Gingrich: Obama's World View Shaped by Kenya
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says President Barack Obama harbors a deep-seated animosity toward the West as a result of his forefather’s rebellion against British rule in their native Kenya. Obama, who had a bust of Winston Churchill removed from the Oval Office when he first settled in, operates with a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview, Gingrich told the National Review in remarks the Politerati blog reported Sunday. As a source for this insight, Gingrich cited a new article by conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza in an upcoming edition of Forbes magazine.
Gingrich, who is mulling a bid to run for president in 2012, suggested that the president’s world view might be “outside the comprehension” of most Americans.
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asked, according to the National Review. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich said.
“I think Obama gets up every morning with a worldview that is fundamentally wrong about reality,” he said. “If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”

The Victory Mosque is a distinguishing situation

2010-09-13T09:46:00.000-07:00

****Look at a true-American Muslim's impression of Imam Rauf, the Mosque and what makes an American. Then look at a foreigner's impression of what makes an "American" and what makes for "American exceptionalism" (although Obama doesn't believe in it.) We can see how useful the whole trumped-up Victory Mosque situation is: it represents a triumphalist symbol for global Islam but it will remind Americans who committed the atrocities of 9/11. Importantly, it distinguishes between Muslims like Dr. Jasser who are Americans first, like other Americans, and those who, like Imam Rauf, have questionable loyalties and priorities.It also identifies "useful idiots" who just don't understand. (Mayor Bloomberg clearly belongs in the useful idiot camp rather than that of the disloyal; which camp President Obama belongs to is unclear.)****

Questions for Imam Rauf From an American Muslim He may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue he shows his true allegiance. By M. ZUHDI JASSER
After a long absence while controversy over the mosque near Ground Zero smoldered, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf finally held forth this week both in the New York Times and on CNN.
Imam Rauf and his supporters are clearly more interested in making a political statement in relation to Islam than in the mosque's potential for causing community division and pain to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. That division is already bitterly obvious.
As someone who has been involved in building mosques around the country, and who has dealt with his fair share of unjustified opposition, I ask of Imam Rauf and all his supporters, "Where is your sense of fairness and common decency?" In relation to Ground Zero, I am an American first, a Muslim second, just as I would be at Concord, Gettysburg, Normandy Beach, Pearl Harbor or any other battlefield where my fellow countrymen lost their lives.
I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand—what's best for Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam? What have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims.
You now lecture Americans that WTC mosque protests are "politically motivated" and "go against the American principle of church and state." Yet you ignore the wide global prevalence of far more dangerous theo-political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its violent and nonviolent offshoots.
In your book, "What's Right With Islam," you cite the Brotherhood's radical longtime spiritual leader Imam Yusuf Qaradawi as a "moderate." Reformist American Muslims are not afraid to name Mr. Qaradawi and his ilk as radical. We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state.
Imam, tell me if you can look into the eyes of children who lost a parent on 9/11 and convince them that this immodest Islamic center benefits them. How will it in any way aid counterterrorism efforts or keep one American any safer? You willfully ignore what American Muslims most need—an open call for reformation that unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and separates mosque and state.
There are certainly those who are prejudiced against Muslims and who are against mosques being built anywhere, and even a few who wish to burn the Quran. But most voices in this case have been very clear that for every American freedom of religion is a right, but that it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero.
As an American Muslim, I look at that pit of devastation and contemplate the thousands of lives undone there within seconds. I pray for the ongoing strength to fight the fanatics who did this, and who continue their war against my country with both overt violence and covert strategies that aim to undo the very freedoms for which so many have fought and died.
Imam Rauf may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue, and by failing to firmly condemn terrorist groups like Hamas, he shows his true allegiance.
Islamists in "moderate" disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims of the separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam. In this epic struggle of the 21st century, we cannot afford to ignore the continuum between nonviolent political Islam and the militancy it ultimately fuels among the jihadists.
Dr. Jasser, a medical doctor and a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix, Ariz.
****What makes for American exceptionalism? A view from afar, but from a friend.****
From a Romanian Newspaper
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title 'C'ntarea Americii, meaning 'Ode To America ') in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei 'The Daily Event' or 'News of the Day'.
~ An Ode to America ~
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.
On 9/11, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.
Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand.
After the first moments of panic , they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing. On every occasion, they started singing: 'God Bless America !'
I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put into collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy. What on earth can unites the Americans in such way? Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but only one conclusion... Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
(This deserves to be passed around the Internet forever.) It took a person on the outside - looking in - to see what we take for granted! Let Freedom Ring!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/nistorescu.asp
****While on HUCKABEE Saturday night, Giuliani made the following points. While we all acknowledge that not all Muslims are terrorists, the organized Muslim community in the U.S. was notable for NOT coming out forthrightly in condemnation of specific acts of terror, or denouncing Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, etc. There is little to no recognition of the Ft Hood massacre, the underwear bombing attempt, the Times Square attempt, etc all committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Rather, Giuliani continued, such groups as CAIR just bellyache about discrimination against Muslims in the U.S. of which there isn't any, at least until the recent Victory Mosque imbroglio, brought about by the confrontationalism of certain Muslims who happen to live in America.****

Obama partial to our enemies, hostile to us.

2010-09-10T17:11:00.000-07:00

Obama comes out unambiguously in favor of the Victory Mosque but insisted on sensitivity concerning the kook in Florida who wanted to burn Korans. He keeps insisting that Al Qaeda is a small minority of Islam but ignores the crowds cheering both 9/11 and every act of terror. It doesn't matter what percentage of worldwide Muslims is actively terrorist; it's clear that very large numbers approve. Are we really not at war with Islam? ( He cites Bush, that great theologian, ignoring the fact that Bush spoke right after 9/11 and wanted to avoid a violent backlash against American Muslims. Also, subsequent acts make it clear that Islam, or a significant fraction of Muslims, is at war with us.

Burlingame Rebuts Obama on Gitmo, KSM, and Ground Zero Mosque BY John McCormack
Debra Burlingame, a Board Member of Keep America Safe, responds to President Obama's remarks at today's press conference on Gitmo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the Ground Zero mosque:
“President Obama’s remarks today, on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, showed a regrettable disconnect with the American people who regard 9/11 as a world-changing event that touched all of our lives.
“The President dismissed opposition to a 15-story mosque and Islamic center at Ground Zero as a symptom of religious intolerance. The President knows this to be false.
“The American public, including the vast majority of 9-11 families, view the building of this mosque on Ground Zero as an insensitive and unnecessary provocation that will be viewed by our enemies as a symbol of triumph at the site of their bloodiest attack.
“The American public’s opposition to the mosque project is simply a call for respect for that historic site and for the innocent people who died there nine years ago.
“The President also made news today on another front.
“After dodging the question for nearly a year, the President signaled today that he is renewing his bid to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11, in a civilian court. This comes after the Justice Department and the White House, according to numerous reports, had apparently decided to shelve the issue until after the November elections.
“The American people and a bipartisan majority of the Congress are overwhelmingly opposed to bringing KSM to American soil for trial, as such a trial would likely last many years, increase the security threat to the city in which he is tried, and provide KSM a high-profile, public platform for which to spew his hateful jihadist propaganda.
“Justice for KSM and the other captured 9-11 co-conspirators can and should be delivered by the safe, secure and effective military tribunal system at Guantanamo Bay.

Obama Voices Strongest Support Yet for Location of Ground Zero Mosque By: David A. Patten
President Obama voiced his strongest support yet Friday for a plan to locate a Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero in New York City, saying constructing the facility there was an "inalienable right."
Burlingame adds that the president's castigation of the Koran burning while supporting the ground zero mosque site represents a clear double standard.
She added that the president could have encouraged that Muslim leaders to compromise and move the mosque to another location.
"The president refused to do that, and I think this is another example of the president appeasing and appealing and forbearing always to the Muslim world, without regard to how his citizens — now at 72 percent [opposed] — [feel about the site] being at ground zero," she said.
Burlingame charged that the president appears to be more sensitive to Muslim sensibilities than to those of people in the United States. "He cares nothing about the sensibilities of Americans. And if that mosque inflames passions of our enemies in terms of endangering our troops, well, that just has to take a second seat," she said.
"I just think that the president is completely out of touch with the American people," Burlingame added. "And that is sad to me, especially as we're preparing for this solemn [9/11 memorial] ceremony."

"Liberals love every country in the world...except their own." Benj Disraeli

2010-09-10T08:56:00.000-07:00

Oikophobia Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.
By JAMES TARANTO
If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.
What accounts for this madness? Charles Krauthammer notes a pattern:
Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game: "Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . . What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument."
But this has its limits as a political strategy. Krauthammer writes that "the Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November," and no one will credit him for boldness in that prediction. Some may disagree with his reckoning as to the reason for that likely loss: that "a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them."
But can anyone argue that a show of contempt is a winning political strategy? The question answers itself and implies that the contempt is genuine.

What is the nature of this contempt? In part it is the snobbery of the cognitive elite, exemplified by a recent New York Times Web column by Timothy Egan called "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings"--or by the viciousness directed at Sarah Palin, whose folksy demeanor and state-college background seem terribly déclassé not just to liberals but to a good number of conservatives in places like New York City.

In more cerebral moments, the elitists of the left invoke a kind of Marxism Lite to explain away opinions and values that run counter to their own. Thus Barack Obama's notorious remark to the effect that economic deprivation embitters the proles, so that they cling to guns and religion. (Ironically, Obama recently said through a spokesman that he is Christian.) Here's Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's labor secretary, explaining "The Anatomy of Intolerance" to readers of TalkingPointsMemo.com:

Many Americans (and politicians who [sic] the polls) don't want a mosque at Manhattan's Ground Zero. . . .

Where is all this coming from?

It's called fear. When people are deeply anxious about holding on to their homes, their jobs, and their savings, they look for someone to blame. And all too often they find it in "the other"--in people who look or act differently, who come from foreign lands, who have what seem to be strange religions, who cross our borders illegally. . . .

Economic fear is the handmaiden of intolerance. It's used by demagogues who redirect the fear and anger toward people and groups who aren't really to blame but are easy scapegoats.

So if some Americans are afraid of people "who have what seem to be strange religions," it must be a totally irrational reaction to "economic insecurity." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with an act of mass murder committed in the name of the religion in question.

And Reich doesn't just fail to see the obvious. He dehumanizes his fellow Americans by treating their values, feelings and opinions as no more than reflexive reactions to material conditions. Americans in fact are a very tolerant people. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was no serious backlash against Muslims. What makes them angry--what makes us angry--is the bigotry of the elites.

The Ground Zero mosque is an affront to the sensibilities of ordinary Americans. "The center's association with 9/11 is intentional and its location is no geographic coincidence," as the Associated Press has reported. That Americans would find this offensive is a matter of simple common sense. The liberal elites cannot comprehend common sense, and, incredibly, they think that's a virtue. After all, common sense is so common.

The British philosopher Roger Scruton has coined a term to describe this attitude: oikophobia. Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: "the disposition, in any conflict, to side with 'them' against 'us', and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably 'ours.' " What a perfect description of the pro-mosque left.

Scruton was writing in 2004, and his focus was on Britain and Europe, not America. But his warning about the danger of oikophobes--whom he amusingly dubs "oiks"--is very pertinent on this side of the Atlantic today, and it illuminates how what are sometimes dismissed as mere matters of "culture" tie in with economic and social policy:

The oik repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed on us from on high by the EU or the UN, though without troubling to consider Terence's question, and defining his political vision in terms of universal values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.

The oik is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of the oik that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it. The explosive effect of this has already been felt in Holland and France. It will be felt soon everywhere, and the result may not be what the oiks expect.

There is one important difference between the American oik and his European counterpart. American patriotism is not a blood-and-soil nationalism but an allegiance to a country based in an idea of enlightened universalism. Thus our oiks masquerade as--and may even believe themselves to be--superpatriots, more loyal to American principles than the vast majority of Americans, whom they denounce as "un-American" for feeling an attachment to their actual country as opposed to a collection of abstractions.

Yet the oiks' vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."

This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false. That is why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.

Two Papers in One!
This column has lots of fun at the expense of the New York Times, but we have to admit that every now and then they do some real journalism. Yesterday's Times featured a fascinating story about world-wide Muslim reactions to the Ground Zero mosque debate:

Across the world, the bruising struggle over an Islamic center near ground zero has elicited some unexpected reactions.

For many in Europe, where much more bitter struggles have taken place over bans on facial veils in France and minarets in Switzerland, America's fight over Park51 [this week's Ground Zero mosque moniker] seems small fry, essentially a zoning spat in a culture war.

But others, especially in countries with nothing similar to the constitutional separation of church and state, find it puzzling that there is any controversy at all. In most Muslim nations, the state not only determines where mosques are built, but what the clerics inside can say.

The one constant expressed, regardless of geography, is that even though many in the United States have framed the future of the community center as a pivotal referendum on the core issues of religion, tolerance and free speech, those outside its borders see the debate as a confirmation of their pre-existing feelings about the country, whether good or bad.

Read the whole thing; there really is a range of opinions. Compare this with the hysterical tone of the Times editorial on the subject last week:

Newt Gingrich, who has been beating this drum for weeks, accused the president of "pandering to radical Islam" and said the mosque would be a symbol of Muslim "triumphalism." We were hesitant about repeating those comments here. But the country ignores such cynicism and ugliness at its own peril. Make no mistake, the rest of the world is listening.

This has been a common conceit on the pro-mosque left: that building the mosque would be a boon to U.S.-Muslim relations, while Americans' failure to march in lockstep behind the idea would be a disaster. But why should we assume that Americans who don't even understand their own culture have any inkling about foreign ones?

Obama's effect on American competitiveness

2010-09-09T13:40:00.000-07:00

U.S. slips in WEF's competitiveness rankings
BEIJING (Reuters) – Switzerland remains the world's most competitive economy, while the United States has fallen from second to fourth after losing the top spot last year, according to the World Economic Forum's annual rankings issued on Thursday.
Sweden, in second spot, and Singapore in third leapfrogged the United States in the WEF's Global Competitiveness Report 2010/2011.
Last year the Asian city-state ranked third and Sweden fourth. There were no newcomers in the WEF's top 10, although Germany climbed to fifth from seventh.
The WEF said America slipped in the ranking due to a build-up in U.S. macroeconomic imbalances, a weakening of the country's public and private institutions and concerns about the state of its financial markets.
"There are weaknesses in some areas in particular, which we have discussed for some time before, and they deepened somewhat since last year," ...
The report said a lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be America's greatest area of weakness, with repeated fiscal deficits leading to burgeoning public indebtedness.
It also said that U.S. business leaders show less trust in politicians and the government's ability to maintain an arm's-length relationship with the private sector.
The WEF bases its assessment on a dozen drivers of competitiveness, including institutions, infrastructure, health and education, market size and the macroeconomic environment.The report also factors in a survey among business leaders, assessing the government's efficiency and transparency...****Now, whose fault is the lack of confidence?****

For Obama, reductio ad absurdum is a starting point.

