Thursday, May 17, 2012

SACRIFICIAL SCAMS

By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/
May 16, 2012


The real class warfare in this country isn't rich vs. poor, it's government employees vs. we, the taxpayers, who pay their salaries.

Working for the government is supposed to be a trade-off: You can't be fired and don't have to exert yourself, but you will receive smaller remuneration than in the private sector, where layoffs are common (especially in the Obama economy!). Instead, government jobs are safe, secure, pressure-free -- and now, amazingly lucrative!

Whether it's in Wisconsin, Illinois, California or the nation's capital, today's public sector workers expect to do little or no work (I'm not counting partying in Las Vegas as "work"), and then be lavishly compensated. Often, the only heavy lifting they do all week is picking up their paychecks.

When government employees mobbed the state capitol in Wisconsin last year, the upside was: They got to bully people. The downside: Voters finally found out what these public servants were being paid.

Their compensation included not only straight salary, but also lavish overtime benefits, pensions, health care plans, sick days and vacation time (most of which they spent protesting).

The unions thought they could fight back against Gov. Scott Walker's tiny rollbacks without anyone finding out the details. Most people saw what public employees were getting and assumed it was a misprint.

Two years ago, seven bus drivers in Madison, Wis., made more than $100,000 a year.

A few years before that, we found out that the city manager of little Bell, Calif. -- per capita annual income $24,800 -- was making $787,637, or including benefits: $1.5 million a year. The chief of police was getting $457,000 a year -- $770,046 counting benefits -- making him the first chief of police to commit highway robbery on the job. The assistant city manager was taking home $376,288 per year, for a total compensation package of $845,960.

All were Democrats, the party of Big Government.

Speaking of which -- whatever happened to that investigation Gov. Jerry Brown was launching into these thieving public servants drawing million-dollar pensions from California taxpayers? The Bell scandal broke during the California gubernatorial race between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, who was then state attorney general. Brown vowed a no-holds-barred inquiry.

Anyone seen his report yet?

Jerry Brown will demand to see Obama's birth certificate before he will call for a rollback of these undeserved, million-dollar government pensions.

Less than 20 percent of private sector employees get pensions. Most people save their own money for retirement -- for example, through 401(k)s. By contrast, government employees expect to be paid by us for the rest of their lives.

Former representative and amateur home pornographer Anthony Weiner was a member of Congress until he resigned last June in order to spend more time with his hard drive. He will probably end up collecting about a million dollars from his 80 percent taxpayer-funded government pension.

These are the "1 percent" deserving of the public's wrath: We're paying their salaries. We weren't taxed to pay Mitt Romney's salary at Bain Capital. We aren't taxed to pay the salaries of Jamie Dimon or Alex Rodriguez. Anthony Weiner? Him, we pay for.

Government employees expect to live like something out of the czar's court -- and then have us admire them as if they're Rosa Parks.

At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Barack and Michelle Obama both paid heartfelt tributes to themselves for passing up money-grubbing private sector jobs to work in "public service."

In her speech, Michelle boasted that she had "tried to give back to this country."

"... That's why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their communities."

She was hired by the University of Chicago Hospital as soon as her husband became a state senator. When he was elected to the U.S. Senate, her salary nearly tripled, from $121,910 to $316,962 -- and the junior senator from Illinois returned the favor by sending taxpayer dollars the hospital's way.

By Obama's second year in the U.S. Senate, in 2006, Michelle Obama's compensation from "public service" was approximately $375,000 a year -- more than triple the average salary for a lawyer in the United States with 20 years' experience.

(America to the Obamas: "You two have sacrificed enough. Please retire and kick back a little!")

Vice President Joe Biden, long touted as the poorest U.S. senator, took home $248,459 in household income in 2006, including his public school teacher wife's salary, also paid by taxpayers. In 2007, these working poor made $319,853. This puts the couple nearly into the top 1 percent of all earners in the U.S., where the median household income was $48,201 in 2006 and $50,233 in 2007.

A career in "public service" pays well.

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Sports hero? No outranking Sgt. Olson

By Dejan Kovacevic
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
May 16, 2012


Sgt. 1st Class Josh Olson of the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit is a member of  the 2012 U.S. Paralympic Team.

DALLAS
We’re all guilty of elevating sports to a level they’ll never deserve, of equating them with life-and-death issues like war. You know, the way we talk about the Penguins and Flyers being at war. Or how Ben Roethlisberger showed courage by scrambling on a sore ankle.
Or how anyone playing a child’s game can be a hero.
It’s because of our fighting men and women that we all have the right to express ourselves as we wish. But, speaking only for myself, I’ll try even harder to avoid this sports-as-war terminology in the future after Tuesday.
That’s when I shook the hand of Sgt. 1st Class Josh Olson.
Sgt. Olson is an Iraq war veteran from Spokane, Wash., and is still enlisted in the Army and stationed at Fort Benning, Ga. As such, he’s about to become the first active-duty soldier to represent the United States in shooting at the Paralympics, this August in London.
He doesn’t have a right leg.
It was blown off by a rocket-propelled grenade nine years ago.
“My goal is to inspire wounded veterans,” Sgt. Olson said yesterday as part of a riveting address to a room of 200 reporters at the U.S. Olympic Media Summit. “My goal is to inspire people with disabilities of any kind.”
And so, his goal is gold.
“For one day, I have a chance to be the best in the world. I can’t wait to get there.”
Sgt. Olson’s story isn’t for the faint of heart.
On the night of Oct. 27, 2003, six months after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Sgt. Olson and his men were patrolling Baghdad when a rocket caught the back of his vehicle. A minute later, another rocket brought a direct hit.
“There was a flash of light, and I got the wind knocked out of me. I thought I was shot,” Sgt. Olson recalled. “They teach you to do an inventory when that happens, for arms and limbs. When I reached down for my right leg, there was nothing there. Where my leg used to be, there was a hole.”
From the hip down.
Sgt. Olson was flown to Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington a week later. That’s when reality began to set in.
“You’re lying in a hospital bed, it’s 2 a.m., it’s dark, and all you can hear are footsteps out in the hallway,” he said. “You’re wondering: What’s next?”
A prosthetic leg was made for him. More reality.
“The first time I actually looked in the mirror with it … I had a lot of emotions. I was upset. But I was also like, I didn’t want to roll over and die.”
He also didn’t want to stop being Sgt. Olson. He returned to Fort Benning, where he could put his marksman skills — he’d been shooting since age 9 — to military use by instructing new soldiers.
“I couldn’t be in the fight anymore, but I could train the guys going over. I could teach them to save their life or their buddy’s life.”
On the side, his continued improvement at marksmanship led to competitive shooting. By 2006, he placed eighth at shooting’s world championship. Last year, he was the national champion and placed sixth at the World Cup in Sydney.
Sgt. Olson sits in a folding chair when shooting, usually eschewing the prosthetic leg because it can irritate. He didn’t have it yesterday, either, when he shared a stage with five other
Paralympians.
That pretty much sums up the extent to which his injury affects him.
“Watching Sgt. Olson and all he does, knowing what he’s gone through … he makes us all proud to be Americans,” said Michael Molinaro, a Blackhawk High School graduate, a staff sergeant during two tours of duty in Iraq and the public affairs officer at Fort Benning. “He shows you that no matter how hard things get, you can always get back up.”
The inspiration of Sgt. Olson, 32, doesn’t stop there. He wrote essays to benefit earthquake victims of Haiti. He’s training to become a Paralympic Ambassador and counsel the newly disabled. He visits children in hospitals. He’s also made four return trips to Iraq as part of Operation Proper Exit, a program that allows soldiers to revisit the battleground and cope with any remaining angst.
The battle never ends, soldiers will say. When Sgt. Olson goes to London, he’ll wear the bracelets of soldiers who died alongside him in Iraq.
That’s the reality of war.
That’s courage.
That’s a hero.

