'There is No Moderate Islam in the Mainstream of Muslim Life'

Andrew McCarthy cuts to the heart of the matter (via Cold Fury and Memeorandum):

The sad fact, the fact no one wants to deal with but which the Ground Zero mosque debate has forced to the fore, is that Qaradawi is a moderate. So is Feisal Rauf, who endorses the Qaradawi position — the mainstream Islamic position — that sharia is a nonnegotiable requirement. Rauf wins the coveted “moderate” designation because he strains, at least when speaking for Western consumption, to paper over the incompatibility between sharia societies and Western societies.

Qaradawi and Rauf are “moderates” because we’ve abandoned reason. Our opinion elites are happy to paper over the gulf between “reformist” Islam and the “reformist” approval of mass-murder attacks. That’s why it matters not a whit to them that Imam Rauf refuses to renounce Hamas: If you’re going to give a pass to Qaradawi, the guy who actively promotes Hamas terrorists, how can you complain about a guy who merely refuses to condemn the terrorists?

When we are rational, we have confidence in our own frame of reference. We judge what is moderate based on a detached, commonsense understanding of what “moderate” means. We’re not rigging the outcome; we just want to know where we stand.

If we were in that objective frame of mind, we would easily see that a freedom culture requires separation of the spiritual from the secular. We would also see that sharia — with dictates that contradict liberty and equality while sanctioning cruel punishments and holy war — is not moderate. Consequently, no one who advocates sharia can be a moderate, no matter how well-meaning he may be, no matter how heartfelt may be his conviction that this is God’s will, and no matter how much higher on the food chain he may be than Osama bin Laden.

Instead, abandoning reason, we have deep-sixed our own frame of reference and substituted mainstream Islam’s. If that backward compass is to be our guide, then sure, Qaradawi and Rauf are moderates. But know this: When you capitulate to the authority and influence of Qaradawi and Rauf, you kill meaningful Islamic reform.

There is no moderate Islam in the mainstream of Muslim life, not in the doctrinal sense. There are millions of moderate Muslims who crave reform. Yet the fact that they seek real reform, rather than what Georgetown is content to call reform, means they are trying to invent something that does not currently exist.

Real reform can also be found in some Muslim sects. The Ahmadi, for example, hold some unorthodox views and reject violent jihad. Witness what happens: They are brutally persecuted by Muslims in Pakistan, as well as in Indonesia and other purported hubs of moderation.

Meanwhile, individual Muslim reformers are branded apostates, meaning not only that they are discredited, but that their lives are threatened as well. The signal to other Muslims is clear: Follow the reformers and experience the same fury. As Qaradawi put it in the 2005 interview, public apostates are “the gravest danger” to Islamic society; therefore, Muslims must snuff them out, lest their reforms “spread like wildfire in a field of thorns.”

Today, “moderate Islam” is an illusion. There is hardly a spark, much less a wildfire. Making moderation real will take more than wishing upon a star. It calls for a gut check, a willingness to face down not just al-Qaeda but the Qaradawis and their sharia campaign. It means saying: Not here.

'Moderate Muslims Are Going to Be Pushed Into Joining Extremist Movements Like al-Qaida'

So much for moderate Muslims repudiating jihad:

Experts worry the controversy surrounding an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing right into the hands of radical extremists.

The supercharged debate over the proposed center has attracted the attention of a quiet, underground audience — young Muslims who drift in and out of jihadi chat rooms and frequent radical Islamic sites on the Web. It has become the No. 1 topic of discussion in recent days and proof positive, according to some of the posted messages, that America is indeed at war with Islam.

"This, unfortunately, is playing right into their hands," said Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks these kinds of websites and chat rooms for Flashpoint Global partners, a New York-based security firm. "Extremists are encouraging all this, with glee.

"It is their sense that by doing this that Americans are going to alienate American Muslims to the point where even relatively moderate Muslims are going to be pushed into joining extremist movements like al-Qaida. They couldn't be happier."

Hey, Imam Rauf's dreams come true! Build a Victory Mosque at Ground Zero, alienate two-thirds of the American people and piss on the families of the fallen, then turn around and attack them all as a bunch "anti-Muslim bigots," which in turn induces all those millions of "peaceful" Muslims worldwide to show up at al Qaeda's recruiting stations.

Brilliant.

And working true to plan. These folks are da bomb! Really!

Hat Tip: James Taranto.

America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians (Repost)

This video came out at the very beginning of the year. It's interesting to see it again. More prescient than ever:

Radical Ground Zero Victory Mosque Imam Thanks Obama For His Support

At Gateway Pundit:

The radical imam behind the Ground Zero Victory Mosque project, who said the U.S. is worse than Al-Qaeda, thanked Barack Obama today for his support on the project. The New York Daily News reported:

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf used his taxpayer-funded Mideast tour yesterday to praise President Obama’s qualified support for the mosque near Ground Zero.