2010-09-09T11:02:00.000-07:00

A Job for George W. Bush America needs a president with the moral authority to denounce Koran-burning. By JAMES TARANTO
...Now, many of those same Muslims say that all of those years of work are being rapidly undone by the fierce opposition to a Muslim cultural center near ground zero that has unleashed a torrent of anti-Muslim sentiments and a spate of vandalism. . . Some American Muslims said they were especially on edge as the anniversary of 9/11 approaches. The pastor of a small church in Florida has promised to burn a pile of Korans that day. Muslim leaders are telling their followers that the stunt has been widely condemned by Christian and other religious groups and should be ignored. But they said some young American Muslims were questioning how they could simply sit by and watch the promised desecration.Assuming that the Florida pastor complies with applicable fire codes, he has a perfect legal right to burn Korans that are his private property. That he has a right to do it, however, does not mean it is the right thing to do. In our view, he should call off the event for the same reason that the mosque developers should choose a site a respectful distance from Ground Zero: because the plan is obnoxious and (figuratively as well as literally) inflammatory.
...There is a grain of truth in the protesters' blaming Obama, whose limp leadership has had an incendiary effect. He escalated the Ground Zero mosque controversy by making a strong but unnecessary statement about religious freedom, but then abdicated his responsibility by voting "present" on the real question: whether it is wise and responsible to use freedom in this way....But the commander in chief hasn't said a word about it, and how could he? If the president of the United States is indifferent or hostile to his own countrymen's sensitivities, his exhortations to respect the sensitivities of foreigners--although in this case they would be entirely justified--are sure to fall on deaf ears.
America needs a president with the moral authority to denounce the Florida church's stupid, offensive, potentially dangerous stunt. This is a job for George W. Bush.
****Having proven that it is absurd for Obama to be so asymmetrical in his "sensitivities," and so Obama's speaking out is verboten. Obama goes ahead and does it, anyway! Various logical fallacies are mere starting points for Democrats in the Age of Obama. A second one for today: post hoc ergo propter hoc. For example, "Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed afterward."
http://tinyurl.com/33k29fq
Obama: Minister must cancel Quran-burning 'stunt'
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama implored a Florida minister to call off his Quran-burning "stunt,"...Obama told ABC's "Good Morning America" in an interview aired Thursday that he hopes the Rev. Terry Jones of Florida listens to "those better angels" and to the individuals and organizations pleading with him to change his mind. "If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans," the president said. "That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance." "And as a very practical matter, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women who are in uniform," Obama said. Said Obama: "Look, this is a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaida... ****Isn't a triumphalist mosque at Ground Zero also a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda? ****

Has Netanyahu changed because of Obama? Does he really trust Obama to deal with Iran?

2010-09-06T20:11:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/2ckh4j4
At the Mideast peace talks, a changed Netanyahu

By Aluf Benn
He is usually depicted as a hard-liner,...But, contrary to popular wisdom, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is proving to be the most dovish leader that Israel has had in many years,...What caused Netanyahu to rethink his long-held ideology? To be sure, he did not go through a midlife left-wing epiphany any more than Nixon did. Rather, he succumbed to American pressure, and this, too, speaks in his favor. Statecraft requires reading power relationships correctly and acting accordingly.
Past right-wing Israeli leaders went through similar about-faces. Menachem Begin gave the entire Sinai back to Egypt only weeks after he pledged to spend his retirement in an Israeli settlement there. Ariel Sharon demolished the settlements in Gaza shortly after declaring them as important as Tel Aviv. Yitzhak Shamir, the toughest of the breed, put aside his beliefs to attend the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference. All these leaders were said to have "reckoned with reality" -- which, in Israeli political parlance, is a euphemism for "dependence on America..." ****Ostensibly, Bibi is trading Obama's taking care of Iran's nuclear program for backing down on land for peace. Now, of course, Bibi is aware that Obama cannot be trusted to deliver on his end of the deal and so must be planning not to deliver on his end when Obama defaults. He's probably just marking time until Obama is no longer President. OK, that says that nothing draconian will be agreed to with respect to the Palestinians ( who also cannot be trusted and don't want peace, in any case.) It does not, however, say what Bibi can or will do with respect to the threat from Iran. At some point, he will have to cross Obama and attack Iran when Obama clearly won't.

Huff Post gets it wrong about "anti-Semitic" German Central Banker, Thilo Sarrazin

2010-09-05T05:49:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/3xxfhzy
Thilo Sarrazin, German Banker, Under Fire For 'Racist' Jewish Remark KIRSTEN GRIESHABER
BERLIN — Top German officials and immigrant leaders on Sunday condemned remarks by a board member of Germany's federal bank as racist and anti-Semitic. Chancellor Angela Merkel said the Bundesbank should discuss dismissing the banker. Thilo Sarrazin of the Bundesbank came under fire for telling the weekly newspaper Welt am Sonntag that "all Jews share the same gene." He also said Muslim immigrants across Europe were not willing or capable of integrating into western societies.
Last year, Sarrazin, who previously served as finance minister for Berlin, told a magazine that "I do not need to accept anyone who lives on handouts from a state that it rejects, is not adequately concerned about the education of their children and constantly produces new, little headscarf-clad girls."...
****In actual fact, what Sarrazin said about Jews is unexceptionable i.e. that Jews share a gene. It would seem to be a scientific observation rather than prejudice. DNA testing has proved the relationship of, for example, Ashkenazic, Sephardic and Misrahi Jews who stayed in the Middle East. What really got him into trouble was his other comments about Muslims, a truly untouchable group. Meanwhile, a true anti-Semite, De Gucht, gets a pass.****
http://tinyurl.com/2dx6v8q
Muslims: the untouchable group A Tale of Two European Remarks: De Gucht and Sarrazin By Daniel Greenfield
In August, Thilo Sarrazin a member of the board of the German Central Bank, and a critic of Islamic immigration, mentioned that Jews and Basques and some other ethnic groups have a common gene. What followed was a storm of protests and accusations that Sarrazin was anti-Semitic. Sarrazin was dismissed from his position on the board, and newspaper articles explained that it was for remarks that he had made about Muslims and Jews.
Last week, Karel De Gucht, the European Commissioner for Trade, gave a radio show his considered opinion of Jews. Naturally De Gucht put on his best jackboots, and explained that there will be no peace because the Jews run America, that Jews believe they are always right, and that it’s impossible to have a conversation with even a “moderate Jew”. While a few Jewish groups have protested, the European Commission has shrugged, and the media has shrugged too. The odds that De Gucht will be forced out of his job, the way that Sarrazin was, are minimal...
But the difference between Sarrazin and De Gucht, was that Sarrazin said something truly unacceptable about an untouchable group. Muslims. While De Gucht mainly expressed a popular view among European elites about the Jews. The ferocious charges of Anti-Semitism against Sarrazin hinged only on him stating a casual fact that Jews are genetically related to one another. It isn’t Anti-Semitism, it’s Science. Sarrazin was not charged with Anti-Semitism because of what he had said about Jews, but because of what he had said about Muslims.
The media did not bother to report that Sarrazin had said that he would prefer immigration “if it was by eastern European Jews with a 15-percent-higher IQ than the German population.” An odd remark for an “Anti-Semite” to make. It would indeed seem that Thilo Sarrazin has a more positive view of Jews, than Karel De Gucht does. But it’s not really about the Jews. It’s about Muslims.
The Jews were used as cover by the advocates of multiculturalism to charge Sarrazin with bigotry. And there was a reason for that. Sarrazin had described himself as a mongrel, with French, Italian and Polish ancestry. His criticism of Muslim immigration was not genetic, but based on their refusal to integrate into Germany. Sarrazin had pointed out that other immigrants from Eastern Europe and Vietnam were productive members of society. Muslims however were not...

Islamophobes see an upside in the "Victory Mosque."

2010-09-04T12:10:00.000-07:00

Why would an Islamophobe ( in the classical sense of one who fears --not hates—Islam and Islamists ) see an upside to the Ground Zero Mosque being built?
It is clear from the history of the land acquisition that there was a deliberate effort to get a site as close as possible to Ground Zero and, in their own correspondence (until it became politically incorrect) the sponsors referred to the project as the Ground Zero Mosque. They also named it Cordoba House ( again withdrawn for political correctness, but not until the Muslim world and others were made aware of the name --and its connotations.)
Thus, it is clear that Muslims outside the U.S. will regard the Ground Zero Mosque as an example of Islamist triumphalism, in keeping with the story of Cordoba and the Muslim tradition of building “victory mosques” on conquered territory in as public a manner as possible. For non-American Muslims, there is not the slightest consideration of sensitivity or priority.
With respect to American Muslims, however, it is a different story. For those American Muslims who wish to assimilate as Americans, with that identity trumping everything else, a decent respect for the opinions of others, as well as a commonsensical wish to avoid any appearance of impropriety and possibly create a backlash, would cause them to oppose the placing of the Mosque in the proposed location. For those American Muslims who trumpet the irrelevant need for "religious freedom", and support the thumb-in-the-eye placement, it is clear that their identity as members of the Ummah trump their identification and allegiance as Americans.
Obama has often proclaimed that America is not at war with Islam. Islam, however, is surely at war with America (indeed, Western Civilization) and Islamists do not doubt this. It is Americans’ awareness of our enemies that is wanting. This is why Islamophobes see benefits in the building of this victory mosque, especially in the face of public opposition. It will serve as a constant reminder to Americans of the association between 9-11 (and, indeed, the World Trade Center attack in 1994) and those who perpetrated this atrocity. The saliency of the 15-story Mosque will provide a virtual big red arrow pointed at Ground Zero to say "we did this." The proximity will similarly serve as a big red arrow from Ground Zero pointing at "those who did this."
The issue of support or opposition on the part of American Muslims, will serve as a simple differentiation between two groups. There are those who wish to assimilate and be Americans first and foremost, with American (indeed, Judeo-Christian) values paramount. These will be seen as opposed to those Muslims for whom Sharia, Islam, the hope for a Caliphate and the wish to transform (i.e. conquer ) America is salient. It's clear and easy to distinguish between the two kinds of Muslims. While we know that not all Muslims are terrorists, it is the case that almost all terrorists are Muslims. There is the further situation that non-terrorist Muslims have the opportunity to oppose those who are, to speak out against them clearly and specifically, and cooperate with American authorities to root out them out.. To a great extent, most American Muslims have not done so. There are a lot of Muslims who are radical Islamists but even more other Muslims who are supportive either by contribution of resources, apologies, or by silence.

Since the Victory Mosque will probably be Sunni in affiliation, it might also be the case that Shia terrorists will destroy it before too many years elapse. Nevertheless, it will last long enough for the lesson of Islam-in-America to be made forcefully, not least when this era of extraordinary Islamophilia by the leftists in power has passed.

Another example of 'the religion of peace.' It's getting more absurd to be politically correct about Islam.

2010-09-04T11:56:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/26e8uj7
Prominent Australian imam calls for the beheading of Geert Wilders.

***Why is it that a religion that claims to be focused on the long-term ( life on earth is but a blink ) with rewards ( albeit of a very earthly and earthy kind ) in Heaven, is so concerned with daily life on Earth? Martyrs are supposed to get their rewards in Heaven for foul acts committed on Earth and in this life for the purpose of establishing earthly hegemony for Islam. It's either inconsistent or remarkably naive and childish.***

Dems want GOP to verify Obama's not Muslim. But doesn't it take one to know one?

2010-09-04T09:23:00.001-07:00

Minister wants Obama to become Ameer-ul-Momineen
Published: September 02, 2010
ISLAMABAD – In a development that could be duly termed as one and only of its kind, an incumbent Government’s Minister has urged US President Barrack Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero Mosque and become “Ameer-ul-Momineen” of Muslim Ummah.
Minister of State for Industries and former member Pakistan Ideological Council Ayatullah Durrani called TheNation on Wednesday to register his demand made to President Obama.
“The coming Eid would expectedly be observed on 9/11, this a golden opportunity for President Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero and become Amir-ul-Momineen or Caliph of Muslims. In this way, all the problems of Muslim World would be solved,” he thought.
Durrani argued that Muslim World was in “dire need” of a Caliph and the distinguished slot of Caliphate would earn President Obama the exemplary titles of what he termed, “Mullah Barrack Hussain Obama” or “Allama Obama.” “The time is approaching fast. Barrack Hussain Obama must act now. This is a golden opportunity, Muslims badly need it,” he added, saying that the elevation of President Obama to Muslim’s Caliphate would be the “key to success.”
***Now, of course I subscribe to Ann Coulter's observation that Obama is personally an atheist. He is, nevertheless, one with strong pro-Islamic feelings and sense of identity. It's denied by those who don't know better (just as the great theologian, Bush, proclaimed Islam a peaceful religion) but acknowledged by those who do.
Obama has indulged himself in a child's fantasy: acceding to a position of power with the ability and willingness to indulge his personal prejudices, likes and dislikes.
Dislikes? The British, businesspeople, the U.S. Constitution ( full of only "negative" rights), the Founding Fathers of the U.S., capitalism, Jews (how could it be otherwise after 20 years in Rev. Wright's church --or does causality go the other say? That is, did he choose Wright beforehand?)
Likes? Islam ( the sound of the muezzin and prayers; the glorious history of Islam; the Muslim nature of the U.S., the "holy Koran" --noticing how he rolls the "r" and always appends "HOLY"--,radicals (Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers,et al ), redistribution of wealth, power and re-election, a messianic role to socialize the U.S. and to bend Western Civilization to Islamic values. While Obama's aspirations to transformational, messianic status is clear, so far he has not personally evinced ambitions to be Caliph as the Minister suggests.***

A Deist would answer Hawking and say that God created the laws of physics.

2010-09-03T16:05:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/26pkrmg
God did not create the universe, says Hawking
By Michael Holden
LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes...
****Not only is there need for a creator of the laws of physics, there is the definite possibility that the laws of physics are not necessary. That is, other universes can exist in which the laws of physics are different. The astronomer Martin Rees has pointed out that half a dozen constants of physics don't have to have the numbers that they do. An infinity of other universes might exist in which the constants are different and,indeed, in which other physics laws are different. Not all would permit the development of the universe that we are familiar with and that Hawking is speaking about. This, in fact, answers the question that Deists have had difficulty with: "After creating the laws of Nature what HAS Nature's God been doing?" An answer is that He has been busy creating the laws of physics for the infinity of other universes.(How else to tax the infinite power of an omnipotent GOD? )****

Will American learn the lessons of Europe? Europe didn't.

2010-09-03T11:55:00.000-07:00

Subject: Fwd: Story from a Spanish newspaper regarding what happened in Europe
Note - according to Google, "Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez" is apparently a pseudonym so the writer could avoid being targeted by Radical Muslims...

Subject: Story from a Spanish newspaper regarding what happened in Europe
Read all of it. Scroll all the way to the bottom. Read each word and know this is the truth. If this offends your political views, simply delete and move along. Unless you're completely blind, you will see this is happening in America right now.

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15 2008. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.

REMEMBER AS YOU READ . . . IT WAS IN A SPANISH PAPER

Date: Tuesday 15 January 2008 14:30

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.

Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe .

A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.

Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test.

These events are actual events from history. They really happened! Do you remember?

HERE'S THE TEST:

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

14. And now we can add: In 2009, 31 people wounded and 13 American Soldiers murdered on base at Fort Hood by a Major that was known as...
a: You guessed it - A Muslim male extremist between the age of 17 and 40.

No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Nancy Pelosis, Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense.

We can not allow the socialist transformation being brought on by the current administration to continue. Look at what it has done to Europe . We all must stand together before it's too late and everything America stands for is lost.

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz

Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai

Economics: (zero)

Physics: (zero)

Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad

TOTAL: 7 (SEVEN)

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer

World Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Ben jamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel

Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 -Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen & Rita Levi-Montalcini
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996 - Lu Rose Iacovino

TOTAL: 129!

The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.

&nbs p; The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that humankind respects them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel 's part, the following two sentences really say it all:

'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel ’.
"Benjamin Netanyahu"

General Eisenhower warned us:
It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect:

'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'

Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the, 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated' while the German people looked the other way.

Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States ?