Dejan Kovacevic is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
He can be reached at
dkovacevic@tribweb.com.

Obamacare’s Patient-Dumping, Privacy-Meddling Scheme

By Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/
May 16, 2012


President Barack Obama plays golf with longtime friend Dr. Eric Whitaker on the 10th green of the course at Grove Park Inn in Asheville, N.C., Friday, April 23, 2010. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The stench of Chicago cronyism over the White House just got fouler. Inhale this:

A shadowy $10 billion Obamacare agency with zero oversight just awarded first lady Michelle Obama’s pet patient-dumping scheme at the University of Chicago Medical Center a $5.9 million taxpayer-funded grant. It will enable Mrs. Obama’s cronies to build a government-sponsored electronic medical record-sharing system.

The Chicago program, known as the Urban Health Initiative, is run by one of President Obama’s closest golfing buddies, scandal magnet Eric Whitaker, who has been entangled with Illinois corruption celebrities Rod Blagojevich and Tony Rezko over the past decade.

Fun fact: Whitaker recently was named by author Edward Klein as the man who purportedly offered hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright $150,000 in hush money during the 2008 campaign. (More here.)

The nearly $6 million grant was announced last week by the “Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation” at the Department of Health and Human Services. White House watchdog journalist Keith Koffler notes that “some 3,000 applications were received for a share on the $1 billion in 3-year grants available. Only 26 programs were included in the first batch of awards doled out.” The administration grants circumvent any and all congressional deliberation as part of Team Obama’s election-year “We Can’t Wait” initiatives.

The grant recipients will help fulfill the mandated Obamacare vision of a centralized patient-record database with unprecedented federal oversight. The provision is being challenged in court by the Goldwater Institute for forcing Americans to share “with millions of strangers who are not physicians confidential private and personal medical history information they do not wish to share.”

HHS denies any favoritism, citing a “competitive, objective” process. But as I first reported in March, a Congressional Research Service analysis concluded that Obamacare’s Innovation Center is subject to no administrative or judicial review. The Innovation Center director is, in effect, a super-czar without any checks or balances on his grant-making decisions, methods or results.
I warned two months ago that the Obamacare Innovation Center and its multibillion-dollar slush fund smacked of “another pipeline for political payoffs and Chicago-style boodle that will result in less patient autonomy, fewer health-care choices, more government intrusion and lower-quality care.”

The University of Chicago Medical Center grant walks and talks like just such a political payoff. I have reported extensively on how Mrs. Obama helped engineer the Urban Health Initiative’s plan to offload low-income patients with non-urgent health needs. With consulting help from Obama senior adviser David Axelrod’s Chicago-based PR firm and the blessing of fellow Chicago pal Valerie Jarrett (who chaired the hospital’s board of trustees), Mrs. Obama sold the scheme to outsource low-income care to other facilities as a way to “dramatically improve health care for thousands of South Side residents.”

The program guaranteed “free” shuttle rides to and from the outside clinics. In truth, it was old-fashioned cost-cutting and favor-trading repackaged by a nonprofit, tax-exempt hospital as minority aid. Clearing out the poor freed up room for insured (i.e., more lucrative) patients.

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) blasted MichelleObamacare, expressing “grave concerns that the University of Chicago’s policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to ‘patient dumping.’” The group concluded that the Urban Health Initiative “reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick’ wealthy patients over poor.” That practice was made illegal by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) signed by President Ronald Reagan.

Bipartisan complaints about impoverished South Side Chicago patients getting the shaft led GOP Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago to challenge the crony hospital’s abuse of its nonprofit status and lucrative tax breaks. But the probe went nowhere.

And now, Whitaker will have $6 million more to play with when he’s not vacationing with Obama or grappling with subpoenas over possible kickback and pay-for-play schemes while he served as a top health official under now-jailed Illinois. Gov. Blagojevich. One of the probes involves Whitaker’s oversight of medical facilities construction projects exploited by now-convicted real-estate shark Tony Rezko. Whitaker was also under federal investigation for misuse of funding for faith-based minority programs. President Obama recommended Whitaker to Rezko, who was a top Blago’s bagman.

Anyone who isn’t concerned about the privacy implications of this government-funded records-sharing network hasn’t been paying attention to how Team Obama and its surrogates are digging for dirt on private citizens who donate to GOP campaigns.

Nothing to see or smell here? Discerning eyes and nostrils beg to differ.

***

Related: The $4 Billion Obamacare Slush Fund for Progressives
~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Today's Tune: Sam Cooke - Unchained Melody

1968: A Turning Point in Baseball History

An interview with author Tim Wendel.

Russ Smith
http://www.splicetoday.com/
May 10, 2012


The last year before Major League Baseball first switched to a division format—splitting the National and American Leagues into two—1968 is often remembered as “The Year of the Pitcher,” when Denny McClain won 31 games, Bob Gibson (pictured above) compiled an astonishing ERA of 1.12 and Carl Yastrzemski captured the A.L. batting title by hitting just .301. Yet, as Tim Wendel artfully explains in his new book Summer of ’68 (Da Capo), it wasn’t just an unusual season: the political turmoil in the country overshadowed the game, leaving baseball players, like most Americans, confused by events spiraling out of control. The assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, riots in major cities, the tumultuous Democratic Convention in Chicago and escalating student unrest and anti-war protests mocked the long-held notion of baseball as the quiet and leisurely national pastime.

Wendel, author of nine books, a writing teacher at Johns Hopkins University and well-known sports journalist, focuses on the Detroit Tigers and St. Louis Cardinals—who’d meet for a seven-game World Series—and runs through the April-October season, with frequent digressions on national and international news. Summer of ’68 is a splendid, cross-generational book that can satisfy not only the duffers who remember that year like it was yesterday, but also young and inquisitive baseball fans and history students. The following interview was conducted with Wendel by email last week.