“I am grateful to President Barack Obama and all those who expressed support for our project,” Abdul Rauf said at a dinner for student leaders in the Gulf state of Bahrain. the Gulf Daily News in Bahrain reported.

The 'Professional Left' Calls Conservatives Fighting Ground Zero Mosque Islamophobes

From Lisa Richards, at NewsReal Blog:

Leftists have an crazy obsessive compulsive drive to defend Islam and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s radical plans to build the Ground Zero mosque. Islamophobia is their weak argument for supporting a religion that calls for the death of all non-Muslims and honor killings for Muslims considered dishonorable.

But leftists are losing the fight, because too many Americans know the truth about Islam — it's anti-Semitic. It's the GOP, darling leftists, that loves Jews and welcomes Jews, Islam does not. "Progressives" love condemning conservative protesters as the bigots, yet they defend Islam’s radical anti-Semitic history that continues today.

Americans understand Islam and they know why leftists support Islam and the Ground Zero mosque so ferociously: the Left has a devoted fetish for anti-Semitism, Islam and mosque conquering. Leftists love Islam, because The Left harbors anti-Semitism toward Israel and Jews and is against anything preventing Islam from conquering and destroying western ideals.

RTWT.

Progressive Censorship and the Ground Zero Mosque

See James Taranto, "Is Nancy Pelosi Un-American?":

Also, from Roger Simon, "Censorship in the Era of the Ground Zero Mosque and Islamic Debate."

Continued Debate on Ground Zero

Pamela on Hannity:

Gonna Ride Me a South-Bound...

Enjoy a bit of Marshall Tucker Band:

Rasmussen Reports: 62% Oppose Ground Zero Mosque/Only 25% Support

Another poll finding roughly two-thirds of Americans against a Victory Mosque at Ground Zero:

Now 62% oppose the building of a mosque near where the World Trade Center stood in Lower Manhattan, compared to 54% in the previous survey. Twenty-five percent (25%) favor allowing the mosque to go ahead, and 13% more are not sure.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the Political Class, however, favor building the mosque near Ground Zero. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Mainstream voters are opposed.

Since the July survey, the local New York City zoning debate over the planned 13-story Cordoba mosque has escalated into a national controversy. It has even been addressed by President Obama, who supports the building of the mosque in the name of religious tolerance. Opponents of the project, including many who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, see the mosque as a deliberate provocation that dishonors the memories of the 3,000 people who died that day.

In mid-July, most voters in New York (58%) opposed the building of the mosque near Ground Zero. Twenty percent (20%) supported it, and 21% were undecided.

And yet leftists continue to claim they're the compassionate, enlightened ones. Talk about "the political class." It's pretty much the extreme left-wing and its jihadi allies who support this thing. Most regular folks see this as an affront to decency at least, if not another foot in the door to sharia.

Response to Haris Tarin and Moderate Muslims

I like this response to "Where have America's tolerance and acceptance of Muslims gone?", at the Letters to the Editor at LAT:

I agree with Tarin that the Muslim faith in the U.S. (and in other Western countries) is under attack. This goes against our principles and is very disturbing.

But in our defense, there has been a very muted response from the moderate Muslim community to the vicious attacks by the extreme fundamentalist wing of their religion on the "openness and welcoming nature of the American people."

If we perceived a loud moderate and open voice from the Muslim community, I am sure there would be strong support for it.

We are hungry to hear a clear message from Islam denouncing the extremists and embracing the open and tolerant attitude that drew Tarin's parents to this country in the first place.

Susan Clayton

Santa Barbara

The Muslim Brotherhood Project

Patrick Poole discusses "The Project" at an earlier FrontPage Magazine essay.

And it's not some cooked up fearmongering by the "evil" neocons. Dr. Rafiq Habib made the case for it in an essay from last February, "The New Islam":

The West has been looking for an Islam that protects the territorial nation-state and prevents the establishment of the United Islamic State. But this would be an artificial, cloned form of Islam. This will be the ultimate victory of the West when it reaches an Islamic formula it can support because it is based on preventing any attempt to establish the United Islamic State and, at the same time, has an Islamic title that renders it more popular than the current ruling regimes. This Islamic title shall provide it with popular support that will reinforce its position in office. Then the Islamist shall be the protector of the territorial nation-state after he has given up the dream of Islamic unity.

The United Islamic State is not only a dream, but a symbol of the political unity of the Ummah. It is the first step to its renaissance, because the strength of this Ummah lies in its unity, through which it can rise up. Thus, dispensing with the objective of the unity of the Ummah means giving up the goal of the renaissance, and in its place the creation of the new Islamist who protects the Western project in the region, prevents the establishment of the United Islamic State, and turns the Islamic project into a territorial national one based on nationalism and partisanship like the new Palestinian who is being prepared to protect the security of the Israeli occupation.