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others,

2010-09-02T20:39:00.001-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/3akr2ea
U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status By Joshua Rhett Miller
****This sounds like Maj Nadal Hasan but at least this guy hasn't killed anyone, yet.Other Muslims, besides Hasan, HAVE killed their officers while in the military.****
Pfc. Naser Abdo, 20, filed for conscientious objector status in June, claiming his faith and the military simply don't mix. The Texas native says he's endured harassment and discrimination due to his religious beliefs since joining the military last year. A Muslim soldier from Texas who joined the U.S. Army last year now wants to leave the military, claiming he is a conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.

Pfc. Naser Abdo, a 20-year-old infantryman assigned to the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., filed for conscientious objector status in June because his faith and the military simply don't mix, he told FoxNews.com. The Army has deferred his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan.

"Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not a religion of warfare," Abdo said. "And it's not a religion of terror. As a Muslim, we stand against injustice, we stand against discrimination, and I feel it's my duty as an individual to do this."

Abdo, the Texas-born son of a Muslim father and a Christian mother, said his relatives and wife stand by his decision and that he will likely refuse to deploy if his application for CO status is denied.

"I was more faithful to God before I joined the military and that's what kind of stirred me," he said. Military duties have really consumed every part of my day and did not allow me time to involve myself with the Islamic community to maintain what duties I felt that I owed God. This is really what made me come to the conclusion that I'm not ready to die....

YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
Ten Worst Places to Live
3G Buying Burger King for $24/Share
8 Most Deceptive Terms Used in Credit Card Offers
7 Steps to Becoming a One-Income Family
Pending Home Sales Rise 5.2%

"I knew that if I went to Afghanistan and, God forbid, something were to happen, that my faith was so weak that I wouldn't be admitted into heaven….

"The conclusion I came to is that I can't participate in the U.S. military, including any war it's involved in or any war it will be involved in in the future," he said.

Fort Campbell spokeswoman Kelly DeWitt said Abdo's deployment has been deferred, but according to Army regulations he may be deployed to Afghanistan at any time like other members of his unit.

"The Army recognizes that even in our all-volunteer force, a soldier's moral, ethical or religious beliefs may change over time," an Army statement read. "The Army and Fort Campbell has procedures in place for soldiers who declare themselves to be conscientious objectors and who apply for conscientious objector status."

According to documents obtained by The Associated Press, Abdo cited Islamic scholars and verses from the Koran as reasons to seek separation from the Army.

"I realized through further reflection that God did not give legitimacy to the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or any war the U.S. Army would conceivably participate in," he wrote.

J.E. McNeill, an attorney and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War, a Washington-based group that defends the rights of conscientious objectors, said it's difficult to predict the chances that Abdo's application will be approved. But on the surface, she said, it appears Abdo's case meets the standard for conscientious objector status.

"What he has to show is that he's opposed to war in any form," she said. "So the question is, is he opposed to any war or is he opposed to [Iraq and Afghanistan]?"

Applications for conscientious objectors -- defined by Army Regulation 600-43 as a person who is "sincerely opposed, because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical, or sociological) beliefs, to participating in war in any form" -- can take up to six months to process. Approval rates in the Army over the last seven years have averaged 58 percent. Across all U.S. military branches, 53 percent of conscientious objector status applications were approved from 2002 through 2006.

Of the 1.4 million enlisted U.S. military personnel as of Sept. 30, 2009, less than half of 1 percent identified themselves as Muslim, according to military statistics, and roughly the same rate of U.S. Army soldiers identified themselves as Muslim. Religious affiliation for military personnel currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan was not available since servicemembers are not required to disclose that information.

Citing Army regulations, Abdo's attorney, James Branum, said Abdo will be interviewed by a chaplain and a psychologist prior to an informal hearing with an investigating officer, who will recommend whether to approve or deny the application.

If the claim is denied, Branum said Abdo could re-file with new evidence; seek to take the matter to a federal civilian court; refuse to deploy or drop the matter altogether. He acknowledged that Abdo could go to jail if he refuses to obey orders to deploy.

"We're trying to avoid that kind of showdown," Branum told FoxNews.com. "At this moment, Abdo is in a place where he's not going to violate his conscience."

Branum said he's received a "fair number" of emails regarding Abdo's case, some of which he said included death threats against the soldier and suggestions that his citizenship be revoked.

Abdo, for his part, said he has endured harassment, discrimination and intimidation due to his religious beliefs since joining the military, particularly during basic training at Fort Benning in Georgia. He also claimed to be the target of "resentment" from fellow soldiers due to his prayer schedule.

"Some of them would say I hate Jews, some of them even asked me, 'Would you kill your own family? Are you sure you're not on the wrong side?'" Abdo said. "It was daily. It was daily for sure."

A website detailing Abdo's situation has resulted in roughly 15 donations totaling about $250 for his legal defense. He's also received dozens of messages protesting his decision, which he said were "disgusting and hateful."

"You make me sick," read one message. "You make everyone I know sick."

Another message read: "I am not sure why you joined the Army to begin with, but as an Army Wife here at Fort Campbell, KY, I wouldn't want someone like you deploying with MY husband. It's good to stand by your religion and beliefs and I would be lying if I said I understood what they are, because I don't."

Abdo said he understands the dissension.

"By no means am I expecting a standing ovation," he said.

* Print
* Email
* Share
* Comments (1047)
*
* Text Size

* View Article
* Leave a Comment
* Sort: Newest
* Sort: Oldest

1.

Report

View Article

View All Comments (1047)
Leave A Comment

Fox News encourages you to participate in this discussion; however, please be sure to review our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement.
Comments
or
Latest Videos

*

September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:52:09 GMT7:09 PM EST

Across America: Horrific Crash Caught on Tape

September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:52:09 GMT7:09 PM EST
Motorcycle collides with truck in Iowa

Loading...
*

September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:03:19 GMT7:09 PM EST

New Oil Rig Explosion in Gulf

September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:03:19 GMT7:09 PM EST
Latest developments on oil rig fire

Loading...
*

September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:07:42 GMT7:09 PM EST

Earl Charges Up East Coast

September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:07:42 GMT7:09 PM EST
Millions keeping close eye on hurricane

Loading...
*

September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:35:26 GMT4:09 PM EST

N.C. as 'Ready as We Can Be' for Earl

September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:35:26 GMT4:09 PM EST
N.C. braces for Hurricane Earl

Loading...
*

September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:28:19 GMT3:09 PM EST

North Carolina Prepares for the Worst

September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:28:19 GMT3:09 PM EST
N.C. residents plan ahead

Loading...
*

September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:06:17 GMT3:09 PM EST

'Gang Summit' Under Fire

September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:06:17 GMT3:09 PM EST
Chicago police chief criticized

Loading...

1.
2.
3.

Previous Slide Next Slide
credit_center

*
Report: Illegal Immigration in US Sees Big Drop

September 02, 2010

»
*
Tropical Storm Fiona Path Tracks Farther East Than Hurricane Earl [UPDATED]

September 01, 2010

»
*
Vermilion Bay: 3 Things to Know About Gulf Oil Platform Explosion Site

September 02, 2010

»
*
Earl Downgraded to Category 2 as Vacation Disruption Continues

September 02, 2010

»
*
What We Know About the Discovery Channel Gunman

September 01, 2010

»

Most Active in U.S.

* Most Read
* Most Commented

Most Read

*
Oil Platform Explodes Off Louisiana Coast

September 02, 2010

»
*
U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status

September 02, 2010

»
*
Gunman's Environmental Grudges Well Known Before Discovery Channel Hostage Standoff

September 01, 2010

»
*
Chicago Police Chief Criticized for 'Gang Summit'

September 02, 2010

»
*
Ranger Whose Tip Led to Capture of Ariz. Fugitives May Be Barred From Getting Reward

September 01, 2010

»

Most Commented

*
New York City Panel Clears Way for Mosque Near Ground Zero

August 03, 2010 1,258 comments

»
*
U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status

September 02, 2010 1,004 comments

»
*
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Utah Memorial Crosses Along Highway

August 18, 2010 886 comments

»
*
Students at Lincoln Memorial Told to Stop Singing National Anthem

August 09, 2010 790 comments

»
*
Immigrant Who Voted Illegally on Road to Becoming a U.S. Citizen

August 26, 2010 744 comments

»

*

*
Beck vs. Obama: Whose Version of Christianity Is More Mainstream?

September 02, 2010

»
*
Second Gulf Explosion Intensifies Debate Over Drilling Moratorium

September 02, 2010

»
*
Sizzurp: The Codeine-Based Hip-Hop 'Drank' of Choice

September 02, 2010

»
*
Exploded Oil Platform Was Damaged by Hurricane Ike, SEC Filing Reveals

September 02, 2010

»
*
Feds Sue 'Toughest Sheriff'; He Comes Out Swinging

September 02, 2010

»

*
How Do You Stop an Elephant Charging?

September 02, 2010

»
*
Democratic Salvage Plan

September 02, 2010

»
*
Kevin A. Hassett and Alan D. Viard: The 97% Fallacy

September 02, 2010

»
*
Tony Blair on the Panic

September 02, 2010

»
*
Wyden Defects on ObamaCare

September 02, 2010

»

*
It’s not that I don’t care about football. I just don’t care enough

June 14, 2010

»
*
Yes, Obama is angry with BP, but not Britain

June 14, 2010

»
*
Can we truly judge Robert Green on one mistake?

June 14, 2010

»
*
Cameron offers us the audacity of despair

June 14, 2010

»
*
De Gaulle would have hated the Saville inquiry

June 14, 2010

»

*
Finland's economic outlook "highly uncertain"-IMF

September 02, 2010

»
*
JGBs fall after data continue easing economy worries

September 02, 2010

»
*
Japan capex fall slows, 2nd qtr GDP seen revised up

September 02, 2010

»
*
Australian Services Improved But Still Contracting

September 02, 2010

»
*
South Korea Q2 Growth Revised To 1.4% From 1.5%

September 02, 2010

»

*
Build a Smarter, Better Web Site

September 02, 2010

»
*
You Take the Credit, or I Take the Blame

September 01, 2010

»
*
Passing Along the Entrepreneur Gene

August 31, 2010

»
*
Loan Picture Improves, Troubles Remain

August 31, 2010

»
*
10 Best Company Nicknames

August 30, 2010

»

*
Therapy Thursday: Keep Showing Up

September 02, 2010

»
*
12 Ways to Keep Going

September 02, 2010

»
*
Statistics You Should Know About College Depression

September 01, 2010

»
*
Warning Signs of College Depression

September 01, 2010

»
*
Seeking Happily Ever After: Some Tips for Singles

August 31, 2010

»

The chimera of "negotiations" and a two-state solution.

2010-09-01T21:59:00.000-07:00

O, Palestine! By Moshe Dann American Thinker

The notion of a Palestinian people and Palestinian identity, although taken for granted today, has neither a long nor a distinguished history. Understanding its origins and what it represents explains why the peace process between Israel and the Arabs has failed and will continue to fail.

Inherent in Palestinianism, from its origins, is the rejection of a Jewish state in any form. That opposition is not negotiable and not open to compromise; it is essential.

Palestinianism was never for anything; its raison d'être was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. That purpose has never changed.

Concern for Palestine among a few Arab intellectuals, as Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi shows in his book on the subject, did not exist until Zionists began settlements at the turn of the century. Most weekly newspapers from that period which he surveyed were not even from Palestine and had scant distribution.

"Palestinian identity" then, as now, was negative, focused entirely on opposition to Zionists rather than a positive self-definition. Arab Palestinian leaders, like the mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an ardent supporter of the Nazis, and arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat -- both "fathers" of Palestinianism ignored by Khalidi -- rejected Zionism and promoted terrorism.

Local Arab uprisings against British rule were anti-colonial and anti-Zionist, not directed toward another independent Palestinian state. Arab riots and pogroms, like those in 1929 and 1936, for example, were not motivated by Palestinian nationalism; there were no calls for a Palestinian state. The battle cry was, "Kill the Jews."

In 1937, Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi told the Peel Commission, "There is no such country as 'Palestine'; 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!"

The riots of 1936 were whipped up by the newly created "Arab [not Palestinian] Higher Committee," the central political organ of the Arab community of Mandate Palestine, organized by a group of elites led by Amin al-Husayni. In 1948, the Arab League organized the All-Palestine Government, the first attempt to establish an independent Palestinian state. Led by King Abdullah of Jordan and nominally Amin al-Husayni, who had returned from Berlin, where he spent the war, it called for the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. Husayni later arranged Abdullah's assassination.

A Palestinian National Council convened in Gaza in 1948, under Amin al-Husayni's leadership, passed resolutions calling for an independent state over all of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital. Adopting the flag of the Arab Revolt that had been used by Arab nationalists, it called for the liberation of Palestine. But it had no following.

In 1946, Arab historian Philip Hitti testified before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that "there is no such thing as Palestine in history." In 1947, Arab leaders protesting the U.N. partition plan argued that Palestine was part of Syria and "politically, the Arabs of Palestine [were] not [an] independent[,] separate ... political entity."

In 1947, the U.N. proposed a "Jewish" State and an "Arab" -- not Palestinian -- State.

The womb of Palestinianism was war, the Nakba (catastrophe) in the Arab narrative, the establishment of the State of Israel. Five well-armed Arab countries invaded the nascent state, joining local Arab gangs and militias in a genocidal war to exterminate the Jews. Yet this was not seen as a war for Palestinian nationalism, or Palestinianism; it was an all-out Arab war against Jews, Zionism, and Zionists.

Arab gangs that attacked Jews in 1948, composed of locals and Arabs from the region, were called the "Arab -- not Palestininian -- Army of Liberation." The reason is that prior to Israel's establishment, the notion of a "Palestinian people" simply did not exist, or was irrelevant, because Arab affiliations are primarily familial and tribal -- not national. And because "Palestinian" then meant something else.

Before 1948, those who were called (and called themselves) "Palestinians" were Jews, not Arabs, although both carried the same British passports. In fact, only after Jews in Palestine called themselves Israelis, in 1948, could Arabs adopt "Palestinian," as theirs exclusively.

The idea of an "Arab Palestinian people" was formed and enshrined in UNRWA "refugee camps" -- today, large, developed towns -- where its residents are indoctrinated with hatred, the "right of return" to Israel, and Israel's eventual destruction. Except in Jordan, which granted them citizenship, the residents of these UNRWA towns in Lebanon and Syria are severely restricted and denied basic human and civil rights.

UNRWA's controversial definition of "Arab refugee" includes anyone who claimed residence in Palestine since 1946, regardless of origin; this date is important because it marks the high point of a massive influx of Arabs from the region into Palestine, primarily due to employment opportunities and a higher standard of living. This category of "refugees," moreover, was different from all others in that it included not only those who applied in 1949, but all of their descendants, forever, with full rights and privileges. This is one of the core issues preventing any resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's existence, therefore, perpetuates the conflict, prevents Israel's acceptance, and breeds violence and terrorism.

Ironically, only when Israel took control of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza could the residents of UNRWA towns in those areas move and work freely, obtain decent education and health care, and express a newly designed Palestinianism -- albeit often dedicated to violence and Israel's destruction.

With an annual budget of over a half-billion dollars, UNRWA supports about one-and-a-half million "refugees" in 58 "camps" and 5 million "registered refugees" (throughout the world) -- who can claim their "rights" as "refugees" at any time. The total population is expected to reach 7 or 8 million next year, and it keeps growing.

Were it not for the policies of Arab countries and UNRWA, the "Arab refugees" might have followed the example of Jewish refugees who were expelled from Arab countries, came to Israel, and went on to live normal lives. Given the same chance, perhaps, Arab Palestinians might have established a state of their own. The desire to destroy Israel, however, trumps state-building, and it is fundamental to Palestinianism.