Splice Today: You grew up in Lockport, NY, where, I imagine in the 1960s, there weren’t a lot of televised baseball games. As you’re obviously a baseball fan, what team first captured your loyalty? And who do you root for today?

Tim Wendel: Of course, there weren’t a lot of games on TV back when I was a kid, so being a fan meant studying the box scores, pulling in games on the radio. I grew up a Red Sox fan because that was the name of my Little League team. Until recently I was going to hunt down whoever put me on that team because they almost cursed me for life. Thank God it wasn’t the Cubs. I still follow the Red Sox, but due to my proximity to the Canadian border growing up I started to follow the Blue Jays, too. These days I’m warming up to Washington Nationals as my new hometown team.

ST: We’re roughly the same age, and I’m wondering, given your fascination with both sports and politics, what raced through your inquisitive 12-year-old mind in 1968. Before the tragic events of June in Los Angeles, were you a Kennedy or McCarthy supporter?

TW: I was initially a McCarthy supporter. As much as one can get into such things at the age of 11 or 12. But I certainly enjoyed Bobby Kennedy’s speeches. Often he spoke from the heart when people needed to hear such honesty and passion. In fact, I believe his speech of April 4, 1968, when he tells the crowd in Indianapolis that Martin Luther King has been shot and killed is one of the most heartfelt, effective speeches ever given. As I detail in Summer of ‘68, Indianapolis didn’t riot that evening, thanks largely to Kennedy’s words.

ST: Although there are numerous passages in Summer of ’68 that are so sobering they bear re-reading, one of the most affecting was the recollection of 22-year-old Houston Astros pitcher Larry Dierker. Watching the Democratic Convention riots in Chicago from a Hilton hotel room, Dierker, a National Guardsman, was horrified at what he saw. He admits that like so many other young men, he didn’t want to go to Vietnam; watching Mayor Daley’s hooligan cops smash people at will, Dierker says that on that night “[He] wasn’t proud” that others fought while he played ball. Do you think many other Major Leaguers of that age actually thought about the war and had similar conflicts?

TW: Baseball players in 1968 were like most people: They wanted to be left alone and move on with their lives. But 1968 was so turbulent that almost everybody was impacted in some way. Some ballplayers, such as Mickey Lolich and Nolan Ryan, were members of the National Guard. The war and the riots were constantly a part of the American landscape. The question became how were you going to respond to all of this, how were you going to persevere?

ST: Curt Flood, the Cardinals’ star center fielder in ’68, of course went on to challenge baseball’s inexplicable (at least from a modern standpoint) antitrust exemption. He lost his battle, ultimately at the Supreme Court, and was essentially finished as a player. As both Marvin Miller and Bob Gibson said, today’s Major Leaguers give scant credit to Flood—if they even know who he was—even though his battle was instrumental in making even utility players millionaires. I suppose there are exceptions, but on the whole athletes appear willfully ignorant of their predecessors. Do you think Flood (or Miller, for that matter) will ever receive his due, although posthumously, as a baseball pioneer?

TW: Those that know baseball history realize how important Curt Flood and Marvin Miller were. I believe both deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. And if we don’t remember our history then we’re often doomed to repeat it, right? My editor sent me a recent headline from New York magazine that simply read, “2012=1968?” Many of the same issues that took place in 1968—culture wars, political discord—we’re still trying to sort out today.

ST: A large part of your book’s premise is that 1968 was the last year of baseball truly being the country’s national pastime. While I agree that football took over, partly because of marketing, partly because of the quicker pace, and the next two decades put baseball on the back burner, how do you square the vast discrepancy of attendance figures of today in MLB ballparks (generally much higher) with the notion that the sport no longer commands the same amount of attention. For example, I remember as a kid going to Yankee Stadium and buying decent walk-up tickets; today, the Stadium’s usually jam-packed, with prices to match. Granted, no one’s making money in Tampa Bay, but on the whole, MLB is on an entirely different financial scale.

TW: Certainly in terms of overall attendance, it’s difficult to do better than Major League Baseball. But so much of who is number one has to do with perception, and football rules the TV and sports talk worlds. I couldn’t believe how much attention the recent NFL draft received. And this was going on with games being played in baseball, and playoffs in hockey and about to begin in the basketball.

ST: Do you remember watching the ’68 series, or listening to the games on a transistor radio? I assume so, and if that’s the case, did you have a favorite?

TW: I remember watching Game 7. I remember the ball going over Curt Flood’s head that brought in the decisive runs. But I also remember Lolich jumping into the arms of his catcher, Bill Freehan, when the last out was recorded. Much of the fun of doing Summer of ‘68 was dusting those memories off, making them come alive so I could write about them. So when Lolich told me why he jumped into Freehan’s arms (to assure that Freehan didn’t jump into his arms) the scenes worked on several levels for me. I had my distant memories and now this fresh detail and insight. That was a lot of fun.

ST: Players today seem to incur far more injuries than 40 years ago. It could be, absent the access we have today to every minor move a franchise makes, there were just as many injuries and we just never heard of the guys who blew out their arms. Or, do you think that owners/general managers “baby” the players so much because of the vast sums of money involved?

TW: There’s certainly a sense that organizations “baby” their young pitchers. But that’s perhaps to be expected with so much money at stake in terms of development and player bonuses. The pendulum may be swinging back, though. I like how Nolan Ryan, now as one of the top guys in Texas, has ruled out pitch counts throughout the Rangers’ farm system.

ST: What do you think Bob Gibson would make of the sabermetrics crowd today? I get the feeling that if he saw an analyst like Keith Law or Rob Neyer (both of whom I enjoy reading) on a ballfield, that he’d throw a little chin music their way. Perhaps that’s romantic, but I’d like to think it’s true.

TW: Bob Gibson’s approach has always been let’s get down to business. What needs to be done to be successful here? A lot of discussion isn’t his way necessarily. Remember when Joe Torre named Gibson as one of his coaches he wasn’t a pitching coach or bullpen coach. Instead Torre named him the team’s “attitude” coach.

ST: Do you think the next generation of baseball fans will bring a more analytical background to the game, or is a fan just a fan?

TW: I’m not sure what the next generation will bring to the game. It’s funny how it can slide from one camp to another. I was never a big one for numbers (perhaps it’s because I barely passed algebra in high school). I always enjoyed the stories, even the background of players. The great thing about baseball is there’s room for all of us.

ST: You currently teach writing at Johns Hopkins, and I’m betting, even though you live in Virginia, that you catch a few games at Camden Yards. I was an undergraduate at JHU when the Orioles were a great team, and sold beer and hot dogs at the old Memorial Stadium in the mid-70s. Now, the team is a disgrace. Why has this proud franchise—and I don’t believe everything can blamed on owner Peter Angelos—made so little progress in re-building since their last winning season in ’97. What would you recommend?