What is Islam without an Islamic State? What is the Islamic project without an Islamic Caliphate? This is the issue and the essence of the conflict with the dominant Western civilization. The West will end up victorious if the Islamic project is besieged from within by territorial nationalism. The only way for the Islamic project to win this battle is to go out of the siege of territorial nationalism and declare the dream of its Ummah to restore the United Islamic State.

Hat Tip: Bare Naked Islam, "Why Muslims are so ‘pig-headed’ about the proposed Victory Mosque at Ground Zero."

Mosque Developers Won’t Rule Out Taking Money from Terrorist States

I missed this one, from Dana Loesch:

SHOCKER.

The developers behind the Islamic center planned for a site near Ground Zero won’t rule out accepting financing from the Mideast — including from Saudi Arabia and Iran — as they begin searching for $100 million needed to build the project.

[...]

“We’ll look at all available options within the United States to start. We’re hoping to fund this predominately from domestic donors. That can be everything from institutions all the way down to personal [contributors,]” said Sultan.

When asked if they would then turn to foreign donors, Sultan replied, “I can’t comment on that.”

[...]

Iran has been designated a sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. government...

More at the link.

Ground Zero's Imam Rauf Partners With Jamal Barzinji – 9/11 D.C. Mosque Founder Sponsored Anwar al-Awlaki

Man, it just keeps coming. And "six degrees of separation"? Give me a break. It's pretty much the case that even so-called Muslim moderates are deeply implicated with Islamic jihad. See, "Ground Zero mosque modeled after notorious 9/11 mosque? Founder of hijackers' D.C. worship center partners with N.Y. imam pushing shariah":

The New York imam behind the Ground Zero mosque has struck a partnership with the founder of the so-called 9/11 mosque in the Washington suburbs that gave aid and comfort to some of the 9/11 hijackers, WND has learned.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf counts the lead trustee of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center among partners in his Cordoba Initiative, which features a 13-story mosque and a "cultural center" for his project to bring shariah, or Islamic law, to America.

Families of 9/11 victims oppose construction of the proposed site so close to Ground Zero.

Jamal Barzinji, one of the founders of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, also founded Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., which is run by the pro-jihad Brotherhood. The mosque has been tied to numerous terrorism plots, including the 9/11 attacks.

In December 2008, the Brotherhood's U.S. think tank -- the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT – hosted Rauf. During their meeting, IIIT's leadership, including Barzinji, "pledged cooperation and support" for Rauf's project, according to this screenshot of the description of the event from IIIT's scrubbed Web archives.

Rauf's partner Barzinji is a founder and director of IIIT, which is under active federal investigation for funneling funds to Palestinian terrorists. Its Herndon, Va., offices were raided by federal agents after 9/11.

The U.S. government has accused Barzinji of being "closely associated" with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. He has not been charged with a crime, however.

Barzinji personally authorized the development of Dar al-Hijrah, according to Fairfax County, Va., property records obtained by investigative journalist Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration" and "Muslim Mafia."

Records also show the North American Islamic Trust, a recently named unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history, holds the deed to the radical mosque. Barzinji is listed as a NAIT trustee on the document, and his signature appears on the deed.

In November 2008, Barzinji personally chaired a meeting at IIIT's Herndon headquarters to launch an abridged edition of Rauf's book, "What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America," in which he calls for the establishment of a parallel system of justice in America run by Islamic jurists. Barzinji's brother's printing company published the digest.

Rauf's partnership with Barzinji and IIIT worries critics of the Ground Zero mosque in New York, who fear it will attract the kind of dubious foreign sponsorship and terrorist elements associated with Dar al-Hijrah.

Built in 1991 with $5 million from the Saudi Embassy, Dar al-Hijrah employed Imam Anwar Awlaki as its prayer leader from 2000 to 2002. Awlaki, aka Aulaqi, counseled two of the 9/11 hijackers in closed-door meetings, and is believed to have played a central role in the plot. The fugitive al-Qaida leader is now hiding in Yemen.

He also radicalized Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Christmas Day airline bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and, most recently, Times Square car bomber Faisal Shahzad.

The U.S. last month designated Awlaki a "key leader of al-Qaida" and froze his assets.

More at the link.

RELATED: "'Moderate' Imam Rauf Condemns U.S. — ' More Muslim Blood On Its Hands Than al Qaeda'."

The Climate Change Industry Keeps Digging

You know what they say about holes — when you find yourself in one, stop digging. The climate change commies haven't figured that one out. So, well, just go read this post: "James Cameron — King of Hypocrites." You'll see what I mean.

Plus, at The Hill, "Director James Cameron calls climate change skeptics 'swine'." (Via Memeorandum.)

James Cameron, director of the eco-tinged smash film Avatar, on Sunday called global warming skeptics “swine” at a renewable energy conference in Aspen, Colo., according to a news report.

“I think they're swine,” he said at the American Renewable Energy Day Summit, the Aspen Times reported.