The first attempt to define Palestinianism was in 1964, in the PLO Covenant, during Jordan's occupation of "the West Bank" (a Jordanian reference from 1950 to distinguish the area from the East Bank of the Jordan River) and when Egypt held the Gaza Strip. On behalf of the "Palestinian Arab people," the Covenant declared their goal: a "holy war" (jihad) to "liberate Palestine," i.e. destroy Israel. There was no mention of Arabs living in "the West Bank" and Gaza Strip, since that would have threatened Arab rulers. Arab "refugees" were convenient proxies in the war against Israel, not their hosts; Palestinianism became a replacement nationalism for Zionism, a call to arms against Jews.

This balancing act was no longer necessary after 1967, when Israel acquired areas that had been originally assigned to a Jewish State by the League of Nations and British Mandate -- Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip -- and the Golan Heights, all rich in Jewish history and archeology. A year later, the PLO Covenant was amended to cover both "occupations" -- in 1948 and 1967.

Dedicated to armed struggle, their goal has never changed; unable to defeat Israel militarily, however, the Arab strategy is to demonize and delegitimize, creating yet another Arab Palestinian state in addition to Jordan. In order to accomplish this, they concocted a narrative, an identity, and an ethos to compete with Zionism and Jewish history: Palestinianism.

Presented in the PLO Covenant and Hamas Charter (1988), the purpose of Palestinianism is to "liberate Palestine" and destroy Israel; neither reflects any redeeming social or cultural values. Moreover, Palestinianism is moving towards Islamist extremism.

According to Palestinian Basic Law (Article 4), ratified by PA President Mohammed Abbas in 2005:

1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained.

2. The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be a principal source of legislation.

3. Arabic shall be the official language.

http://muqtafi.birzeit.edu/mainleg/14138.htm

"Palestinianism" lacks the basic requirements of legitimate national identity: a separate, unique linguistic, cultural, ethnic, or religious basis. It is nothing more than a political-military construct, currently led by Fatah and Hamas terrorist organizations. Yet it became legitimized by the U.N.

Despite PLO mega-terrorist attacks, and backed by the Arab League, Muslim a"non-aligned" countries, the PLO was accepted by the United Nations in 1974. The following year, the U.N. passed its infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution, sanctioning Israel's demonization and setting the U.N. on a course of Israel's destruction.

The myth of Palestinianism worked because the media accepted Arab and PLO claims and their cause. Nearly all media, for example, use the term "Palestinian" or "Israeli-occupied West Bank," reinforcing Palestinian claims, rather than the authentic designation which appears on earlier maps, Judea and Samaria, which refer to the regions' Jewish history. The use of "West Bank" is a political, not a geographic statement.

Eventually, by the early 1990s, Palestinianism was accepted by some Israeli politicians, Left-dominated media, academia, cultural elite, and some jurists as a way of expressing their opposition to "settlements" and hoping for some sort of mutual recognition with the PLO. Their efforts culminated in the Oslo Accords (1993), which gave official Israeli sanction to Palestinianism.

Anti-Israel academics around the world promote "Palestinian" archeology, society, and culture as a brand name and a political message. Advertising works; every time someone uses the term "Palestinian," it acknowledges and reinforces this myth.

Palestinianism, however, regardless of its lack of historical, cultural, and social roots, is now well-established and here to stay as a political identity that demands sovereign rights and a territorial base. The question seems to be not if, but where.

The solution is regional. Arab Palestinians are entitled to civil and human rights in their host countries, where they have lived for generations. A second Arab Palestinian state, in addition to Jordan, which was carved out of Palestine in 1921 -- whose population is two-thirds "Palestinian" -- will not resolve any core issues at the heart of the conflict. The conflict is not territorial, but existential; recognition of a Jewish state -- i.e., Israel -- is anathema to the Palestinian cause. That explains why Palestinian Arab leaders refuse to accept it in any form.

The problem for Palestinianism is not "the occupation" in 1967, but Israel's existence; seen as an exclusively Arab homeland, Palestine is an integral part of the Arab world, completely under Arab sovereignty. This is axiomatic; there are no exceptions and no compromises.

Promoted in media, mosques, and schools, anti-Jewish incitement, denial of the Holocaust and Jewish history, and rejection of the right of Jewish national self-determination, by definition, Palestinianism is the greatest obstacle to peace.

Sure, Obama's not a Muslim; he just prefers Islam to Western Civilization

2010-09-01T19:46:00.001-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/2c3hh6t
Obama Is Not A Muslim by Ann Coulter
The nonsense about President Obama being a Muslim has got to stop. I rise to defend him from this absurd accusation by pointing out that he is obviously an atheist...

Obama's pro-Muslim bias is more palpable and relevant than his personal affiliation NOW.

2010-08-31T07:28:00.000-07:00

Not a Muslim, but there's certainly legitimate room for concern over Obama's recent repeated actions By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

A new Pew Center poll says nearly one-in-five Americans think Barack Obama is a Muslim. Perhaps that is because of reports like the one blared on the cover of the September 6 edition of the tabloid, The Globe, replete with photos of Mr. Obama in Muslim garb: It found "shocking proof" in a Nile TV interview given earlier this year by the Egyptian Foreign Affairs Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, disclosing that "the American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim."

A better explanation is that more Americans are taking note of the accumulating series of statements and actions by the President that display favoritism, or worse, towards Muslims. That would be troubling enough; after all, no chief executive is supposed to support one subset of us over others.

Growing numbers of our countrymen may be on to something else about the Obama presidency, however, that is even more alarming: In instance after instance, Mr. Obama has seemingly bent over backwards to accommodate not just Muslim-Americans, but a deeply problematic organization - the Muslim Brotherhood (or Ikhwan) - that purports to represent their interests here.

In fact, the Brotherhood seeks to do something most Muslims in this country - and needless to say, the rest of us - do not want: According to the organization's mission statement, it is waging "a kind of grand jihad eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and G0D's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

One need not believe that the President of the United States has actually embraced this radical goal to be concerned. It is enough that he has repeatedly said and done things that conform to, or otherwise advance, the Ikhwan's agenda as articulated by the Brotherhood's myriad front organizations in the United States.

Consider the following, necessarily partial listing of actions - some symbolic, some substantive - that can legitimately be seen by the Muslim Brothers as evidence of our President's submission (the literally meaning of "Islam" and the goal of all those who, like the Ikhwan, seek to impose shariah worldwide):

* Mr. Obama declared in his inaugural address that, "The United States is a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." The ordering of "Muslims" before "Jews" was clearly deliberate, since the latter have been and are in the United States in far larger numbers than the former and have played a much more important role in the nation's history from its founding. Subsequently, he went even further, describing (inaccurately) America as "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

* In his much-ballyhooed address to "the Muslim world" delivered in Cairo in June 2009, Mr. Obama signaled his determination not only to "reach out" to followers of Islam. He also committed himself to an initiative - clearing the way for Muslims to "fulfill their zakat (tithing for charity) obligations" - that would have the practical effect of giving Brotherhood operatives (whose representatives he insisted be in the audience) more latitude to engage in material support for terrorism and, thereby, wage their "civilization jihad" in and from America.

* In September 2009, the Obama administration co-sponsored a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution eagerly sought by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends. The resolution called on member nations to "prohibit and criminalize" speech that offends Islam and its followers. Such an accommodation would clearly violate the Constitution's First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression.

* Speaking of the Constitution, the Obama administration is arguing in federal court that the U.S. government's ownership of AIG, which happens to be the largest purveyor of shariah-compliant insurance products in the world, does not violate the Establishment Clause's separation of church and state.

* We recently learned that, according to President Obama, the NASA Administrator's "foremost" priority is to make Muslims feel better about themselves and their history. Job 1 is not assuring U.S. supremacy in space, or even assured access to it; it's Muslim outreach and therapy.

* Then, last month, President Obama endorsed the megamosque near Ground Zero in a White House Iftar dinner attended by prominent Muslim Brotherhood operatives. Subsequent efforts to distance himself from that stance, in the face of intense criticism from the public and politicians of both parties, has only put into even sharper focus his pandering to this community.

* Now, my Center for Security Policy colleague Christine Brim has broken the story of a major new Obama initiative in that vein. In the words of the largest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the country, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), "A phenomenal next step has been made where government Iftars become coupled with workshops to provide resources and benefit the Muslim community. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (DOA) and the [Muslim Brotherhood-associated] Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO) have paired the first of such events, scheduled for August 31, 2010."

The latest poll suggests that most Americans do not believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. And for the vast majority of us, it would not matter even if he were - provided he does not subscribe to the Brotherhood's creed: "G0d is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."

Still, the public is clearly increasingly, and rightly, concerned about Mr. Obama's policies of favoritism and submission towards the worst elements in Islam. Before tax-dollars are spent to that end, we need a national debate about such policies, and the grave dangers posed by their seeming principal beneficiary: the Muslim Brotherhood.

Are you gonna believe us about Obama or your own lying eyes and ears?

2010-08-28T20:42:00.000-07:00

The apparent initiator of the letter is Obama associate Jim Wallis of the Sojourners group, a group funded by atheist George Soros
Censoring Questions about Obama’s Religion
By Cliff Kincaid

In a major liberal initiative to curtail discussion of President Obama’s religious identity, over 70 Christian leaders and denominational heads have signed a letter saying that questions about the religious philosophy of the President of the United Stateshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif should be ignored and suppressed by the major media.

The letter demands that the media “offer no further support or airtime to those who misrepresent and call into question the President’s Christian faith.”

The apparent initiator of the letter is Obama associate Jim Wallis of the Sojourners group, a group funded by atheist George Soros.

The Eleison Group, which represents the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Wallis’s Sojourners group, arranged the release of the letter and has handled publicity for it. The Eleison Group’s purpose is to mobilize “more traditional progressive ‘base’ faith voters who are often overlooked in Democratic and progressive outreach.”

The president of the Eleison Group, Burns Strider, has served as an adviser to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and regional Communications Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Pelosi, a liberal Catholic, invoked St. Joseph, revered for being the foster father of Jesus and the husband of the Virgin Mary, in the successful push for passage of Obama’s socialized medicine plan.

The “airtime” alluded to in the letter has mostly been devoted to the controversy over opinion polls finding that significant numbers of people are confused about Obama’s religious identity and that some believe he is a Muslim.

The questions that have been offered by Accuracy in Media concern Obama’s claims about being baptized in the Christian faith. AIM believes that politicians should be held accountable for the claims they make about themselves, even on personal matters of religious faith.

Obama’s aides have claimed the President is a committed and practicing Christian and that he was baptized in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. But he has gone to church only a few times since he became President.

“We understand that these are contentious times,” say the Christian leaders, “but the personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate.”

However, the First Amendment expressly permits not only freedom of religion but freedom of the press.

The Christian leaders say, “We believe that questioning, and especially misrepresenting, the faith of a confessing believer goes too far.” They do not identify who has misrepresented Obama’s faith.

But other releases from the Eleison Group attack Fox News, talk radio, and “right-wing misinformation” about Obama’s religious affiliation and views.

Strider and his associate, Eric Sapp, write, “The 4th Estate and reporters and editors who care about the truth need to wake up to what is happening. Bloggers and independent journalists need to rise up and demand accountability (even of those on our side). And all Americans need to hold our news organizations accountable.”

AIM also wants accountability. What AIM has done is quote directly from Obama’s books about his spiritual and political journey. We have pointed out that Obama’s claim about his own baptism, as reported in his second memoir, The Audacity of Hope, is subject to interpretation because of the lack of detail about how and when he was baptized and by whom. It appears, based on information provided by Obama’s own church, that Obama was describing how he became a member of that church.

Obama’s claim of being baptized is presented in the context of discussing the fact that he was not born and baptized a Christian. He describes his Muslim father and grandfather and attendance in a Muslim school as he was growing up. Obama acknowledges that, before he joined Wright’s church, some people regarded him as a Muslim. Wright himself dabbled in Islam before establishing his church, Obama concedes.

The proof of the baptism claim is precisely what is lacking in his book. There is no need or demand for a baptismal certificate, but there is no detail about the ceremony, other than talking about a walk down an aisle and a profession of faith, and no information about who performed the baptism and who attended. Traditionally, water is used in such a ceremony. There is no reference to water in Obama’s book.

To add further to the mystery, AIM cited evidence that Christian baptisms were not required to join Wright’s church, which emphasized liberation theology, and that Muslims were permitted to join and not disavow their faith.

“This is not a political issue,” say the Christian leaders. “The signers of this letter come from different political and ideological backgrounds, but we are unified in our belief in Jesus Christ. As Christian pastors and leaders, we believe that fellow Christians need to be an encouragement to those who call Christ their savior, not question the veracity of their faith.”

However, what is being questioned is not his faith but the veracity of his claim in his book, published as he was preparing his presidential run, that he underwent a baptism. Was this claim inserted into the book to make Obama more politically palatable to the American electorate who would be naturally suspicious about what the media called his “unorthodox” religious background?

Some Christians claim that baptism is not required to become a Christian. Obama could have claimed that he became a Christian in Wright’s church through a simple profession of faith and that a formal baptism was not required. Instead, however, he claimed to have undergone the procedure.

The questions are legitimate because Obama does not have a pristine track record of being open and honest about his background and associates.

For example, in his previous book, Dreams from My Father, he misrepresented the identity of his childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, named in his book only as “Frank.” This individual, who had a major impact on Obama before he went off to college, turned out to be Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Partyhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif member with a 600-page FBI file.

Claims about a baptism cannot be taken at face value, especially because his statements and actions as President have led so many to believe he has a pro-Muslim bent. These have led to the perceptions, captured in the public opinion polls, that Obama may not be a Christian.

The controversy will not go away just because a few religious leaders demand that the media stop covering it.

New insanity: tax free muni bonds for Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-28T04:49:00.000-07:00

****Let's be clear: issuing "tax-free" debt costs ALL taxpayers to benefit the issuer.****
Ground Zero Muslim center may get public financingNEW YORK (Reuters) – The Muslim center planned near the site of the World Trade Center attack could qualify for tax-free financing, a spokesman for City Comptroller John Liu said on Friday, and Liu is willing to consider approving the public subsidy.
The Democratic comptroller's spokesman, Scott Sieber, said Liu supported the project. The center has sparked an intense debate over U.S. religious freedoms and the sanctity of the Trade Center site, where nearly 3,000 perished in the September 11, 2001 attack.
"If it turns out to be financially feasible and if they can demonstrate an ability to pay off the bonds and comply with the laws concerning tax-exempt financing, we'd certainly consider it," Sieber told Reuters.
Spokesmen for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Governor David Paterson and the Islamic center and were not immediately available.
The proposed center, two blocks from the Trade Center site in lower Manhattan, has caused a split between people who lost relatives and friends in the attack, as well as conservative politicians, and those who support the project. Among those who support it are the mayor, civic and religious groups, and some families of victims.
The mosque's backers hope to raise a total of $70 million in tax-exempt debt to build the center, according to the New York Times. Tax laws allow such funding for religiously affiliated non-profits if they can prove the facility will benefit the general public and their religious activities are funded separately.
The bonds could be issued through a local development corporation created for this purpose, experts said.
The Islamic center would have to repay the bonds, which likely would be less expensive than taxable debt.
New York City's Industrial Development Authority could not issue debt for the center because the state civic facilities law, which governed this type of financing for non-profits, was allowed to expire about two years ago.
****Meanwhile, the Greek Orthodox Church which was destroyed on 9-11 has yet to be approved for rebuilding, even with private funds.****

Ex-CIA says Ground Zero Mosque triumphalist Muslim symbol

2010-08-27T07:34:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/2f5gut5
Ex-CIA Official Says Mosque Is 'Victory' for Terrorists
Michael Scheuer, the former top CIA official charged with hunting down Osama bin Laden, says a ground zero mosque will be a "symbol of victory" to Islamic extremists. In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV he also warns of growing terror threats to the U.S. and the implications of Iran's nuclear program.
Read the Full Story and See the Video -- Go Here Now ...