TW: When it comes to the Orioles, I think we’re beginning to see what kind of impact a good manager can have. They trust in Buck Showalter in Baltimore and it’s starting to pay off.

ST: Quickies: favorite ballplayer of all time? Current player? And who will have the better career, Bryce Harper or Mike Trout?
TW: I about cried when Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley retired because they were not only great players, but they also went out of their way to make sure those of us in the press knew what was going on. For example, Molitor kept me up to speed of events during the work stoppage in 1994, while Eckersley always spoke, win or lose. I miss those guys. These days I’m having some fun watching Bryce Harper run out everything in sight. It’s kind of refreshing, and I think the old Tigers and Cardinals in the Summer of ‘68 would appreciate such hustle.

Mexican Jihad

by Raymond Ibrahim
Gatestone Institute
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/
May 11, 2012


In Chiapas, Mexico, portions of the indigenous populations, such as Mayans and Tzotzils, have embraced Islam. Photo: Tumblr: Ihavefaith

As the United States considers the Islamic jihadi threats confronting it from all sides, it might do well to focus on its southern neighbor, Mexico, which has been targeted by Islamists and jihadists, who, through a number of tactics—from engaging in da'wa, converting Mexicans to Islam, to smuggling and the drug cartel, to simple extortion, kidnappings and enslavement—have been subverting Mexico in order to empower Islam and sabotage the U.S.

According to a 2010 report, "Close to home: Hezbollah terrorists are plotting right on the U.S. border," which appeared in the NY Daily News:
Mexican authorities have rolled up a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana, right across the border from Texas and closer to American homes than the terrorist hideouts in the Bekaa Valley are to Israel. Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West. Over the years, Hezbollah—rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash—has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S. In this, it has shadowed the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran, which has been forging close ties with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who in turn supports the narcoterrorist organization FARC, which wreaks all kinds of havoc throughout the region.
Another 2010 article appearing in the Washington Times asserts that, "with fresh evidence of Hezbollah activity just south of the border [in Mexico], and numerous reports of Muslims from various countries posing as Mexicans and crossing into the United States from Mexico, our porous southern border is a national security nightmare waiting to happen." This is in keeping with a recent study done by Georgetown University, which revealed that the number of immigrants from Lebanon and Syria living in Mexico exceeds 200,000. Syria, along with Iran, is one of Hezbollah's strongest financial and political supporters, and Lebanon is the immigrants' country of origin.

A jihadist cell in Mexico was recently found to have a weapons cache of 100 M-16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and antitank munitions. The weapons, it turned out, had been smuggled by Muslims from Iraq. According to this report, "obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah's presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTO's) operating along the U.S.—Mexico border."

As far back as 2005, an article entitled "Islam is gaining a Foothold in Chiapas" showcased the inroads of Islam in Mexico:
Long a bastion of Catholicism, southern Mexico is quickly turning into a battleground for soul-savers. Islam, too, is gaining a foothold and the indigenous Mayans are converting by the hundreds. The Mexican government is worried about a culture clash in their own backyard… Muslim women in headscarves have become a common sight….
"Life is cheap" in impoverished Mexico. You want a job? Fine, pray five times a day, etc…
Kidnappings, as part of a drug cartel or as part of a jihadist operation, which legitimizes crimes such as kidnapping and child slavery, have become increasingly common. To convert non-Muslims to their cause, Islamists also whip up—and then exploit—a sense of "grievance" against the "white man."

In addition, according to counterterrorism experts in this report, Islamic terrorists blend in better with Mexicans than with Europeans, thereby enabling them to sneak into the U.S. across the southwest border. This Muslim cleric, for example, discusses how easy it is to smuggle a briefcase containing anthrax from Mexico into America, thereby killing at least some 330,000 Americans in a single hour.

Similarly, Michael Braun, formerly assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), said that the Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America; however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S. Hezbollah relies on "the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartels."
Only a few months ago, Washington announced that FBI and DEA agents disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States," tied to Iran with roots in Mexico. The increased violence—including beheadings, Islam's signature trademark—is even more indicative that Islamists are well ensconced in Mexico's drug cartel.

The threat is not limited to Hezbollah; back in 2006, according to an ISN, "Mexican authorities investigated the activities of the Murabitun [a da'wa, or missionary-outreach, organization named after historic jihadists along Spain's borders] due to reports of alleged immigration and visa abuses involving the group's European members and possible radicals, including al-Qaeda."

Even innocuous reports, such as this Muslim article, are cause for concern: "Today, most Mexican Islamic organizations focus on grassroots da'wa. These small organizations are most effective at the community level, going from village to village and speaking directly to the people." Although this may not sound problematic, the strain of Islam being spread by many of these da'wa organizations is the radical, "Salafist," anti-American variety. Here, for instance, is a popular Egyptian TV cleric saying that while Muslims must never smile to non-Muslims—who, as "infidels," are by nature the enemy—they are free to do so if the Muslim is engaged in da'wa, trying to win over the infidel into the fold of Islam, especially if the potential convert can help empower Islam in any way.

These are but a few of the many reports on Islam in Mexico. The evidence that many Islamists in Mexico are plotting against the U.S., using all means—such as drug trafficking, which is not forbidden in Sharia law if it serves to empower Islam—is overwhelming.

Under various methods—from the violent to the subversive to the exploitative—Islam allows Muslims to lie and commit other duplicitous acts in the furtherance of Islam. Taqiyya [dissimulation] permits Hezbollah and other Islamists To engage in Mexico's drug cartel, just as "pious" members of the Taliban in Afghanistan pursued the heroin trade. Aside from sheer violence, justified as "jihad," or holy war, tactics pursued by Mexico's Islamists include:

· Kidnappings and enslavement, for which Mexico is already notorious. Sharia permits kidnapping, and even enslaving the infidel, in this situation, any non-Muslim in Mexico. The Quran not only approves of this, but allows male jihadists to have sex with female captives of war (Sura 4, verse 3). Here, for example, is a Muslim politician trying to legalize the institution of "sex-slavery."

· Extortion and blackmail, features of the Mexican landscape, are also permissible in Islam.
According to Sharia, during jihad, Muslims are permitted to hold for ransom infidels to be sold back for large amounts of money. Here, for instance, is a popular Egyptian sheikh saying that the Islamic world's problem is that it has stopped plundering and enslaving its infidel neighbors. He even boasts that under true Sharia, he could go to the local market and "buy" a female "sex-slave."