Kinda like being smeared as racist, but as that slur lost its punch, perhaps a more animalistic classification is needed. (Leftists are generally bad people, as I've said — but most of those on the Democrat side of things just hafta figure that out on their own.)

'Moderate' Imam Rauf Condemns U.S. — ' More Muslim Blood On Its Hands Than al Qaeda'

Great scoop, from Pamela:

And at Jawa Report:

Once again, this is not evidence that Rauf is an extremist wolf in moderate sheep's clothing. For Muslims, the idea that US foreign policy is hostile to Muslims and that Americans don't care about the deaths of innocents is widely held. By definition, this makes Rauf's opinion mainstream in most majority Muslim countries.

On other issues, Rauf would be considered quite liberal in the Muslim community.

But to equivocate between the intentional killing of civilians by al Qaeda and the unintended killing of civilians by the US is worse than wrong -- it is evil.

Yes, we kill civilians sometimes. That is truly one of the many sad realities of warfare.

When al Qaeda kills civilians they not only do it intentionally, but they also celebrate it.

No one in the West praises the Predator drone operator who accidentally blows up a wedding party. We think of such acts as the regrettable but inevitable outcome of war.

But in many parts of the Muslim world "The Magnificient 19" -- the men who carried out the 9/11 attacks -- are praised as heroes and martyrs.

Obama Weekly Job Approval Average at New Low of 43%

Hmm, I wonder why that could be?

At Gallup:

President Obama's job approval rating slipped to 43% for the week of Aug. 16-22, down one percentage point from the previous administration low point of a week ago.

Also, from Chris Cillizza, "Poll numbers in 1994, a bad year for Democrats, don't bode well for them in 2010" (via Memeorandum).

It's gonna be a electoral bloodbath.

Image Credit: No Sheeples Here!

Anti-Semitic Communists Slur 'Jewish Zionist Israel' at Ground Zero Counter-Protest

This video's at Dana's, but I recognized some of communist cadres from Weasel Zippers' post yesterday. (The group's website is Internationalist Group and the League for the Fourth International.) And the Pakistani dude launching into the Jew-hatred is "Comrade Shahid," seen at the Worker's World Party homepage. Might as well have been some of the folks from Booman Tribune or Daily Kos. This is classic leftist agitation. I document this stuff all the time. And apparently the similar hatred from Charles Johnson is really about "building pluralism." The Big C.J. has yet to comment on the mosque backers excoriations of the "Jewish Zionist Israel."

SCROLL FORWARD TO 3:55 MINUTES.

Related: "Anti-Semitic Incident at Ground Zero Mosque Counter Protest."

The Museum of American Achievements in Aviation in Hiroshima

Ace of Spades responds to a "Rightie Suggesting We Support the Ground Zero Mosque":

It would never even occur to me, or any decent person, to erect a Museum of American Achievements in Aviation in Hiroshima.

This is not a joke -- I am not saying a museum celebrating the bomb. I am saying a museum that does exactly as I said -- notes American achievements in aviation. Not the Enola Gay, but the Wright Brothers, etc.

The museum I am talking about, hypothetically, would not be baiting, nor celebratory of the bomb, in the least. It would just be a museum of American advancements in aviation.

But of course no sentient being could possibly fail to see how Japanese would take it as a direct provocation, and a nasty reminder of the bomb that fell on Hiroshima 6 August 1945.

And if I were so stupid, tasteless, and Asperger's-afflicted to have suggested such a museum in the first place, if Japanese then told me "That brings up horrifying memories," I wouldn't then arrogantly double-down and begin explaining to them how intolerant they're being, how irrational they're being, how unfair to my enthusiasm for American airpower they're being.

I would say, "Damn, I didn't think of that! I intended this as just a museum of aircraft, but I can in fact understand how you, a Hiroshima survivor, would even 50 years later have a rather more negative feeling about American airplanes in the sky that I do. Thank you for informing of this -- my bad. I'll put it up somewhere else."

Because -- why wouldn't I put it somewhere else.... unless my intent all along was in fact to remind Hiroshima residence of what happens when you defy the Big A? (A as in America.)

If I didn't have that in my heart, why would I want to visit such unwelcome and painful reminders on a population that experienced an awful tragedy 50 years ago at the hands of my fellow Americans?

Not me, mind you -- I didn't fly the plane. I didn't build the bomb. I didn't even vote for war. I wasn't even alive.

But they were Americans, thus my kin, and certainly I would not want to further traumatize the Japanese over reminding them of what my fellow Americans did to them that day.

(Which isn't to say I disagree with the decision -- it's to say I have enough respect and courtesy to not wish to remind them of the bombing every day as they walk to work.)

And because we all would understand that such a feeling is not only inevitable but perfectly reasonable, of course no American -- no nobody -- would ever dream of erecting such a museum in Hiroshima.