British anti-Semitism is ancient and continuing

2010-08-25T13:09:00.000-07:00

Shimon Peres versus the Brits by Efraim Karsh
Jerusalem Post August 2, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/2697/shimon-peres-vs-british
Shimon Peres, Israel's 87-year-old president doesn't usually arouse antagonism among Europeans.
A tireless peace advocate for decades, and architect of the Oslo Process for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize, he has long presented Israel's moderate face to the outside world.
Yet last week he provoked anger among British politicians and Anglo-Jewish leaders when he told a Jewish website that the British establishment had always been "deeply pro-Arab ... and anti-Israel," and that this was partly due to endemic anti-Semitic dispositions. "I can understand Mr. Peres' concerns, but I don't recognize what he is saying about England," said James Clappison, vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel. "Things are certainly no worse, as far as Israel is concerned, in this country than other European countries. He got it wrong."//
But did he? While few arguments have resonated more widely, or among a more diverse set of observers, than the claim that Britain has been the midwife of the Jewish state, the truth is that no sooner had Britain been appointed as the mandatory power in Palestine, with the explicit task of facilitating the establishment of a Jewish national home in the country in accordance with the Balfour Declaration, than it reneged on this obligation.
AS EARLY as March 1921, the British government ***Winston Churchill was instrumental in this.***severed the vast and sparsely populated territory east of the Jordan River ("Transjordan") from the prospective Jewish national home and made Abdullah, the emir of Mecca, its effective ruler.****This was to compensate for screwing him out of Saudi Arabia (in favor of the Saudis.)**** In 1922 and 1930, two British White Papers limited Jewish immigration to Palestine – the elixir of life of the prospective Jewish state – and imposed harsh restrictions on land sales to Jews.
Britain's betrayal of its international obligations to the Jewish national cause reached its peak on May 17, 1939, when a new White Paper imposed draconian restrictions on land sales to Jews and limited immigration to 75,000 over the next five years, after which Palestine would become an independent state in which the Jews would comprise no more than one-third of the total population.
Such were the anti-Zionist sentiments within the British establishment at the time that even a life-long admirer of Zionism like prime minister Winston Churchill rarely used his wartime dominance of British politics to help the Zionists (or indeed European Jewry). However appalled by the White Paper he failed to abolish this "low grade gasp of a defeatist hour" (to use his own words), refrained from confronting his generals and bureaucrats over the creation of a Jewish fighting force in Palestine, which he wholeheartedly supported, and gave British officialdom a free rein in the running of Middle Eastern affairs, which they readily exploited to promote the Arab case. In 1943, for instance, Freya Stark, the acclaimed author, orientalist, and Arabian adventurer, was sent to the US on a seven-month propaganda campaign aimed at undercutting the Zionist cause and defending Britain's White Paper policy.
That this could happen at the height of the Nazi extermination of European Jewry of which Whitehall was keenly aware offered a stark demonstration of the mindset of British officialdom, which was less interested in stopping genocide than in preventing its potential survivors from reaching Palestine after the war.
So much so that senior Foreign Office members portrayed Britain, not Europe's Jews, as the main victim of the Nazi atrocities.

THIS ANTI-ZIONISM was sustained into the postwar years as the Labor Party, which in July 1945 swept to power in a landslide electoral victory, swiftly abandoned its pre-election pro-Zionist platform to become a bitter enemy of the Jewish national cause. The White Paper restrictions were kept in place, and the Jews were advised by Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin not "to get too much at the head of the queue" in seeking recourse to their problems.
Tens of thousands of Holocaust survivors who chose to ignore the warning and to run the British naval blockade were herded into congested camps in Cyprus, where they were incarcerated for years.
"Should we accept the view that all the Jews or the bulk of them must leave Germany?" Bevin rhetorically asked the British ambassador to Washington.
"I do not accept that view. They have gone through, it is true, the most terrible massacre and persecution, but on the other hand they have got through it and a number have survived."
Prime Minister Clement Attlee went a step further by comparing Holocaust survivors wishing to leave Europe and to return to their ancestral homeland to Nazi troops invading the continent.

While these utterances resonated with the pervasive anti-Semitism within British officialdom (the last high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, for instance, said of Zionism, "The forces of nationalism are accompanied by the psychology of the Jew, which it is important to recognize as something quite abnormal and unresponsive to rational treatment"), Britain's Middle Eastern policy also reflected the basic fact that as occupiers of vast territories endowed with natural resources (first and foremost oil) and sitting astride strategic waterways (e.g., the Suez Canal), the Arabs had always been far more meaningful for British interests than the Jews.
As the chief of the air staff told the British cabinet in 1947, "If one of the two communities had to be antagonized, it was preferable, from the purely military angle, that a solution should be found which did not involve the continuing hostility of the Arabs."

One needs look no further than David Cameron's statements on the Middle East to see this anti-Israel mindset is alive and kicking. In the summer of 2006, when thousands of Hizbullah missiles were battering Israel's cities and villages, he took the trouble of issuing a statement from the tropical island on which he was vacationing at the time condemning Israel's "disproportionate use of force."
Four years later, while on an official visit to Turkey, he went out of his way to placate his Islamist host, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, by criticizing Israel's efforts to prevent the arming of the Hamas Islamist group, which, like its Lebanese counterpart, had been lobbing thousands of missiles on Israel's civilian population for years.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Efraim Karsh is professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, editor of the Middle East Quarterly and author, most recently, of Palestine Betrayed.

Premeditation in purchasing the land near Ground Zero.

2010-08-25T04:01:00.000-07:00

****While Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have stressed the right of anyone to build on her PRIVATE PROPERTY, nothing was said about WHEN or HOW or WHY that private property was acquired. It is the case that the land was acquired by a Muslim group after 9-11 with the express purpose of being as close to Ground Zero as possible. When the owners are described as being a "group of investors" that is a bit disingenuous since it is hardly a commercial proposition designed to produce a return (unless there are ancillary uses such as being subleased to Al Qaeda.)It was referred to as the Ground Zero Mosque by the initiators while they were looking and raising funds for a "suitable" property i.e. one associated throughout the world with the 9-11 event.****

Monday, August 23, 2010
GROUND ZERO MOSQUE FACTS
"The last legal hurdle to the proposed Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center has been removed, but ignorance, bigotry and politics are more formidable obstacles."
-Time Magazine article

A couple of quick points on the Ground Zero Victory Mosque, because its already been covered too much elsewhere:

1) Red State has a useful collection of links to news stories about the Muslim group trying to find property as close as possible to the fallen Twin Towers:

# A December 8th, 2009, New York Times article stated, “The location [next to Ground Zero] was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims,” and quoted Rauf as noting that they got a property “where a piece of the [9/11] wreckage fell.” ASMA then touted the piece in its 2009 Year End Report.
# A simple Google search of the Cordoba Initiative’s website reveals the phrase “Ground Zero” to be seeded throughout as a rather inept 1999-era SEO tactic to bring people looking for information about Ground Zero to the mosque promoters’ website.
# On May 5th and 6th, ASMA’s Daisy Khan was on her Twitter account, boasting first that the “new muslim center near ground zero gets unaminous vote of approval from community board one in downtown nyc,” and then that she had a “Media blitz day for ASMA / Cordoba [on the] muslim commuity center near ground zero.”
# On June 15th, Daisy Khan told the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn that “a divine hand” led to the Ground Zero proximity.

2) Imam Rauf said that the 9/11 location is "iconic" in a New York Times article, but they recently edited that line from the article as the Imam has changed his line to say it isn't all that close.
3) Imam Rauf has a bit more radical anti-American background than the left cares to realize, as noted at Atlas Shrugged. Rauf is also a major backer of the Palestinian floatilla that attacked IDF soldiers when it violated the blockade.
4) The name of the Mosque was at first going to be the Cordoba House, but when people started looking up what Cordoba House meant, they changed the name to Park 51, referring to its address, or just the Muslim Community Center.
5) “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved [the Sept. 11 attacks], but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened, we have been an accessory to a lot of – of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it – in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”
--Imam Feisal Rauf on CBS 60 Minutes on Sept. 30, 2001.
6) When asked to build the structure somewhere else, the backers utterly refused.
7) Imam Rauf insisted funds for the building would be from the US, but later said that the money would come from Muslim Arabic sources, and would not count out Iranian money.
8) UDPATE: "The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."
-Imam Rauf (note that qualifier innocent there)

Just some things to consider when you're called a bigot for thinking anyone with noble motives, a desire for outreach and brotherhood, and any sense of honor and sympathy for the victims of 9/11 would build it somewhere else.

posted by Christopher Taylor at 8:16 AM

A penetrating insight into the insincerity of the Mideast "peace talks."

2010-08-24T18:26:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/2d8c9vr
Stratfor.com: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks, Again
...

It's hard to believe Obama is sincere about any religion but ...

2010-08-24T10:09:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/28qgvc7

****While it's easy to buy Obama being extraordinarily deferential to the Muslim world. sincere religious adherence is harder to swallow. This is the guy, after all, who supposedly was a devout member of Rev Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years and never heard the Reverend make statements that he presumably made weekly, and memorialized for everyone by putting them on DVDs sold in the church.****

Does it even matter whether or not Obama is officially Muslim?

2010-08-20T12:17:00.001-07:00

****Who knows what is in his heart and if, and how, he actually prays? Ostensibly, the converted to Christianity as an adult, possibly being baptized by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. What is clear is that he is more deferential to Islam and Muslims than any previous President, he avoids giving offense even to those who are clearly terrorists and enemies of the U.S. and the extent of his "Islmaophilia" is great and myriad. The best argument against his actually being Muslim is that, if he were, he would avoid such obvious pandering and preference. He makes claims about the Muslim nature of the U.S. which are absurd but fatuity has no special religious home. The "facts" are no more known to those in the White House than the crazies who are sure of the contrary. What counts is not words but actions.***
Obama a Muslim? Rumors Gain Steam, Defying Facts
"President Obama is a Muslim." "He's not an American citizen." "He wasn't even born here." None of this is true. But to surprising levels, it is believed.
Blame it on the media, or on human nature. All presidents deal with image problems — that they're too weak or too belligerent, too far left or far right. But Obama also faces questions over documented facts, in part because some people identify more with the rumormongers than the debunkers.

"Trust and distrust — that explains almost all of it," says Nicholas DiFonzo, professor of psychology at the Rochester Institute of Technology and an expert on rumor and gossip research. "We are in such a highly polarized political environment. Our country is sorting itself into more closely knit, opposing factions each year" — factions, DiFonzo suggests, that in turn become "echo chambers" for factoids that aren't fact at all.

Nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, said they think Obama is Muslim, up from the 11 percent who said so in March 2009, according to a poll released Thursday. The proportion who correctly say he is a Christian is just 34 percent, down from 48 percent in March of last year. ****The author speaks with no more authority than the rumormongers.Is he now? Was he ever? If yes, how can he change? Does he act justly to the Islamic world and Muslims, unjustly or grants them preference over others? Actions speak louder than words. He denies that "we" are at war with Islam; however, is Islam at war with us?

The White House even felt compelled to respond with a terse knockdown from spokesman Bill Burton: "The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day."

Obama is the Christian son of a Kenyan Muslim father and a Kansas mother. Born in Hawaii, he lived from ages 6 to 10 in predominantly Muslim Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim to many.

Confusion about Obama's religion was common, and sometimes encouraged, during the 2008 campaign. An Associated Press photograph that circulated on the Internet, and was posted on The Drudge Report, showed Obama dressed in traditional local garments — a white turban and a wraparound white robe — during a visit to Kenya in 2006. Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton may have contributed through her response to a question, during a "60 Minutes" interview, about whether he was a Muslim. "There's nothing to base that on," she said. "As far as I know."

Others have helped keep rumors about Obama's religion and birth alive. Conservative commentators including radio talk show host Michael Savage have repeated debunked claims that Obama attended a radical Muslim madrassa in Indonesia. Rush Limbaugh has facetiously referred to "Imam Obama" in recent days, and last year praised a woman who at a Delaware town hall meeting questioned Obama's citizenship. Lou Dobbs gave significant air time to such "birther" claims on CNN — despite his own insistence that he believed Obama was born in the U.S.

The new survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and its affiliated Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is based on interviews conducted before the controversy over whether Muslims should be permitted to construct a mosque near the World Trade Center site. Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center there, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.

We have never been without misperceptions, but they are speeded and multiplied in the Internet age. Last month, right-wing bloggers — citing unnamed sources within the Laredo Police Department in Texas — reported that the Mexican drug cartel Zetas had captured two Laredo ranches. The story was picked up by author-pundit Michelle Malkin and other conservatives.

Inquiries from local media and the liberal Web site Talking Points Memo turned up different news: The raids never happened.

"The Internet has made it worse," says Lori Robertson, managing editor of the website FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan project run under the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "Any of these rumors are more rampant, and there's more stuff about them — blogs writing about conspiracy theories. People are exposed to it more."

Robertson says her organization has been asked hundreds of times about Obama's religion, even after FactCheck published an explanatory article in early 2008 called "Sliming Obama." It focused on the chain e-mail that many believe helped spread the lie.

Despite what the e-mail claimed, FactCheck.org has noted that Obama was sworn into office as a U.S. senator using the Bible instead of the Quran; a photograph was posted to prove it. FactCheck also posted videos of Obama reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the Senate, in an attempt to counter claims that he refused.

Still, the questions about Obama's faith didn't stop.

"Did Obama order creation of a postage stamp to honor a Muslim holiday?" FactCheck.org's answer: "The first class stamp honoring Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha was first issued eight years ago. Obama has followed Bush's practice of reaching out to Muslims on Ramadan."

Superstitions and myths are timeless and universal, and so are the people who exploit them, whether Holocaust deniers, race supremacists or conspiracy theorists.

Misinformation in the mass media age was captured by the author-columnist Walter Lippman in his classic "Public Opinion," published in 1922. Finding that world events were driven by a tiny minority manipulating the rest, Lippman noted "the comparatively meager time available in each day for paying attention to public affairs, the distortion arising because events have to be compressed into very short messages, the difficulty of making a small vocabulary express a complicated world."

The problem wasn't only with the media, but with the public.

"People, he wrote, "live in the same world, but think and feel in different ones." Lippman believed many "suffer from anemia, from lack of appetite and curiosity for the human scene."

And so millions have thought that the country was overrun with communists, that John F. Kennedy was taking orders from the pope, that AIDS spreads through casual contact, that Saddam Hussein or even the George W. Bush administration helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks. In the 1990s, when the government was running a surplus under the Clinton administration, a poll showed substantial numbers of people thought it was running a deficit.

DiFonzo was stunned when he heard one of those rumors stated as fact in his upper-level social psychology class last year. A student raised her hand and insisted, "But George Bush was behind the bombings of Sept. 11."

"She was serious," DiFonzo said, adding that he believes she accepted the rumor because other people in her life gave her the impression that it was plausible.

"This isn't a partisan thing," he said. "It's not a characteristic of Democrats or of Republicans. It's a human characteristic. It's a place that we happen to be at in our culture today. What seems outlandish is often based on what we think may be plausible."

——

Obama the Uniter.