In using subversive elements for da'wa, Muslims might comfortably use false arguments to turn Mexicans against their northern neighbors. They might, for instance, argue that Islam is a religion of "racial equality," whereas Christianity is the "white man's" religion, imposed on their ancestors by racist whites who sought to keep them "impoverished" beyond the border. Islamist strategies in Mexico amount to trying to win the unbelievers over to their side, whether through conversion or just cooperation. For those who refuse to cooperate, they are infidels to be used in any way that seems fit.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum

Monday, May 14, 2012

The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House

By Ed Lasky
http://www.americanthinker.com/
May 14, 2012



Edward Klein's new book on Barack Obama, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, is a withering portrayal of a radical adrift, in over his head, drowning in his own incompetency -- while being weighed down by a small circle of "advisers" who are compounding the problem of the Amateur in the White House.

Klein's book begins with a talisman-like quote uttered by Barack Obama when his recently appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tried to boost Obama's ego by telling him, "Your legacy is going to be preventing the second Great Depression." To which Barack Obama responded, "That's not enough for me."

As all of America knows by now, Obama has aggressively sought to "fundamentally transform" America -- one of the few promises he has kept from the days of 2008. Five trillion dollars of borrowing, ObamaCare passed over the objections of the majority of Americans through legislative legerdemain and special deals made with resistant politicians, failed stimulus, green programs failing left and right as taxpayers are left holding the bag, a recovery that is the most anemic on record, an America that has been sundered by the man who promises to unite us, America weaker abroad and at home -- yes, America has been fundamentally transformed. Mission Accomplished.

But how and why did Obama succeed in such a catastrophic way? That is the question that Klein successfully answers in his extremely readable and enjoyable book, with enough spicy details to satisfy the craving of anyone interested in how President Obama and those closest to him have driven us to the condition we find ourselves in as we approach November.

One of the motifs that runs throughout the book is Barack Obama's sheer level of incompetency. He has the fatal conceit of many politicians: an overweening ego. That may be a prerequisite for politicians and leaders, but when it is unleavened by a willingness to consider the views of others, it becomes a fatal conceit. And Obama has that trait in abundance.

Stories tumble out that reveal a man who believes he is all but omniscient -- unwilling to give any credence to the views of others (especially but not limited to those across the aisle). Experts in management are interviewed who point out that he lacks essential qualities of leadership. Indeed, the book gets its title from an outburst from Bill Clinton, who was trying to encourage Hillary to take on Obama in the Democratic primary of 2012:

Obama doesn't know how to be president. He doesn't know how the world works. He's incompetent. He's...he's...Barack Obama's an amateur.

But Klein does not rest there. He delves into associates from Obama's career in Cook County politics, his stint as a state senator, and his rise to the United States Senate. There is a common pattern: Obama likes to campaign, but once he is elected and actually starts working, his interest flags, and he starts looking for the next "big thing" -- electorally speaking. He had few if any accomplishments or professional standing in any of his previous positions. Even when he served as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, he avoided any encounters with other faculty who enjoyed discussing the law. His reluctance to engage them is revealing in and of itself, suggesting he had a reason for his lack of confidence.

His disdain toward working with others is manifest. He has gained a reputation over the last few years as being cold and distant, refusing to engage, as have other presidents, in the give-and-take of politics, in the social niceties that help grease the wheels in Washington. Liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen recently advised him to read Robert Caro's newest volume on the life of Lyndon Johnson as a primer on how to be president. Johnson, of course, was a master at pulling levers of power, but he also knew how to persuade individual politicians on both sides of the aisle to work with him on legislation. But, of course, LBJ also had the common touch and, having risen from humble beginnings, never considered it beneath him to work with those underneath him. Not so Barack Obama. He complained to foreign leaders that he had to waste time talking with "congressmen from Palookaville." At another time, he switched locales and said he was tired of dealing with people from "Podunk."

His campaign trail comments regarding small-town America as being populated by "bitter" people who cling to guns and Bibles was not a one-off. They are reflective of his views.

But the high and the mighty also come in for the Obama treatment. Klein reveals dismay among former Obama supporters who feel they have been mistreated, maligned, and thrown under the bus. Obama's most generous early donors have been all but ignored; early mentors in the black business community have been sidelined if not completely ditched; people don't hear from him or his staff unless a fundraiser is coming up. But there is more: Caroline Kennedy is angry at the way she and her family were used for campaign purposes in 2008 and then summarily dismissed and stored away like so many movie props have been (the latter is my description).

Even Oprah Winfrey has been stiff-armed by the Obamas. According to the book, Oprah took a big risk in supporting Obama in 2008 and campaigning for Obama in Iowa, being a big boost in his campaign. The ratings for her show weakened significantly (and her new network has been a huge disappointment). But when she has tried to visit the White House, she has been all but treated as persona non grata. Apparently, Michelle Obama is a possessive person who fears the influence Oprah may have over Barack Obama (more on this below). Oprah blames it on Michelle's anti-obesity campaign. She is quoted as saying, "Michelle hates fat people and doesn't want me waddling around the White House." Klein digs up a quotation of Michelle Obama's from a White House source that seems to confirm Oprah's suspicion:

Oprah only wants to cash in using the White House as a backdrop for her show to perk up ratings. Oprah with her yo-yo dieting and huge girth, is a terrible role model. Kids will look at Oprah, who's rich and famous and huge, and figure it's okay to be fat.

Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Pastor Jeremiah Wright (who merits a chapter), and Obama's former long-time doctor (who feels Obama is distant and lacks feeling, passion, and humanity) all join a long list of people whom the Obamas have used, abused, and then cast aside once they moved into the White House.

A few have survived the winnowing process, of course. There is Michelle, who might be described as the living and real-life descendant of Lady Macbeth. The book provides some history of the early days between Barack and Michelle: marked by some tempests, yet also marked by Michelle's overwhelming push for Barack to win power and wealth. Insiders are reluctant to tangle with the First Lady, and with good reason. Michelle, like her husband, has a proclivity to blame others for her husband's failures. Former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs felt her sting when it was revealed that Michelle had complained about life in the White House to the then-first lady of France, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. Gibbs acted to control the damage by arranging for the Élysée Palace to issue a denial.

But the response did not come quickly enough for Michelle, and she arranged for Valerie Jarrett -- close to the Obamas for years, and who has an omnipresence in the White House that makes the unelected and unconfirmed czar issue seem trivial -- to deliver a stern rebuke to Gibbs, who counter-attacked. Anyone heard from Robert Gibbs lately?

The role of Valerie Jarrett has prompted much speculation. As Edward Klein notes, she has a mouthful of a title -- senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs and public engagement -- that "doesn't begin to do justice to her unrivaled status in the White House." Valerie Jarrett apparently has a role in most major decisions: she often appears in meetings the president has with major political leaders from Capitol Hill and with foreign leaders as well. She often stays behind to have private discussions with the president. Obama admitted that he ran every decision by her.