Such a museum is fine in and of itself-- there's a good one, I'm told, at the Smithsonian in DC.

But in Hiroshima? Utterly insensitive, inappropriate, cruel, triumphal, offensive, demeaning to the memory of the dead of Hiroshima, provocative, disrespectful, arrogant, shameless.

Mark that last word because that's the one that I think is most important. People keep saying what this debate is about, or isn't about. It isn't about this, it isn't about that. It's not about freedom of religion, it's about sharia. Etc.

What it's about is the utter shamelessness of this. The utter refusal for anyone involved in this grotesquerie to exhibit the sense of decorum and taste that even animals possess and evaluate what impact their designs may have on other people, including the direct victims of radical, triumphant Islam.

Shamelessness.

I would suggest that Cordoba House fixate itself less on selling Islam to the West and more on selling Western values of anti-terrorism, render-unto-Caesar, and tolerance to Islam.

Were they actually doing that, I would support this-- wholeheartedly!

But they're not. Next to a hole in the ground created by Muslim excess and Islamic equivocation over the rightfulness of murdering the infidel, they want to erect and advertisement -- not for peace, not for understanding, not for dialogue, not for anti-terrorism -- but just for Islam.

And they didn't bother to ask if anyone would have a problem with this, and that's because they never cared. It was never about that -- it was about, just as suspected, erecting a trimuphal tower to the might of Islam.

And they didn't ask about that, and now that people have -- since they weren't asked in private, we have to tell them in public -- they still don't care.

So don't tell me this is about tolerance and moderation and building bridges.

This is about a shameless attempt to grab up a piece of property on the cheap, a piece of property in downtown Manhattan that is only on the market at all because of the actions of some Muslims, and the shamelessness of other Muslims in plunking down cash of dubious sourcing to purchase the land at jet-fuel fire-sale prices.

Pamela Geller Rule 5 Blogging?

Actually, no.

I hadn't even thought about it, but both Robert Stacy McCain and Opus #6 thought Pamela good Rule 5 material, and tastefully so (here and here).

As Opus writes:

Pamela Geller is amazing. She is a gladiator on the world scene, fighting for freedom, justice and the American Way. Undeterred by jihadi death threats, she very kindly paused from signing her new book, the Post-American Presidency, to pose with me for a Blackberry picture.

That's sweet.

I'm thrilled I was able to meet Pamela and have my picture taken with her as well.

Pamela's book is here: The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America.

Texas Fred Steps In It Again!

Shoot, it's been a helluva long time since I've wrangled with old Texas Fred, but he's still up to his old tricks!!

If you check out Flopping Aces, our trigger-happy Fred-ster's done 'dere shown up in the comments, and with a beauty no less:

I detest Islam and every goat loving turd that calls it a religion, and not being the most politically correct blogger from Texas, screw em, kill em ALL and let allah sort em out!

Yep, just like the old Texas Freddie we all know and (not) love! When our Lone Star Patriot's not riding range on the U.S.-Mexico border taking shots at the women and children of illegal immigrants, he's ready to nuke a few ragheads and send them back to Mecca.

Attaboy, Fred! You've still got it, son!

Pamela Geller Was Not Involved in the August 22 Ground Zero Mosque Protest — UPDATED!! Charles Johnson Falsely Smears Pamela, Again!

Today's protest in New York was sponsored by The Coalition to Honor Ground Zero, not Pamela Geller. But that hasn't stopped the left's demonologists from attacker her. Here's Max Blumenthal on Twitter:

That's pretty extreme rhetoric. "Pogromists"? God. Unreal. Some Ground Zero opponents are obviously pretty fired up about this, and apparently there was an incident today where a man at the rally was mistakenly unwelcomed as a Muslim. There's a video here, but the New York Times (FWIW) reports on a number of other incidents of potential fisticuffs as well: "Proposed Muslim Center Draws Opposing Protests." But not mentioned at NYT is Pamela Geller. I guess the facts don't matter to the leftist hate-merchants. Balloon Juice has too posts up attacking Pamela: "Black, Muslim, Same Difference":

Here’s some video from the Atlas Jugs anti-mosque rally, where some black guy made the mistake of looking Muslimish and was harassed and nearly assaulted by the collection of lily white mouth-breathers at the event ...

And "White Riot":

Just to follow up on John’s piece about the man being mistaken for a Muslim and nearly assaulted at Pam Geller’s hate-fest ...

"Pamela Geller's hate fest"? (And allegedly racist, too?)

Actually, no.

See Atlas Shrugs (and now a thread at Memeorandum):

I have no idea who organized this rally. Clearly, whoever organized this was careless, unprepared, shooting from the hip and harmful to the cause of freedom and compassion. I wasn't even in the state, nor did I know anything about this half-assed effort.