2010-08-20T05:49:00.000-07:00

Obama visited Los Angeles and caused an enormous traffic jam. An observer reported that black and white, old and young, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, each and every one, was pissed off.

A remark from the not-too-distant past.

2010-08-20T05:35:00.000-07:00

****Evidence has emerged that Obama is Christian. When proclaiming his Christianity, he was observed to have his fingers CROSSED.****
May 12, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
President Apostate? By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership — a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. The resulting emotional intensity adds greatly to the more conventional strengths of the well-organized Obama campaign, and it has certainly sufficed to overcome the formidable initial advantages of Senator Hillary Clinton.
One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.
This idea often goes hand in hand with the altogether more plausible argument that Mr. Obama’s election would raise America’s esteem in Africa — indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in his father’s native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent.
But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.
Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).
With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)
It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.
For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.
Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.
At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.
That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.
Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of “Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace.”

Muslims are not treated the same as others; they are being treated BETTER!

2010-08-19T14:47:00.001-07:00

If Obama is, in fact, not a Muslim, he is clearly their biggest supporter and apologist in the U.S. Whether he was baptized or not seems irrelevant by comparison.
Why can't the Greek church at Ground Zero be rebuilt? By The Scribe
If the Greek Orthodox had flown a stolen airliner into the World Trade Center would they have had an easier time getting permission to rebuild their church?
If the issue really was freedom of religion as mosque supporters claim shouldn't NY officials and President Obama support the rebuilding of this church? Of course they should but as we all know freedom of religion is not the real issue at play in this controversy.
From Fox News....
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America accused New York officials on Tuesday of turning their backs on the reconstruction of the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks, while the controversial mosque near Ground Zero moves forward.
The sidelined project is the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, a tiny, four-story building destroyed in 2001 when one of the World Trade Center towers fell on top of it. Nobody from the church was hurt in the attack, but the congregation has for the past eight years been trying to rebuild its house of worship.
A church that was actually destroyed in the Islamic attack in 2001 is no longer wanted by NYC officials. It's been 8 long years and they have been unable to get permission to rebuild. It's certainly not that they haven't tried but NY officials have refused to even meet with them to discuss rebuilding their church.
Candidate for Congress, George Demos, has now written to President Obama requesting he give the same support to the church that was already at Ground Zero as he has given to the mosque that is to be build there.
In part he said the following:
While we may disagree on the appropriateness of the Mosque, we can surely agree that it is an issue of national importance that the only house of worship actually destroyed on September 11, 2001, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, be rebuilt. For the last year, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has refused to meet with Church officials and has placed bureaucratic roadblocks in way of rebuilding St. Nicholas Church.
The world is watching to see if the humble Church that stood as a quiet refuge at the crossroads of commerce will rise from the ashes of that fateful September morning and become a vibrant symbol of our faith and resiliency as a nation.//
****What is the pressing need for an enormous Muslim community center in the proposed lcoation? There is not an existing community of Muslims needing service; there is even an existing mosque within two blocks of the proposed site.The imam and developers do not preclude getting funding from Saudi Arabia, Iran or even Osama bin Laden! It is triumphalism, plain and simple.
Let the mosque proceed: it will be a continuing reminder to Americans of both the jihadist nature of world-wide Islam and the insensitivity and probable support on the part of American muslims for jihad. This might be the wake-up call needed to the danger Islam presents to Western Civilization and American values.*****

Read more: http://www.gopusa.com/fresh-ink/2010/08/why-cant-the-greek-church-at-ground-zero-be-rebuilt.php#ixzz0x5f69pbk

Whether Obama is actually a Muslim is irrelevant; he is amazingly Islamophilic, in any event.

2010-08-19T14:23:00.001-07:00

Obama's Choice, Boy Scouts or Islam By Michael Reagan
President Obama couldn't bring himself to observe the National Day of Prayer or spend time with the Boy Scouts of America, but God forbid, he couldn't miss the Muslim Iftar Ramadan dinner, or pass up a chance to praise an Islamic center a stone's throw away from Ground Zero.He later backed down -- a bit.
One has to wonder exactly who is this Barack Obama? Is he the Muslim-educated student who has repeatedly proclaimed his Christian beliefs while finding himself unable to put a foot in a Christian church in Washington he can call his own, or is he an adult still motivated by the Muslim faith he learned and practiced as a young man?
This is a serious question, especially since Obama has gone out of his way to befriend a community, many of whom bear a deep hatred for the United States and a fanatical belief in the inevitability of supremacy of Islam over the United States.
Daniel Pipes writes that the Muslim population in this "country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people who desire, ultimately, to transform it into a nation living under the strictures of militant Islam."
He cites the case of Siraj Wahaj, a black convert to Islam and the recipient of some of the American Muslim community's highest honors, who in June 1991 had the privilege of becoming the first Muslim to deliver the daily prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives.
A little over a year later, addressing an audience of New Jersey Muslims, the same Wahaj said that "if only Muslims were more clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.
Said Wahaj: "If we were united and strong, we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. . . . [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us." ****Part of this is the continual lie overestimating the number of Muslims in the U.S. They may be loud and demanding but are not as numerous as they claim.*****
This is "the religion of peace"? ****Certainly not all Muslims are active terrorists but it does seem that most, if not all, active terrorists are Muslim. More importantly, the masses of American Muslims do NOT disavow the actions of the bad guys except when they are playing a role for the non-Muslim media. It is even incredible how forthright they are even here letting their arrogance trump being diplomatic. Parse the words of the Victory Mosque imam, even in a book directed at non-Muslims, and unAmerican attitudes are present.*****

Writing in the August 5 Washington Times, Jeffery T. Kuhner warns that the decision to build a 13-story mosque and Muslim cultural center 600 feet from the site of Ground Zero represents the surrender of the United States to radical Islam. He insists that most New Yorkers and Americans do not want this mosque erected and warns that it will be "a symbolic monument to the triumph of Islamism in the Unites States."

Kuhner notes that the attacks on 9/11 were "committed by Muslim extremists in the name of holy war against the West... [using] the Koran and Islamic principles to justify their actions." Their ultimate goal, he warns, is "to impose a world Muslim empire based on Shariah law."

"Ground Zero," he explains, "is where the war came home to America," and supporters of the mosque project push forward to make sure "the mosque will cast a giant, dark shadow over Ground Zero," a constant reminder of Islam's victory. "If Islamism can impose its will near the site of Sept. 11, then it can impose its will anywhere."

Unfortunately, it appears that Islam is also imposing its will and casting a shadow over the Obama White House.

---

Read more: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/08/reagan-obamas-choice-boy-scouts-or-islam.php#ixzz0x5b4ydPP

Buying bonds is a sucker's bet.

2010-08-18T08:52:00.000-07:00

Yields are historically low and possibly negative in real terms. The only way for bonds to pay off is to contemplate a virulent deflation and Helicopter Ben wouldn't let that happen. Whatever the short-term fluctuations, the debasement of the U.S. currency proceeds apace and the unsustainable U.S. debt has to be monetized ( at the expense of the dollar continuing as a reserve currency forever.) The authors make a point that seems not to be as widely obvious as stated: productivity is the most important determinant of economic growth. This is shockingly deviant from Keynesian demand-side-ism (albeit correct! )Not only is this administration ( and, admittedly, the Bushmen to some, if lesser, extent )running up enormous and unsustainable debt: worst is the diversion of resources from the more productive to the less productive members of society. Everything points to this trend from transferring wealth from bondholders to the auto unions, from taxing the job-creating elements of society to an immigration strategy that encourages unscreened, low-value-adding immigrants over immigrating professionals and entrepreneurs. The U.S. is a nation of immigrants but not illegal ones and not ones with only the minimal initiative to walk across the border. The hurdle of crossing the ocean was, itself, a filter with a proper Darwinian effect. American agriculture is not competitive in the world because of the availability of cheap stoop labor.****
http://tinyurl.com/2bc7q2a
The Great American Bond Bubble
If 10-year interest rates, which are now 2.8%, rise to 4% as they did last spring, bondholders will suffer a capital loss more than three times the current yield. By JEREMY SIEGEL AND JEREMY SCHWARTZ
Ten years ago we experienced the biggest bubble in U.S. stock market history—the Internet and technology mania that saw high-flying tech stocks selling at an excess of 100 times earnings. The aftermath was predictable: Most of these highfliers declined 80% or more, and the Nasdaq today sells at less than half the peak it reached a decade ago.
A similar bubble is expanding today that may have far more serious consequences for investors. It is in bonds, particularly U.S. Treasury bonds. Investors, disenchanted with the stock market, have been pouring money into bond funds, and Treasury bonds have been among their favorites. The Investment Company Institute reports that from January 2008 through June 2010, outflows from equity funds totaled $232 billion while bond funds have seen a massive $559 billion of inflows...

PuffHost defenders of imam mislead .

2010-08-18T08:41:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/23nyzvo
'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts Sam Stein HuffPost
****From the headline, one might expect to learn that the imam helped expose terrorists and avert potential terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. All the imam's efforts are directed at...non-Muslims.**** In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office.
Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."... ****One wonders how one got to be a "...respected Muslim voice." Perhaps one with a big constituency of ...Muslims. Just going on Sam Stein's quote, what assurance is that soundbite. It is likely an oxymoron since for a majority of Muslims there is no limits to how extreme one's Islamicism can be. Rather more non-committal than the PuffHost is claiming. ****

Economics FOREcasts are not to be believed; it's not even clear where we've BEEN.

2010-08-18T08:08:00.000-07:00

This administration has it made: good-news statements are made with great fanfare about how rosy things are; revisions downward of past putative performance are made quietly with little notice; then current descriptions are made with great improvement over the (downward-adjusted) previous results. It's no wonder that Obama and his flacks lie with such abandon: they really think we are all stupid ( and a lot of us are, certainly those who voted for Obama and Biden.)Still, one has to wonder how one can maintain in public and without obvious embarrassment that, for example, 32Million people can be added to healthcare without increasing costs and that $500Billion can be removed from Medicare without deteriorating quality. As Grouch Marx used to say, "A five-year old could tell..." "Get me a five-year-old!" ****
http://tinyurl.com/29fvxcy
Industrial Production: July Up, But June Is Now Negative Daryl Montgomery The Fed reported that industrial production was up 1.1% in July and this got all the media headline attention. Stocks rallied on the bullish news implying economic recovery. Buried in the coverage was that June's number, originally reported as an increase, was downwardly revised to minus 0.5%.

The government's handling and media reporting of the industrial production numbers are similar to many other economic reports. Good news is reported in the initial release. Mainstream media gives the good news big headlines and coverage that is so glowing that it is amazing there aren't cheerleaders in the background waving brightly colored pompoms and shouting "Go US economy, Go US economy, Rah, Rah, Rah" while jumping up and down...

Amazing! Fareed was right: the US State Dept funds mosques around the world

2010-08-17T15:47:00.000-07:00

***It's a bit strange that this Muslim commentator knew something that was not widely known. Had it been, it would certainly have raised questions about First Amendment rights and separation of church and state. Now the State Dept is funding Imam Rauf's fund-raising junket through the Middle East to raise money for the Victory Mosque. Note the article: one of the mosques restored with U.S. taxpayer funds was an example of just such a "triumphalist" mosque. The message to the Muslim world is clear: 9-11 was a victory for them and the U.S. is so weak and stupid that American taxpayers are even paying for it. I think American Muslims, separate from those outside the U.S., are starting to see a downside to this insulting project: there will be realization by Americans about what Islam is really like and what a threat it presents to Western Civilization.***
Washington Times: US Government Pays For Mosques Around the World

The State Department is sending Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf - the mastermind of the Ground Zero Mosque - on a trip through the Middle East to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States. However, important questions are being raised about whether this is simply a taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt to underwrite his reviled project, which is moving ahead in Lower Manhattan.

Mr. Rauf is scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar, the usual stops for Gulf-based fundraising. The State Department defends the five-country tour saying that Mr. Rauf is "a distinguished Muslim cleric," but surely the government could find another such figure in the United States who is not seeking millions of dollars to fund a construction project that has so strongly divided America.

By funding the trip so soon after New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission gave the go-ahead to demolish the building on the proposed mosque site, the State Department is creating the appearance that the U.S. government is facilitating the construction of this shameful structure. It gives Mr. Rauf not only access but imprimatur to gather up foreign cash. And because Mr. Rauf has refused to reveal how he plans to finance his costly venture, the American public is left with the impression it will be a wholly foreign enterprise. This contradicts the argument that a mosque is needed in that part of New York City to provide services for a burgeoning Muslim population. If so many people need the mosque so badly, presumably they could figure out a way to pay for it themselves.

Americans also may be surprised to learn that the United States has been an active participant in mosque construction projects overseas. In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque's namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country's Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of "Muslim triumphalism" glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument - and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.

The mosques being rebuilt by the United States are used for religious worship, which raises important First Amendment questions. U.S. taxpayer money should not be used to preserve and promote Islam, even abroad. In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were "uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution" when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.

For example, our government rebuilt the Al Shuhada Mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, expecting such benefits as "stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups." But Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits USAID funds from being used for the rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for "inherently religious activities." It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam.

The State Department is either wittingly or unwittingly using tax money to support Mr. Rauf's efforts to realize his dream of a supersized mosque blocks away from the sacred ground of the former World Trade Center, which was destroyed by Islamic fanaticism. This ill-considered decision will raise the ire of millions of Americans and illustrates the limits of what the denizens of Foggy Bottom know about diplomacy.

Obama supports "Victory mosque" - a useful reminder for the rest of us of the attitudes of both Muslims and Obama.

2010-08-14T10:42:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/2ewoaog
Obama Defends Plan for Mosque Near Ground Zero... By DEVLIN BARRETT And JONATHAN WEISMAN
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama defended the plan to build a mosque near the site of the 2001 terror attacks in New York, telling Muslim guests at a Ramadan dinner at the White House that the nation's commitment to freedom of religion "must be unshakable."President Obama speaks at an Iftar meal, the breaking of the Ramadan fast, at the White House. Mr. Obama's remarks came after weeks of the White House sidestepping the debate that has roiled New York and the nation since developers announced plans to build a $100 million, 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center just two blocks from the World Trade Center site...
****Freedom of religion does not include the right to take a property off the tax rolls and convert it to some tax-free purpose without zoning approval. This is not an issue of freedom of religion since Muslims are able to build mosques equally with any other religion ( but subject to the same approval constraints!). It is, however, a matter of taste and sensitivity with demands for the latter coming from the most insensitive group one can imagine. Where are such freedoms as religion ( in Muslim-controlled enclaves) or speech ( even in our country) such that Princeton University Press doesn't dare publish the actual cartoons in a book on the controversy in Denmark? It is especially interesting that a nearby Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed on 9/11 has not yet received approval to rebuild.( "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." )

Nevertheless, this is merely another example of Obama's disdain for most of his fellow citizens as well as his overweening Islamophilia. The Victory Mosque may serve as a triumphalist symbol of a murderous success to Muslims all over the world; to Americans it will serve as a reminder of who committed the atrocity of 9/11 and those who support them.

One can only hope that the City of New York will not be responsible for the costs of protecting the 13-story structure. Since it will contain a Sunni mosque, one might expect that Shia Muslims might be interested in seeing this high-profile edifice come down. It might even be convenient for them to have 13-stories worth of Sunnis collected in one place.****
Obama further elaborated on his remarks to Muslims at the White House:
...The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.
It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.

Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation. ****Yet again he panders to the world Muslim community while thumbing his nose r at a majority of Americans. Yet again, he chooses the path of divisiveness over community interchange. It is absurd to think that this will foster better relations between the American Muslim community and other Americans and Obama doesn't even pretend that it will. **** While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed "hallowed ground," Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.
Harkening back to earlier times when the building of synagogues or Catholic churches also met with opposition, Obama said: "Time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values and emerge stronger for it. So it must be and will be today." ****As an attempt at compromise, New York Governor Patterson offered equivalent state land nearby but further from Ground Zero for the 13-story structure. The offer was summarily turned down by proponents and supporters of the Victory Mosque ( insufficiently provocative?).****
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama's words as a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."
But some victims' advocates and Republicans were quick to pounce.
"Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see," said Debra Burlingame, a spokeswoman for some Sept. 11 victims' families and the sister of one of the pilots killed in the attacks.
Building the mosque at ground zero, she said, "is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah."
Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, said the president had failed to understand the issue. "As an Obama supporter, I really feel that he's lost sight of the germane issue, which is not about freedom of religion," she said. "It's about a gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost."
Added Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.: "President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero."
Entering the highly charged election-year debate, Obama surely knew that his words would not only make headlines in the U.S. but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and the over 100 guests at Friday's dinner in the State Dining Room included ambassadors and officials from numerous nations where Islam is observed, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.
While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls.
Opponents, including some Sept. 11 victims' relatives, see the prospect of a mosque so near the destroyed trade center as an insult to the memory of those killed by Islamic terrorists in the 2001 attacks.

How does he fail me? Let me count the ways.

2010-08-13T08:00:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/39ut42d
The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown by Nile Gardiner (Telegraph, UK )...

Are you going to believe what Ahmadinejad tells you or your own lying eyes?

2010-08-12T10:18:00.000-07:00

Response to A‘jad’s Holocaust Denial: Imams’ Tears at Auschwitz by Hillel Fendel
A group of American Muslim leaders made a first-of-its-kind visit to Nazi concentration camps this week, prompting tears from at least one of them.
Eight imams made a three-day trip Dachau and Auschwitz this week, co-sponsored by a German think tank and the New Jersey-based Center for Interreligious Understanding, and strongly supported by the United States government.
The trip, as reported in the Jewish Forward, was the brainchild of law professor Marshall Breger, an Orthodox Jew and former senior official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Breger said, “There is a view that there is growing anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, reinforced by people like President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, that there is growing Holocaust denial in the Muslim world. In light of that, the idea was to offer education to those who might not have the kind of knowledge that we’ve had about World War II and the Jewish community, and to do this in a public way.”
The imams prayed at Dachau, with a concluding prayer by Muzammil Siddiqi, imam of the Islamic Society of Orange County, California: “We pray to G-d that this will not happen to the Jewish people or to any people anymore.”
Suhaib Webb, an imam from Santa Clara in the Bay Area, grew up in a white Christian household in Oklahoma and later converted to Islam. Walking around Auschwitz with tears in his eyes, he said, “It was far worse than I imagined.”
“No Muslim in his right mind, female or male, should deny the Holocaust,” said Mohamed Magid, imam and executive director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society. “When you walk the walk of the people who have been taken to be gassed, to be killed, how can a person deny physical evidence, something that’s beyond doubt?”

Just a few days earlier, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad reiterated his claim that the Jews "made up" the "so-called Holocaust."

The delegates’ level of knowledge about the Holocaust prior to the trip seemed to be fairly low, the Forward reported. When they met with Max Mannheimer, a survivor of Auschwitz and Dachau, they appeared to particularly affected by seeing the number the Nazis had tattooed on his arm, and asked many questions.
The delegation’s youngest member was Yasir Qadhi, 35, dean of academics at Al Maghrib Institute, in New Haven, Conn. Qadhi has since recanted, both vocally and in print, his Holocaust-denial claims, explaining that he had been ignorant and exposed to materials such as the anti-Semitic “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” “That’s why I was very happy to come on this trip,” he said, “because I wanted to see for myself how wrong I was.”
Breger told the Forward, “These imams all have significant constituents in American Muslim communities as recognized legal scholars, people with mega-mosques, people with radio shows, people on the web, people who reach out to youth.” He said that the Jewish community, in contrast, often looks to engage with Muslims who meet specified criteria but do not have large constituencies.

The essence of Bibi in the context of Barack

2010-08-12T06:02:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/2fa48tm
Israel's anti-Obama by George Will
...no two leaders are less alike...Netanyahuk, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obamak, the former professor ****Actually, he never was, only arrogating the pretensions of an academic without the title or scholarship; "would-be professor" would be more precise.**** and post-nationalist.****Their offices could not be more different: Obama got rid of a bust of Churchill, rudely returning it to the British Embassy when he first entered the Oval Office; Netanyahu has a picture of Churchill, along with Theodor Herzl, as one of only two pictures in his office.Will points out that the Obama administration shows no understanding of Netanyahu's although the latter is all too aware of the former. Two clues to understanding Bibi: one is a stone from a signet ring only two hundred years younger than Jerusalem ( i.e. 2800 years old) bearing the name of an official from that ancient time: Netanyahu. Will closes with an admonition from Netanyahu to a U.S. diplomat:**** "You live in Chevy Chase. Don't play with our future."

Comment is unnecessary

2010-08-11T20:10:00.000-07:00

Saudis Want 'Mecca Time' to Replace GMT
Lauren Frayer
(Aug. 11) -- For centuries, an astronomy observatory in Greenwich, London -- the namesake of Greenwich Mean Time -- has been the reference point for lines of longitude, ships' navigation on the world's seas and the time zones used today.
But Saudi Arabia wants to change that. It's building what it calls the largest clock in the world, atop the second-largest skyscraper in the world, in the Islamic holy city of Mecca -- in hopes of replacing GMT with "Mecca Time."
The clock dwarfs London's Big Ben, with four huge faces each about 130 feet in diameter and inscribed with the Arabic words "God is greatest." Only one of the clock's faces has been completed so far, covered with 98 million pieces of glass mosaics. Details were first released by the Saudi official news agency and picked up by several foreign media.
It's still under construction atop a nearly 2,000-foot-tall building overlooking Mecca's Grand Mosque, the point where Muslims around the world turn toward during their five daily prayers. Millions of faithful visit the site as part of the Muslim hajj voyage and other pilgrimages each year.
"We in Mecca hope to be the world's central time zone, and not just have a clock to look at, to show off," Mecca resident Hani al-Wajeeh told Agence France-Presse.

"Putting Mecca time in the face of Greenwich Mean Time, this is the goal," Mohammed Al-Arkubi, general manager of Royal Makkah Tower Hotel, told the Arab News, a Saudi newspaper.
An observatory deck is planned for the base of the clock, which will also be topped with a 75-foot wide golden crescent moon hoisted on a spire 200 feet above the clock. From there projectors will send 15 beams of light streaming up into the sky. The tower will be visible from more than 16 miles away, and the light beams beyond that.... The project cost about $800 million, designed by German and Swiss engineers and is being built by the Saudi Binladen Group, a construction company originally founded by Osama bin Laden's father. The al-Qaida leader split from his family decades ago, and has criticized their wealth and connections with the Saudi government, which he considers corrupt and apostate.

Fouad Ajami pricks and buries the balloon that is Obama.

2010-08-11T11:49:00.001-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/2eyl5rk
The Obsolescence of Barack Obama The magic of 2008 can't be recreated, and good riddance to it.By FOUAD AJAMI
...it is to Lyndon B. Johnson's unhappy presidency that Democratic strategist Robert Shrum compares the stewardship of Mr. Obama...His fall from political grace has been as swift as his rise a handful of years ago. He had been hot political property in 2006 and, of course, in 2008...The vaunted Obama economic stimulus,...has failed. ... But the American people are in open rebellion against an economic strategy of public debt, higher taxes and unending deficits. We're not all Keynesians, it turns out. The panic that propelled Mr. Obama to the presidency has waned....He had been a blank slate, and the devotees had projected onto him their hopes and dreams. His victory had not been the triumph of policies he had enunciated in great detail. He had never run anything in his entire life. He had a scant public record, but oddly this worked to his advantage. If he was going to begin the world anew, it was better that he knew little about the machinery of government. He pronounced on the American condition with stark, unalloyed confidence. He had little if any regard for precedents. He could be forgiven the thought that America's faith in economic freedom had given way and that he had the popular writ to move the nation toward a super-regulated command economy. An "economic emergency" was upon us, and this would be the New New Deal.
...Big as Reagan's mandate was, in two elections, the man was never bigger than his country. There was never narcissism or a bloated sense of personal destiny in him. He gloried in the country, and drew sustenance from its heroic deeds and its capacity for recovery....Mr. Obama will mark time, but henceforth he will not define the national agenda. He will not be the repository of its hopes and sentiments. The ambition that his would be a "transformational" presidency—he rightly described Reagan's stewardship in these terms—is for naught.... Personality is doubtless an obstacle to his recovery. The detachment of Mr. Obama need not be dwelled upon at great length, so obvious it is now even to the pundits who had a "tingling sensation"...It is in the nature of charisma that it rises out of thin air, out of need and distress, and then dissipates when the magic fails....There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer—a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation.

" Marie Antoinette", perhaps but certainly NOUVEAU BITCH.

2010-08-10T22:24:00.000-07:00

Michelle Obama's pretentiousness, arrogance, insensitivity and self-aggrandizing taste for expensive goods and services, deserves a neologism that encompasses several of the dimensions of this person. Our candidate? Nouveau Bitch.

The friend of my (stupid) friend can be my enemy. (And with friends like that ...)

2010-08-10T07:59:00.000-07:00

August 10, 2010

Three attacks on Israel last week don't seem to bother the international community. It's time to let them know the attacks—and the hypocrisy—bother us!
Last week, as Israeli soldiers were trimming a tree in Israeli territory near its northern border, a sniper from the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) killed one of the soldiers and wounded another, starting a firefight. Eventually, three Lebanese were killed---two soldiers and a journalist who had apparently been invited to report on the ambush.****The Israelis had, in fact, even informed UNIFIL in advance so UNIFIL must have participated in this ambush.****
Last week the Israeli city of Ashkelon was attacked by missiles fired from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Last week a rocket fired from Egyptian territory, intended to hit the southern Israeli resort city of Eilat, misfired and landed in Jordan. Egypt reported that the missile was launched by Palestinians.

How do United Nations members feel about these three unprovoked attacks on Israel in one week? It's hard to say, since the incidents have hardly been reported in the international press, and no government except Israel has issued a formal protest.
What blatant, outrageous hypocrisy!
When Hizbollah attacked Israeli cities from Lebanon in 2006 with thousands of rockets and Israel retaliated, the Jewish state was criticized for using "disproportionate force." When Hamas aimed thousands more rockets from Gaza at Israeli civilians in 2008 and Israel responded, many world leaders and a U.N. commission criticized Israel for "war crimes." Most recently, when Israel had to use force to stop a rogue ship determined to break a legal Israeli blockade of Gaza, Israel was pilloried by the world's nations after nine armed militants on the ship were killed.
So it's OK for Hizbollah, Lebanon and Hamas to attack Israel with no risk of notice, let alone condemnation. But when Israel responds with legitimate force to defend its citizens from violent provocation, it's the Jewish state that is guilty?

In response to the latest attacks, however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did issue a statement, which highlights this horrible, hateful double standard. Here's what he said:
"For years many in the international community have remained silent when rockets have been fired at Israeli civilians, and when unprovoked attacks have been launched against our soldiers. Expressions of outrage have largely been reserved for Israel's response to those attacks. Firing missiles on civilians is a war crime, and unprovoked attacks on soldiers are blatant acts of aggression. Israel expects the international community to condemn such attacks in the strongest possible terms. All those in the international community committed to peace should support Israel's right to defend itself against those who attack the innocent and seek to destroy peace."

We know that if Israel continues to be attacked by its Arab neighbors---and it appears likely this will happen---Israel will respond, as she must. We can also expect many world leaders to condemn her, as they have in the past.What's worse, as the article below by Carolyn Glick exposes, the United States is guilty of supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces with ammunition and hundreds of millions of dollars . . . just as it supports the Palestinian armed forces.

Now's the time to speak out, at least in our own country. We must call on our elected representatives to cry out against these recent attacks and call for proactive support of Israel's right to defend herself. We must also demand that the U.S. stop supporting armies that attack Israel.

Won't you take just a few minutes to write the President, your Senators and Representative, letting them know how you feel? To give President Obama your opinion about these violent attacks on Israel, please write the President---immediately. To identify and contact your Senators and Representative, go to contacting the Congress. (You'll need your nine [5+4] digit zip code to find your Representative.) Please do your part to help Israel today. And please use the Forward to a Friend button at the bottom of this email to encourage others to do the same.
Best Regards,Jim Sinkinson Director, FLAME

It wasn't a US Army sniper who killed the Israeli soldier and seriously wounded another one on the Lebanon border . . . but did the US help? by Carolyn Glick, Jerusalem Post, August 5, 2010

It wasn't a US Army sniper who killed IDF Lt.- Col. Dov Harari and seriously wounded Capt. Ezra Lakia on Tuesday. But the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) sniper who shot them owes a great deal to the generous support the LAF has received from America.

For the past five years, the LAF has been the second largest recipient of US military assistance per capita after Israel. A State Department press release from late 2008 noted that between 2006 and 2008, the LAF received 10 million rounds of ammunition, Humvees, spare parts for attack helicopters, vehicles for its Internal Security Forces "and the same frontline weapons that US military troops are currently using, including assault rifles, automatic grenade launchers, advanced sniper systems, anti-tank weapons and the most modern urban warfare bunker weapons."

Since 2006, the US has provided Lebanon some $500 million in military assistance. And there is no end in sight. After President Barack Obama's meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri in June, the White House proclaimed Obama's "determination to continue US efforts to support and strengthen Lebanese institutions such as the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces."

And indeed, in late June, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates informed Congress that the Pentagon intends to provide the LAF with 24 120mm mortars, 24 M2 .50 caliber machine guns, 1 million rounds of ammunition, and 24 humvees and trailers. The latest orders should be delivered by the end of 2011.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the administration has already allocated $100m. in military assistance to Lebanon for 2011.

According to Lebanon's As-Safir newspaper, in written testimony to Congress, last week Obama's nominee to head the US Central Command, Gen. James Matthis, claimed that relations between US Central Command and the LAF focus on building the LAF's capabilities "to preserve internal stability and protect borders."

And how is that border protection going? Tuesday's unprovoked LAF ambush of Lt.-Col. Harari's battalion within Israeli territory showed that the LAF is fully prepared to go to war against the US's closest ally in the region, in order to deter IDF units from crossing the border.

Indeed, they are willing to commit unprovoked acts of illegal aggression to harm Israel.

As The Jerusalem Post reported on Wednesday, there is no reason to be surprised by what happened.

Since 2009, LAF men have frequently pointed their rifles at IDF soldiers operating along the border. In recent months they have also cocked their rifles while aiming them at IDF forces. It was just a matter of time before they started shooting.

The same aggressive border protection is completely absent, however, along Lebanon's border with Syria. Since 2006, the LAF has taken no actions to seal off that border from weapons transfers to Hizbullah. It has taken no steps to protect Lebanese sovereignty from the likes of Syria and Iran that are arming Hizbullah's army with tens of thousands of missiles.

Then there's Centcom's (editor: US Central Command's) "internal stability."

For the past four years, in open breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which set the terms for the cease-fire that ended the Second Lebanon War, the LAF has done nothing to block Hizbullah from remilitarizing and reasserting control over southern Lebanon.

Moreover, the institution that the State Department views as the anchor of a multiethnic, independent Lebanon did not lift a finger against Hizbullah when Hizbullah staged a coup against the Saniora government in 2008.