That is worrying since, as Klein notes, Jarrett's own career is not one that would prepare her to assume such a prominent role. Hers is no rags-to-riches story that would give her the "chops" to have such a Svengali-like influence over the president of the United States. She was blessed with a wonderful set of advantages -- descended from a highly regarded political family in Chicago. Jarrett was a force to be reckoned with in the Daley administration and then capitalized on her political connections to land a job heading up a real estate company in Chicago where she oversaw, among other developments, properties that under her company's management degenerated into slums. Business leaders are aghast that she has such a powerful role in the White House. A donor is quoted as saying that not only is Valerie Jarrett a liability, but others in the White House concur with his views. Jarrett has butted heads with Rahm Emanuel, who felt that it was wrong to focus on passing ObamaCare when the economy and jobs should have been higher priorities.

Who won that match? Rahm returned to Chicago and became mayor in 2009.

The roles of Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett cannot be overstated. They are symptomatic of a larger problem in the White House decision-making process (one that I noted in "How Obama Makes Decisions").

Barack Obama, to a greater extent than any modern president, refuses to listen to the views of others or consult with experts and advisers outside his own tight and constricted circle from Cook County. There are many revelations of his faulty decision making uncovered by Klein. Indeed, one of Jarrett's roles is to shield Obama from dealing with people who don't agree with him or who may say something that deflates his ego.

When Bill Daley (the chief of staff) realized that the contraception and abortifacient mandates of ObamaCare might offend Catholics, he arranged a meeting without Jarrett's knowledge between Obama and New York then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan to deal with an issue that would offend many as violating the principle of religious freedom (as well as Catholic beliefs). Jarrett went to the president and vented her anger.

Anyone seen Bill Daley lately?

On issue after issue, President Obama remains his insular self, refusing to seek counsel or input from others with more experience.

Critics believe he has made a mess of foreign policy precisely because not only does he have a dearth of experience in this area, but because, under our system, foreign policy is one of the few areas where a president enjoys almost unlimited power. Thus, he is free to formulate his own agenda regardless of the views of others and the damage these policies cause.

When pro-Israel Americans met with Obama to discuss his actions toward Israel (that many, including myself, view as being counterproductive) he dismissed the ideas of Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, with the statement "you are absolutely wrong." The president, who has no compunction telling people that they are not only wrong, but "absolutely wrong" in public, needs to start feeling some of the empathy he accuses Republicans of lacking. According to veteran journalist Richard Chesnoff, quoted in the book, "Obama's problem in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conundrum" comes "from his one-man style and his inflated view of his own leadership talents[.] ... [P]erhaps, even more egregiously, he seems to have an exaggerated sense of his own depth of understanding of the Middle East, which is simply not borne out by his background or experience." There may be more to it than that to explain the pressure he has put on our one true ally in the Middle East, Israel. American Thinker published numerous articles in 2008 covering not only Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Junior's views of Israel as an apartheid state, but Obama's associations with anti-Israel Palestinians in Chicago, his own suspect language regarding Israel, and his close relationship with Samantha Power (now playing a key role on his National Security Council), who not only has a long anti-Israel history but also made an anti-Semitic remark that was smothered by the media in 2008. There were good reasons for the Los Angeles Times to run a column during the campaign that "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama."

Readers will thoroughly enjoy Klein's book on Obama. There are substantive issues raised about Obama's leadership abilities that are enhanced with interesting digressions regarding life inside ObamaWorld and how those dynamics effect decisions made from the Oval Office.

Klein concludes the book with doubt that Obama could ever change his approach toward governing and suspicion that his agenda is to impose a vast redistribution scheme upon America that has worked so well in the decaying and disintegrating European Union. He wonders if Republicans are up to the task of pointing out to the public the truth about Obama's agenda, given the overwhelming media bias in favor of Barack Obama.

Klein's book could serve as a roadmap for Republicans.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.

Welcome to Ordered Liberty

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and New York Times bestselling author, has joined PJ Media as a PJ Columnist. Read his inaugural column here and watch his interview with Roger L. Simon at PJTV.

by Andrew C. McCarthy
http://pjmedia.com/
May 13, 2012


Detail of a portrait of Edmund Burke by James Northcote. Photograph: Courtesy of Royal Albert Museum/Bridgeman Art Library

For Edmund Burke, liberty was the distinguishing feature of the British constitution. He did not, however, mean liberty in some vacuous, hopeychangey sense. “The only liberty I mean,” he wrote, “is a liberty connected with order; and that not only exists with order and virtue, but cannot exist at all without them.”

When we hear the term “ordered liberty” nowadays, it is generally in a legal context. It has become famous — we might better say “infamous” — in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence of “incorporation”: the doctrine holding that Bill of Rights protections that restrict the federal government are also validly asserted against the state governments, through the Fourteenth Amendment. The doctrine’s premise is dubious: state sovereignty is the foundation of our form of constitutional governance; if it had been the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to undo that basic assumption, one might have expected that incorporation would be clearly prescribed — and that it might have taken less than sixty years for the Supreme Court to start enforcing it.

That said, though, the real infamy lies in the doctrine’s inconsistency. It does not apply all of the Bill of Rights against the states; only those rights that the judges, in their wisdom, determined to be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” as Justice Benjamin Cardozo put it in Palko v. Connecticut (1937). That is to say, there is an arbitrariness to “ordered liberty” as judicially manufactured. Caprice, even if it piously flies under the “rule of law” banner, undermines the very idea of order.

Still, it would be foolish to insist that liberty is not a dynamic concept or that our perceptions about it do not evolve. To take two powerful examples, our notions of equality and cruelty have dramatically changed in just the last three centuries. Both are now attuned as never before to the dignity of each human being — at least, once a person is born.

We can argue, and do and will argue, over the sufficiency of our evolution and over the means of achieving it — I happen to think we are a body politic not a body legal, and that change brought about by the consensus of the community is far to be preferred to change imposed by law, and especially by unaccountable judges. Plainly, however, our expectations about liberty, and thus about ordered liberty, do not stand still. Not all change is progress, and lots of it has been downright destructive. But no one strives to be … the same. We want to be better, and when we are, change can be healthy.

This is no doubt why Burke thought liberty and order inseparable. This was not a unique insight on his part, of course. Leftist radicals and the Islamic supremacists who, in many ways, are their mirror image, speak incessantly of “freedom” … but always with the caveat that it can thrive only after submission to their totalitarian societal schemes. Therein is the inexorable path to such absurdities as Rousseau’s insistence that one would be “forced to be free” – i.e., forced into compliance, if he dared deviate from the “General Will.” Talk about caprice!