Doug Ross has pictures from the event. There most likely were many Pamela Geller supporters on the ground. But considering that Pamela's being viciously slurred as a "pogromist" and "Atlas jugs" racist, I can understand her response. Not only that, scheduling duel protests was in fact a bad idea. Ground Zero attracts a lot of antiwar freaks, truthers, and America-bashers. Why make it even worse by scheduling an event vis-à-vis the Daisy Khan terror-enablers. And clearly, Max Blumenthal and the folks at Balloon Juice fall into that latter category.

**********

UPDATE: Asshats, all of them, but especially Charles Johnson, whose entire existence by now is to project hatred onto people so much more successful:

Imam Rauf's Hush-Hush Taxpayer-Subsidized Middle East Tour — Plus, Inside the Victory Mosque's Shady Washington-Riyadh Finance Trail

Tammy Bruce identifies Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan as "Obama's favorite Hillary Clinton Department funded Islamists." And while "Little Miss Daisy" made some rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit, our "bridge-building" Imam is little to be found. He has turned up, of course, in Bahrain. Most press outlets don't seem to care, but see the New York Post, "'Ground Zero' Imam on Mideast Tour to Make Islam 'Americanized'":

The imam behind the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero surfaced yesterday far from the controversy -- in Bahrain, where he's on a taxpayer-funded trip to the Middle East to spread good will.

Appearing in public for the first time in weeks, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, speaking at a mosque near Bahrain's capital of Manama, said he wants to "Americanize" Islam -- but dodged questions about the uproar over his planned mosque and community center.

Rauf spoke against fanaticism, saying, "This issue of extremism is something that has been a national-security issue -- not only for the United States but also for many countries and nations in the Muslim world."

"This is why this particular trip has a great importance because all countries in the Muslim world -- as well as the Western world -- are facing this . . . major security challenge," Rauf told Associated Press Television News in a brief interview.

The cleric also said he was working on a way to "Americanize Islam," but didn't offer any details.

No details...

That makes sense, since the dude's looking for $100 million large to help finance the Ground Zero Victory Mosque. No doubt sharia finance networks will be coming up with some of that cash, news of which of course wouldn't go over so well with some of the 9/11 families now speaking out in New York. Indeed, opponents of the mosque might not have the full details on the depth of Imam Rauf's scam, which is more fundamentally implicated into the Obama administration than has been noted by most commentators. See, for example, Sharia Finance Watch:

It is highly likely that the financing from this mosque is coming from one of two sources, or perhaps both: foreign sources and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT is reported to hold title to as many as 80% of the mosques and Islamic centers in the U.S. There are three things that are especially disturbing about this:

1. NAIT is at least partially funded by Saudi Arabia (a foreign power with a dismal human rights record and significant portions of its royal family associated with jihad.

2. NAIT is a Muslim Brotherhood organization. This was stipulated to by the defense in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history.

3. In that same terrorism financing trial, the United States v. the Holy Land Foundation, NAIT was named as an unindicted co-conspirator. The prosecution was successful in that case, defendants were convicted on all counts. When NAIT challenged its classification as an unindicted co-conspirator, the Justice department refused to relent and issued a spirited and strong justification.

Foreign financing for this mosque on this site has implications far beyond building a place where Muslims can go pray. There is reason to believe that this site was chosen with some other purpose in mind. Of all the places to build such a mosque, why Ground Zero? It’s not a residential area. There are no large numbers of Muslim residents in the neighborhood. If foreign powers are behind its financing, then the implications immediately become much more profound and sinister. Nevertheless, Imam Rauf remains tight-lipped on the subject of financing sources, media such as The Economist exhibit no intellectual curiosity on the subject and apologists such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg refuse to even consider that it might be a bad idea if the Muslim Brotherhood or a foreign Salafi power is behind the project.

Also, Doug Hagmann reported yesterday on the financial trail tying Imam Rauf's Cordoba Initiative to far-flung financiers in the Persian Gulf and back to the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton State Department. See, "Report of Investigation Park 51":

Despite the plentiful amount of information developed by independent researchers, bloggers, and commentators that has been published about the questionable associations of project front man ABDUL-RAUF over the last few weeks, he continues to travel to the Middle East as an emissary of America at the behest of the Obama/Clinton State Department. Ostensibly, his purpose is to “discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance” with Islamic leaders in Muslim countries. Despite his questionable associations, the U.S. State Department is steadfast in their support of his goodwill tour.

Not only is the U.S. State Department unwavering in their support in spite of such controversy, they are invoking an unprecedented shroud of secrecy over the trip. When questioned about the content and message of Abdul-Rauf’s goodwill tour, U.S. State Department Spokesman Phillip Crowley curiously cited a 62 year-old law, erroneously claiming that the law shields Rauf’s message from the American public – at least by way of government web sites - as cited in this article published Tuesday by the editor of Family Security Matters.