In a sense, by effectively collaborating with Hizbullah, the LAF did ensure "internal stability."

But it is hard to see how such "internal stability" advances US interests.

In stark contrast, as the Los Angeles Times reported last week, the US-supported Lebanese Internal Security Forces have used US signals equipment to help Hizbullah ferret out Israeli agents. According to the Times, "A strengthening Lebanese government is helping Hizbullah bust alleged spy cells, sometimes using tools and tradecraft acquired from Western nations eager to build up Lebanon's security forces as a counterweight to the Shi'ite group."

The US has refused to reckon with the consequences of its actions. As the Times reported, last week Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow visited Beirut and said that continued US aid and training to the LAF would allow the Lebanese Army to "prevent militias and other nongovernmental organizations" from undermining the government.

It bears recalling that Hizbullah has been a partner in the Lebanese government since 2005. Since its successful coup in 2008, Hizbullah has held a veto over all the decisions of the Lebanese government.

It also bears recalling that during the 2006 war, the LAF provided Hizbullah commanders with targeting data for their missiles and rockets.

The LAF also announced on its official Web site that it would award pensions to families of Hizbullah fighters killed in the war.

Unfortunately, the LAF is not the only military organization aligned with Israel's enemies that the US is arming and training. There is also the US-trained Palestinian army.

As Israel Radio's Arab Affairs commentator Yoni Ben-Menachem reported last month, the IDF is deeply concerned about the US-trained Palestinian force. Ben-Menachem recalled that since 1996, Palestinians security forces have repeatedly taken leading roles in organizing and carrying out terrorist attacks against Israel.

Hundreds of Israelis have been murdered and maimed in these attacks.

The Palestinian force being trained by the US Army represents a disturbing, qualitative upgrade in Palestinian military capabilities.

OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrahi warned IDF ground forces about the new USPalestinian threat in May.

As Mizrahi put it in a speech at Tze'elim training base cited by Ben-Menachem, "This is a well-trained force, better equipped than its predecessors and trained by the US. The significance of this is that at the start of a new battle [with the Palestinians] the price that we will pay will be higher. A force like this one can shut down a built-up area with four snipers. This is deadly. These aren't the fighters we faced in Jenin [in 2002]. This is an infantry force that will be fighting us and we need to take this into account. They have offensive capabilities and we aren't expecting them to give up."

The IDF assesses that the US-trained force will be capable of overrunning small IDF outposts and isolated Israeli communities.

To date, the US has spent $400m. on the Palestinian army. The Obama administration has allocated an additional $100m. for the next year.

And the US is demanding that Israel support its efforts. In a General Accounting Office report issued in May, Israel was excoriated for hampering US efforts to build the Palestinian forces.

The GAO railed against Israel's refusal to permit the transfer of a thousand AK-47 assault rifles to the Palestinian forces. It criticized Israel's rejection of US plans to train a Palestinian counterterror force. It complained that Israel does not give freedom of movement to US military advisers to the Palestinian forces in Judea and Samaria.

The US claims that what it is doing cultivates stability. It argues that the Palestinian and Lebanese failure to prevent terror armies from attacking Israel is due to their lack of institutional capacity to rein in terrorism rather than the absence of institutional will to do so. The US claims that pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into these Lebanese and Palestinian armies will enable them to become stabilizing forces in the region that will engender peace. What the administration ignores, however, is the fact that the members and commanders of these US-trained forces share the terrorists' dedication to Israel's destruction.

To its undying shame, Israel has publicly supported, or, at best failed to oppose these American initiatives. By doing so, Israel has provided political cover for these US initiatives that endanger its security. Although it is crucial to call the US out for its sponsorship of terror-aligned armies, it is also important to understand Israel's role in these nefarious enterprises.

Israel has gone along with these US programs for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it has been due to domestic politics. Sometimes it owed to Israel's desire to be a team player with the US government. But generally the Israeli rationale for not loudly and vociferously objecting to US assistance to enemy armies has been the same as Israel's rationale for embracing Yassir Arafat and the PLO in 1993 and for every other Israeli act of appeasement toward its enemies and allies alike.

Successive Israeli governments have claimed that by supporting actions that strengthen Israel's enemies, they gain leverage for Israel, or, at a minimum, they mitigate the opprobrium directed against Israel when it takes actions to defend itself. In Lebanon, for instance, Israel agreed to the US plan to support the Hizbullah-dominated Saniora government in the hopes that by agreeing to give the Lebanese government immunity from IDF attack, the US would support Israel's moves to defeat Hizbullah.

But this did not happen. Indeed, it could not happen. The pro-Western Lebanese government ministers are beholden to Hizbullah.

Whether they wish to or not, former prime minister Fuad Saniora and his successor Hariri both act as Hizbullah's defenders to the US.

And once the US committed itself to the falsehood that the Sanioras and Hariris of Lebanon are independent actors, it inevitably became Hizbullah's advocate against Israel as well. The logic of appeasement moves in one direction only — toward one's enemies.

The same holds for the Palestinians. Israel believed that once it capitulated to international pressure to recognize the PLO the US, the EU and the UN would hold the PLO to account if it turned out that Arafat and his minions had not changed their ways. But when Arafat ordered his lieutenants to wage a terror war against Israel rather than accept statehood, the US, the EU and the UN did not rally to Israel's side.

They had become so invested in their delusion of Palestinian peacefulness that they refused to abandon it. Instead, at most, they pinned the full blame on Arafat and demanded that Israel support their efforts to "strengthen the moderates."

And so, in this demented logic, it made sense for the US to build a Palestinian army after the Palestinians elected Hamas to lead them.

And so on and so forth. In every single instance, Israel's willingness to embrace lies about the nature of its enemies has come back to haunt it. Never has Israel gained any ground by turning a blind eye to the hostility of the likes of Salam Fayyad and Saad Hariri.

It is true; the US is abetting and aiding the war against Israel by supporting the LAF and the Palestinian military. But it is also true that the US will not stop until Israel demands that it stop. And Israel will not demand that the US stop building armies for its enemies until Israel abandons the notion that by accepting a lie told by a friend, it will gain that friend's loyalty.//

****Several things that the Obama administration is doing are along the same line of bolstering Israel's enemies. Egypt is in intensive negotiations to change the program of American aid to an "endowment" so as to sever the relation to the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement that underlay the aid in the first place. At present, Congress has oversight and if ( as seems inevitable with the passing of Mubarek )Egypt disavows even the very cold peace it has with Israel, Congress is likely to withdraw aid. Changing to an "endowment" would take that oversight from Congress and allow the Executive to support an Egypt hostile to Israel. Much of the aid to Egypt has been for high-tech weaponry although it is hard to think of any adversary Egypt needs it for except for Israel. The common argument for building up the Palestinians, the Lebanese Army, the Egyptians, the Saudis, etc is to provide a bulwark against Iran. However, it is not at all clear that these regimes, recipients of advanced weaponry eroding Israel's qualitative advantage ( heretofore a pillar of Congressional U.S. policy ), are trust-worthy. The Oslo Accords, endorsed by Clinton and Rahm Emanuel especially, intended to create a police capability for the Palestinian not a modern, U.S.-trained army capable of confronting the IDF.Just this week, it was announced that 100 F-15 advanced fighters will be sold to Saudi Arabia, not the most stable of governments. It is highly likely that much or all of this U.S. weaponry will eventually be deployed against Israel.****

The Fareed Screed Revisited-- WHOA there, Kemo Sabe! What the hell did you say?

2010-08-09T12:30:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/36xab66
Build the Ground Zero Mosque I believe we should promote Muslim moderates right here in America. And why I'm returning an award to the ADL. Fareed Zakaria in NEWSWEEK
Ever since 9/11, liberals and conservatives have agreed that the lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terror is to prevail in the battle of ideas and to discredit radical Islam, the ideology that motivates young men to kill and be killed. ****FZ starts off with a fallacy: there is no possible "battle of ideas" with fanatics who believe that Allah has spoken on an issue. The phrase "Our young men love death more than you love life" has been repeated over and over since the seventh century. It seems part of mainstream Islam, much as Westerners find this hard to believe.****
Victory in the war on terror will be won when a moderate, mainstream version of Islam—one that is compatible with modernity—fully triumphs over the world view of Osama bin Laden.
As the conservative Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes put it, “The U.S. role [in this struggle] is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities.” To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world. Except, apparently, in New York City.

...****Say WHAT?*** ugust 08, 2010
Newsweek columnist says US funding mosque construction Lee DeCovnick The American Thinker
Truth, even in the tightly controlled prison of the Obama media complex, occasionally bursts forth like a swordfish cavorting on the waves of a golden August afternoon.
Newsweek, the Washington Post's former progressive stepchild, published an op-ed by Fareed Zakaria, the in-house lapdog for the Administration, extolling the virtues of building the Ground Zero Mosque. A couple of sentences demand a great deal more explanation.

"To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it..."

Perhaps we all missed the memo where US taxpayers are gleefully funding Islamic "mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers" around the globe. Of course, US troops have restored hundreds of schools and community centers in Iraq and Afghanistan, but mosques and Islamic institutes? This seems very difficult to believe.
So, as an enraged and curious taxpaying citizen, I have a few questions for Mr. Zakaria, our Congress and this Administration. What are the locations, costs, and dates of construction of these US taxpayer-funded mosques and Islamic institutes? If some of these mosques were built in the America, didn't anyone contact the ACLU? (I would pay real money to be in "the room" during that discussion.) What particular piece of Congressional legislation authorized US taxpayer dollars to be spent on these mosques and Islamic institutes? Did our government apportion these funds fairly and equally between the Shi'a, Sunni, and Sufi sects of Islam?

The Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" I'm damn sure spending US taxpayer dollars on constructing mosques was not envisioned by the Founding Fathers nor by the overwhelming majority of American citizens.

The triumphalist Victory Mosque is no bridge.

2010-08-09T11:26:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/26w4dmb
Ground Zero Mosque Reveals Deeper Muslim Problem
By: Ronald Kessler
The controversy over plans to build a mosque two blocks from the site where the World Trade Center once stood reveals a deeper problem within the Muslim community.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is behind the project, says he wants to build bridges with fellow Americans and condemns terrorism. Yet he has refused to call Hamas a terrorist group, even though the State Department has designated it as such, and he is tone deaf to what should be obvious: Building a mosque so close to ground zero is wounding to many of those who lost their loved ones at the hands of Islamic extremists.
This lack of understanding is consistent with what the FBI has found in trying to cultivate the Muslim community. To be sure, leads from some Muslims have led to FBI cases in such cities as Lackawanna, N.Y.; Lodi, Calif.; and Atlanta. But in general, the FBI has met resistance to its requests for help from Muslim leaders in developing sources and leads in the war on terror. In fact, as many as 10 percent of the imams at the 2,000 mosques in the United States preach jihad and hatred of America, according to top FBI counterterrorism officials.... Muslims often are in denial about the fact that the terrorists who threaten the U.S. are Muslims....‘Why are you guys always looking at the Muslim community?’”...You want me to waste my time and your taxpayer’s dollars going to look at the Irish? They’re not killing Americans.... “I can name the home-grown cells, all of whom are Muslim, all of whom ...it’s not the Protestants; it’s the Muslims.”...“Rarely do we have them coming to us and saying, ‘There are three guys in the community that we’re very concerned about,’” one agent says.... a Muslim group suggested having a photo taken of its members with FBI Director Bob Mueller to show their community isn’t a bunch of terrorists and that they are partners in the war on terror. An agent replied, “Let me make a suggestion: When you bring to my attention real extremists who are here to plan and do something, who are here supporting terrorism, and I work that based on your information, then I promise you, I will have the director stand up on the stage with you.”To the agent’s amazement, the answer was: “That could never happen. We would lose our constituency. We could never admit to bringing someone to the FBI.”...by refusing to condemn terrorists, and by showing insensitivity to New Yorkers devastated by the 9/11 attack, Rauf has made himself a poster boy for attitudes that need to change within the Muslim community.//

Perhaps it's not so bad. The stupidity, appeasement/PC-mentality and illogic of such as Bloomberg et al will produce a backlash that might eventually get the U.S. to realize what a threat Radical Islam ( perhaps Islam ) is to American values and Western Civilization. This is a triumphalist project, named after the similar one in Cordoba ( and parallelled with the building of Al-Aqsa on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, conversion of St. Sophia to a mosque in Constantinopole, etc. When the Pope allowed a mosque in Rome, he naturally asked for some reciprocity for churches in Muslim countries: he got ...nada!

Besides, the cost of protecting this mosque will be exorbitant and its half-life I would guess to be less than five years. It won't require a Timothy McVeigh ( although such a one would garner infinitely more support than did the original ); rather, since it will be a Sunni mosque, it will be likely destroyed by a Shia suicide bomber (perhaps supported by a national subscription drive! ).

By the way, Fareed The Screed Zalaria has shed his Western skin revealing the Muslim colors underneath ( although, honestly, he has never hidden the fact of his bias, merely relying on the political-correctness of his audience to shield him.)
http://tinyurl.com/38qg68n
...In the segment, Zakaria praises the imam behind the mosque, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf for promoting a version of Islam he calls “Osama Bin Laden’s nightmare.” Many of the points he makes in his commentary he has already written about in his letter to the ADL and in Newsweek, but among the new highlights in his segment is the conservative argument for the Ground Zero mosque: the fact that conservatives have, he explains, often promoted efforts “to fund moderates and delegitimize radical and violent Islam.” He also noted that it was not just a mosque, but a community center, and “if this community center were being built anywhere else in the world, chances are the US government would be funding it,” because its leaders were friendly to American interests.

Zakaria then praised the mosque’s leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, called his version of Islam “Osama Bin Laden’s nightmare,” and argued that “we should be encouraging such an islamic center, not demonizing it.” He also noted that the idea that the mosque would be offensive to 9/11 victims seems to ignore the fact that many of the victims of the attacks were muslim themselves, and the fact that people are victims, according to him, does not give them the right to prejudices. “Are irrational feelings, prejudices, hatreds ok because those expressing them are victims or see themselves as victims?,” he asked. “Will the ADL defend the rights of Palestinian ‘victims’ to be anti-semites?”

Mischief in Manhattan We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen SpecialAugust 7, 2010

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and city council speaker Christine Quinn announce this week's decision to deny landmark status to the site of a planned Muslim centre
Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.
...When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S.,...so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran... So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?
Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica...Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis. If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not....$100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.
Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits....As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.
... If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.
As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill. Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.
Raheel Raza is author of Their Jihad ... Not my Jihad, and Tarek Fatah is author of The Jew is Not My Enemy (McClelland & Stewart), to be launched in October. Both sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.//
http://tinyurl.com/36xab66
Zakaria urges the building of the Victory Mosque as a support to "moderate" Muslims. Why it has to be at Ground Zero to support "moderate" Muslims is not clear; rather it is a support and victory for triumphalist radical Muslims all around the world. There is not the slightest evidence that the Imam Rauf is a "moderate." He refuses to consider Hamas a terrorist organization and the various statements that Zakaria tries to dismiss as inconsequential are, in fact, reflective of the Imam's lack of moderation. We'll see what the preachings are like from the Victory Mosque ( assuming the FBI can penetrate the sermons sufficiently to record them.) Very strangely, Rauf is touring the MidEast, likely on a fund-raising compaign and is traveling AS A GUESS OF THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT. The Obama Administration is so arrogant that it is not even reserving "plausible deniability" for its Muslim biases. This will be claimed to be a religious matter; it is not. It is providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and Western Civilization itself. If that's the side the Obama Administration is on, the more obvious it is, the better.