Burke’s was an order of a very different kind: an order rooted not in autocratic power but in the power of virtue. It was not statutes, regulations, legislators, bureaucrats, judges, or self-interested proclamations of what the “rule of law” called for that enabled society to flourish, to strive for the possibilities that freedom unleashes. It was the society’s inherent virtue — the people’s perception of right and wrong, their character, their sense of honor and shame.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” Benjamin Franklin observed. “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” What is it that makes us virtuous? What slides us toward corruption and viciousness? I look forward to a long deliberation on those questions. It is a privilege to be able to explore them here at PJ Media, among friends and colleagues I so admire, and readers I feel like I already know — after all, I’ve been one for a long time!

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Hustle rubs some wrong way

By Gene Collier
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/
May 13, 2012


Nationals left fielder Bryce Harper slides in safely for a steal of home, avoiding the tag by Philadelphia Phillies catcher Carlos Ruiz in the first inning of a game on May 6. It was the rookie’s first major league steal. (Jonathan Newton/WASHINGTON POST)

A full week has passed since Charlie Manuel's off-handed comment about Bryce Harper, and thus a full week to reflect on the 21st century profile of that quaint baseball protocol known as hustle, a week to wonder where it all went, to marvel at its occasional reappearance, perhaps even to lament its dismal future.

What the Philadelphia Phillies manager said is that Harper, the 19-year-old whose skills have caused industry analysts and seamheads to burp out the names of the game's greatest players for comparison, has his game crammed with hustle in that vaguely dangerous way that actually courts embarrassment.

Not for himself, for everyone else. When someone plays as hard as Harper, Manuel said, he makes other players look bad.

Don't ask me, "Has it come to this?" I'll only say, "Oh yeah, and it got here decades ago."

Manuel certainly wasn't complaining. As the sayin' goes, he was just sayin'.

"He impressed me with his hustle," Manuel told the gathered media in Washington. "I was impressed when he almost caught the ball in left field. I was impressed with that. I was impressed with the way he dove and how quick he got up.

"You know what, that's setting a real good example. I hope the kid always plays that way because that's the way you're always supposed to play. That's a good example of how to play. And you never take nothing for granted by playing like that."

This was the night after Harper became the first teenager to steal home in 48 years, the week after he'd run into the fence at Dodger Stadium with breakneck speed and avoided its literal implication, and by the time Harper brought the show to Pittsburgh for a delicious three-game series, the kid already had powered the hustle train toward the abandoned station at the end of its rusty line.
Pete Rose.

Only Harper is much bigger, much faster, much stronger and, perhaps, the expanse of time permitting, much smarter. And, oh yeah, he has a much better arm.

When Rose was an icon rather than an exile, he wore shirts under his uniform blouse that read "4,256 hits: Hustle made it happen."

Read more:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/gene-collier/collier-hustle-rubs-some-wrong-way-635691/

The American dream in an automobile

By
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com
May 12, 2012




“You have a Prius. . . . You probably compost, sort all your recycling, and have a reusable shopping bag for your short drive to Whole Foods. You are the best! So, do we really need the Obama sticker?”

— The Portland Mercury, 2008



Prius, which is Latin for “to go before” or “lead the way,” is the perfect name for the car whose owners are confident they are leading the way for the benighted. “Prius preening,” an almost erotic pleasure, is, however, a perishable delight because the status derived from enlightened exclusivity evaporates if hoi polloi crash the party.

The connection between cars and self-image is as American as the anti-Prius, the F-150 pickup truck. This connection is the subject of the entertaining and instructive book “Engines of Change: A History of the American Dream in Fifteen Cars” by Paul Ingrassia, a journalist knowledgeable about the automobile industry. He thinks the hinge of our history was the 1920s, when General Motors’ LaSalle was introduced as a conspicuous-consumption alternative to Henry Ford’s pedestrian, so to speak, Model T. Since then, Ingrassia says, American culture has been a tug of war “between the practical and the pretentious, the frugal versus the flamboyant, haute cuisine versus hot wings.”

The Model T, born in 1908, was priced at $850. By 1924, it was offered only in black but cost just $260 and had America on the move. Three years later — the year Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs and Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic — the LaSalle, a Cadillac sibling, announced Detroit’s determination to join Hollywood as a manufacturer of visual entertainment, but working in chrome rather than celluloid. The phrase “It’s a Duesie” became an American encomium in tribute to the Duesenberg, which sold for upward of $20,000, or $245,000 in today’s dollars.

In 1953, after almost 25 years of Depression and war, the Korean armistice signaled the restoration of the pleasure principle, as did the December appearance of two first editions — of Hugh Hefner’s Playboy magazine and Chevrolet’s Corvette. That car’s designer, Zora Arkus-Duntov — English was his fourth language — explained: “In our age where the average person is a cog wheel who gets pushed in the subways, elevators, department stores, cafeterias . . . the ownership of a different car provides the means to ascertain his individuality to himself and everybody around.” Ere long, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s Corvette license plate read “RES IPSA,” lawyer’s Latin for “It speaks for itself.” And loudly.

The 1950s brought tail fins (justified as safety devices — “directional stabilizers”) on land yachts such as the 21-foot-long 1959 Cadillac. A small-is-beautiful reaction came in the form of a car originally named the Kraft durch Freude Wagen (“Strength through Joy Car”), a clunky name no one criticized, because it was bestowed by the Volkswagen’s progenitor, Adolf Hitler, the unlikely father of the emblematic vehicle of 1960s hippies, the VW Microbus. (Steve Jobs sold his for startup capital for his business.)

Thanks to Ralph Nader, Chevrolet’s small Corvair begat a growth industry — lawsuits — and a president. (The Corvair made Nader famous, and 35 years later his 97,000 Florida votes gave George W. Bush the presidency.) Baby boomers had babies so they had to buy minivans, but got revenge against responsibilities by buying “the ultimate driving machine.” This is from a 1989 Los Angeles Times restaurant review: “There they are, the men with carefully wrinkled $800 sports jackets . . . the BMW cowboys . . . they’re all here, grazing among the arugula.”

Boomers, says Ingrassia, “had to buy to live, just as sharks had to swim to breathe.” They bought stuff that screamed: “Cognoscenti!” Dove bars — the ultimate ice cream bar? — not Eskimo Pies. Anchor Steam, not Budweiser. Starbucks, not Dunkin’ Donuts. And Perrier, when gas cost less than designer water. In 1978, an early reaction against all this made Ford’s F-150 pickup what it still is, America’s best-selling vehicle.

In 2003, Toyota previewed its second-generation Prius at Whole Foods supermarkets and an international yoga convention. And in the cartoon town of South Park, Priuses became so popular the town developed a huge cloud of “smug.”

Prius, vehicle of the vanguard of the intelligentsia, does not have the most obnoxious name ever given an automobile. In 1927, Studebaker, which anticipated the Prius mentality, named one of its models the Dictator. The car supposedly dictated standards that the unwashed would someday emulate. In the mid-1930s, Studebaker canceled the name.

georgewill@washpost.com

Western Sharia

Muslim supremacists partner with the Lawyer Left.

By Andrew C. McCarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com
May 12, 2012


Ismail Belghar (pictured above), a 36-year-old Muslim man living in Australia, assaulted, abducted, and nearly killed his sister-in-law. The victim, a 25-year-old Moroccan named Canan Kokden, had dared to take her older sister, Mrs. B, to the beach without Belghar’s permission. This heinous effrontery was amplified, Belghar later recounted for police, when Mrs. B thereupon “displayed her body,” sustaining the shoulder sunburn that tipped him off.

To Australians, this may have been, well, just a day at the beach. For Belghar, though, it was an “abhorrent” offense against sharia, Islam’s legal code and comprehensive societal framework.
The telltale burn is also starting to show on the West’s shoulders, our courts of law. Australia has not changed Belghar, but the Belghars are changing Australia.

Innately, Islam is not moderate — just ask Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, who rejects as “ugly and offensive” the very term “moderate Islam.” Instead, Islam can be moderated, but only by a culture that is self-confident and self-assertive. Alas, that is no longer Western culture. So, the more Muslims immigrate, the less the West is moderating Islam. It is Islam that leaves its mark.
In the usual endearing family way, Belghar telephoned his sister-in-law to convey that he was a tad rankled: “You slut, how dare you take my wife to the beach!” Afterwards, happening upon Ms. Kokden at a shopping mall in New South Wales, he angrily confronted her, slapped her face, and dragged her to the railing of an over-ground parking lot. As he seemed ready to hurl her to the traffic below, her brother (Kokden’s chaperone at the mall) finally stirred himself to intervene, tackling the assailant. Belghar was charged with attempted murder, among other crimes.

As night follows day, Belghar’s defense counsel argued that his client could not get a fair trial because Australians are too Islamophobic: Once informed about the nature of the allegations and the fact that he is a Muslim, jurors would surely leap to the crazy, bigoted conclusion that Belghar was probably guilty of this “honor beating” — which, in fact, he was. Just as he was, precisely, motivated by his Islamic beliefs.

Enter the jurist assigned to the case, the pitch-perfectly named Ronald Solomon. He ruled that, yes, Belghar would be compelled to stand trial, but also that the case would have to be decided by a factfinder Judge Solomon could trust. No doubt you’ll be stunned to learn that this reasonable, objective, and culturally sensitive factfinder turned out to be . . . Judge Solomon himself. After all, ordinary citizens with nothing but their common sense to fall back on lack the juridical acumen needed to weigh what Solomon gently called Belghar’s “attitude,” “based on a religious or cultural bias,” that he had absolute authority over his wife.

This Solomon was splitting not just the baby but the country. As the Australian government contended on appeal, if the judge were correct, an entirely separate system of due process would be required just for Muslims. Every Islamic defendant would be entitled to evade the judgment of the community — that judgment being the whole point of having a judicial system. Muslims would instead get their own system, bringing to bear not the judgment of the community but that of trained lawyers, specially attuned to Islam’s various eccentricities.

This is the dream, of course. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the renowned Muslim Brotherhood jurist and “Arab Spring” maestro, brags that Islam will “conquer” the West. He maintains, however, that the conquest will be achieved not by force of arms but by dawa — Islam’s hyper-aggressive proselytism that pushes on every cultural cylinder. While the ultimate goal is to impose sharia standards on a society, “an immense barrier” can be “traversed,” Qaradawi instructs, if Western nations can be “convinced . . . of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically.”

There are two very effective ways to go about this. The first is voluntary apartheid: Muslims move into neighborhoods and, once there is a critical mass, live ostentatiously and defiantly by their own mores. Life becomes sufficiently unpleasant for other habituĂ©s that they flee. Pressure to moderate and assimilate ebbs. In effect, it is the gradual assertion of Islamic sovereignty over territory — without exploding a bomb or firing a shot.

But not all territory is physical. The law, too, is susceptible to Balkanization, and is thus the second dawa target. Here, Muslim supremacists find a willing partner: the Lawyer Left, so sympathetic to claims that Western justice systems are inherently unjust, and that the law is an instrument for social change, not an expression of the society’s unifying principles.

Increasingly, sharia-based claims are finding hospitable audiences. The Australian case mirrors one in New Jersey, where a judge denied a protective order to a woman who was being serially raped and beaten by her husband. The judge’s rationale? The couple was Islamic, and under sharia a woman is required to submit to her husband’s authority and sexual demands. It would be unfair, the judge decided, to hold the husband accountable when he was really just adhering to his cultural norms. In Dearborn, Mich., Christian missionaries were arrested on “disorderly conduct” charges after handing out copies of St. John’s gospel on a public street outside an Arab festival. The arrests were outrageous enough, but, worse, the authorities actually went ahead with a prosecution.

To point these cases out, some argue, is to overreact. After all, the system usually works. The Australian case was reversed on appeal, and Belghar ended up pleading guilty to abduction and assault charges. The New Jersey ruling, too, was reversed. And in Dearborn, the missionaries were acquitted. But the vast majority of rulings in lower state courts do not get appealed, and criminal charges are overwhelmingly settled by plea bargains. Generally, it is only trials and appeals that break into the public consciousness. However, trials and appeals, being expensive and burdensome, are rare.

That means we really have no idea how much sharia is seeping into Western law and jurisprudence. A year ago, without breaking a sweat — i.e., by just looking at published appellate decisions — the Center for Security Policy found 50 cases across the United States in which Islamic law factored into rulings. Most of these involved domestic relations — issues involving marriage and child custody. Yet, as a practical matter, there is no telling how extensively sharia has encroached on Western law; we know only that its reach grows as Muslim enclaves multiply.

How could it be otherwise? When not inveighing against the label (some might say the oxymoron) “moderate Islam,” Prime Minister Erdogan can be found bewailing the pressure on Muslims to assimilate in the West. “Assimilation,” the prime minister says, “is a crime against humanity.” For his trouble, Western chancelleries hail Erdogan as a visionary Islamic leader — President Obama’s most trusted friend, with whom he finds so much common ground that Erdogan has become his go-to guy on everything from solving Syria to raising teenage daughters (or, as they are known around the White House, “senior staffers”).

When the administration is not taking its cues from Ankara, it is making common cause with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. This 57-member bloc of Muslim governments (including the “State of Palestine”) sees itself as the global caliphate under construction. Echoing Erdogan — Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood having become two of the OIC’s most influential voices — the OIC’s 2010 report on “Islamophobia” warned (at page 30): “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated. Accommodation is the best strategy for integration.”

Yes, but best for whom? Sharia’s integration into Western law is not apt to be very accommodating for women and non-Muslims.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.