It is clearly evident that there is something very disturbing taking place behind the scenes that is permitting this “duck or bleed” approach being employed by politicians and lawmakers. It is only when we investigate deeper into the people and groups behind this assault on American sensibilities and “follow the money” do we find the nefarious nexus of “Cap and Trade globalists,” Progressives” and Islamic leaders who are pushing for a “one world” religion.

The latter group, including foreign entities and governments, is working to replace our Judeo-Christian heritage with Islam as the dominant religion of America and Shariah in place of the U.S. Constitution. It is being conducted under the pretext of interfaith dialogue and unity, an objective for which Feisal ABDUL RAUF and his closest associates have been groomed.

While ABDUL RAUF and his associates are working to install Shariah in the U.S., the former group is engaged in the systematic effort to destroy the current religious and moral structures as a means to facilitate their objectives of control and domination. The Progressives and globalists are exploiting this transformation for their own agenda, which is the implementation of global governance. That is exactly what can be found when the layers of deception and distraction are carefully and methodically pulled back and the prospective money sources are identified.

All that sounds, well, almost fantastic.

But that's only momentarily. This is reality, and information to this effect has been in the public domain for some time. We can even go back and read the words of Imam Rauf himself, "What Shariah Law Is All About":

At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.

In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.

It's almost unconscionable that Imam Rauf places the guarantees of universal moral goodness and inalienable rights found in the Declaration of Independence alongside the commands to crushing violence and the racist/sexist morality of submission found in Sharia. But this is the meme that Americans are being subjected to over and over again. This is the "interfaith" agenda that seeks to subordinate the U.S. Constitution to Islamic law, to have American courts interpret American laws so that they "are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith." Of course, it's the other way around in this country, at least according to the 1st Amendment. But you won't get that from the Democrats and the communists and their jihadi enablers in the mainstream press.

We are being blinded by a blizzard of lies and propaganda, and those who are standing up in opposition are being excoriated as Muslim-hating bigots.

This is sick and perverted. We have to keep fighting.

The Family Security Matters report is here: "The Ground Zero Mosque - What Have We Not Been Told?"

Photo Credit: Looking at the Left.

Claire Berlinski on Moderate Islam

Claire Berlinski lives in Istanbul. She's got an interesting blog post, "Is Islam Itself the Enemy?", and there's a raging debate on her Facebook page. This comment struck me as profound:

I've just walked down a street filled literally with thousands of Moslems of exactly the kind many people are seriously arguing do not exist. I saw them with my own eyes, as I have every day for the past five years. With so many other questions in the world, why waste time debating this? Book a ticket to Istanbul, spend an afternoon here, have a lovely time, drink some tea, meet friendly, tolerant, warm, welcoming Moslems (mostly), and see for yourself. They exist! They're my neighbors and my friends! Babür, is there anyone at our gym, for example, who would not describe himself as a Moslem? Would any member of our gym endorse terrorism, honor killing, forcing me to wear the hijab, or subjecting me to a dhimmi tax? The idea is so absurd it's beyond discussion -- and yet we're discussing it.

Yes, this is good. And I think it's important. Every once in a while I have Muslim students in class, and we have thoughtful discussions. But they are such a small minority that we don't get a critical mass of opinion to sort out variations in opinion within the Islamic community. So, call me agnostic on the kind of experience Claire Berlinski's having. More immediate to me is David Horowitz's experience. I've had a few similiar to this, in my engagement with the ANSWER Coalition. And this kind of experience is a good test. When Muslims come out to denounce Hezbollah, that'll be a good step toward identifying and working with the moderates Claire champions. Meanwhile, see, "The War Against the Jews at UC San Diego":

There are whole departments of this university that are sponsoring this hate week and thus the war against the Jews it encourages, including the Visual Arts Department, the Literature Department and the Ethnic Studies Department. The Thurgood Marshall College is another official entity sponsoring these incitements and lies. If you look at the codes this university claims to live by, you will see that chief among them is respect for diversity – for the ethnicities of students who attend this school. There is no respect for Jewish students at this campus when a week of hate like this is thrust in their faces courtesy of university faculties and administrators.

There are thirty campuses across the nation hosting Israel Apartheid Weeks this spring, including the University of California — Irvine, UC Berkeley, Boston University, Brandeis. Brown, University of Wisconsin, University of Houston, Brooklyn College, University of Chicago, UC Santa Barbara, UC Santa Cruz, UCLA, DePaul, Columbia, University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, University of Washington and others.

Behind each and every one of these hate weeks against the Jews is the Muslim Students Association. Many people on this and other campuses mistake the Muslim Students Association for a cultural organization that represents all Muslims. It is no such thing. The Muslim Students Association is a sister organization of the terrorist organization Hamas, and like Hamas, is part of the Muslim Brotherhood network.

Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and the architect of terrorist jihad was an admirer of Adolf Hitler, whose organization translated Mein Kampf into Arabic. The father of Palestinian nationalism, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was one of Al-Banna’s heroes and is revered to this day by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas as the father of Palestinian nationalism. Haj Amin al-Husseini was a Nazi. In the twenties and the thirties he preached the extermination of the Jews and inspired two celebrated massacres of Jewish settlers. During the Second World War he went to Berlin to work with Hitler to recruit Arabs to Nazism . He devised his own plan to create an Auschwitz in the Middle East and was thwarted in setting up his death camps only because Rommel was defeated at El-Alamein. After the war, he and al-Banna led the Arab crusade against the creation of the Jewish state.

Why is the Muslim Students Association that violates the diversity principles and ethical codes of every one of these universities allowed to sponsor hate weeks against Israel and the Jews on these campuses? Where is the outrage over the lies the Muslim Students Association spreads along with its incitements against the Jewish state? Shame on the University of California for its role in this event. Shame on Thurgood Marshall College and the faculties that sponsored it. And shame on the Muslim students who use the shield of their religion to advance the Islamic war against the Jews.

And continue reading for the text of Horowitz's exchange with Jumanah Imad Albahri, the UCSD MSA activist who refused to denounce Hezbollah, the fanatical Islamist militant organization committed to the extermination of the Jews.

RELATED: "Tolerance and Suicide."

Daisy Khan: Moving Islamic Center 'Not' On the Table for Now

Amazingly, today's the first time I've actually tuned into "This Week" since Christiane Amanpour took over. I've watched video clips. But today I clicked on the tube right at 8:00am. The Karzai interview wasn't so interesting. HE'S not interesting, I guess. I'm tired of him being in charge in Afghanistan and I just can't help myself (rigged elections, gaffes up the wazoo, and who knows what else?). Anyway, it was the Daisy Khan interview that really snapped me to attention. Now that's timely. But Amanpour immediate proved her critics correct, that she's a hopeless leftist ideologue unsuited to hosting the program. See starts out:

We turn now to the debate over the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero. Opponents say that it's just too close to the site of the 9/11 attacks, though it cannot be seen from there. It took an ABC News producer two minutes and 45 seconds to walk from ground zero to the site of the proposed center. But the controversy has raised profound questions about religious tolerance and prejudice in the United States. And the backlash against Islam has been seen across the country, with mosques facing protests in California, Wisconsin and Tennessee. And some intelligence experts now say that the backlash could also bolster extremists abroad, who wish to portray the United States as anti-Islam.

See that? All the leftist memes. And at the clip she flashes the New York Times' earlier headline at the paper, "U.S. Anti-Islam Protest Seen as Lift for Extremists." That piece was fully debunked by both Tom Maguire and myself. Watch the clip:

Daisy Khan reports that the possibility of relocating Ground Zero is simply "not on the table." Khan repeatedly stressed that she and radical husband Imam Rauf have a "constitutional right" to build the mosque. Never do we hear her mention the flip side of rights, that of responsibility --- especially the responsibility to give the arguments of critics a fair shake. And this "cultural center" is supposed to be about "interfaith understanding"? Inept public relations messaging, to say the least. Indeed, most interesting is the video segment showing Imam Rauf saying that "United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened" when al Qaeda terrorists attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001. Daisy Khan's response is even worse, that American policy caused the attacks as a result of our Cold War policies supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan: Imam Rauf was talking about "the CIA support specifically to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban" ... "you know, in CIA terms, a blowback of that. That's what he meant."

Blowback. Oh, great. The favorite term of hardline critics of American foreign policy, those who claim U.S. neo-colonial "occupation" around the world is the "root cause" of global jihad against the U.S.

Yep, 9/11 families will just be bowled over with that model of understanding and "outreach."

And actually, Ms. Daisy kinda leaves out the Koran's injunctions to kill the infidels. Convenient, you think? And of course a Muslim-compliant Christiane Amanpour's not likely to correct the defamations, regardless of the debate on whether she's quick enough on the uptake to be even hosting this debate. Jeez, where are our modern David Brinkleys? Shoot, Jake Tapper would suit me just fine.

More on this later. Stay strong friends ...

Smokin' Hot Sunday Babe Blogging!

Actually, this isn't the planned, Rule 5 treat I mentioned yesterday, but Theo's so completely on fire of late that I couldn't resist posting.

I'm going to get American Perspective linked up and discussed a bit later, but check this out. Sheesh:

BONUS BABE BLOGGING: "I do this as an act of solidarity with my oppressed Palestinian Sisters!"

Wafa Sultan on 'Moderate' Islam

That is compelling television:

Does America Have a Moderate Muslim Problem?

You think?

At Fox News, the Journal Editorial Report:

Hanging in Lorestan-Azna, Iran — August 12, 2010

Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.

— Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, April 24, 2009

Right.

Fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam, just as we see daily in Sharia Iran:

'WE HAVE SOME PLANES'

Excerpt from Chapter 1, "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States":

The Hijacking of American 11

American Airlines Flight 11 provided nonstop service from Boston to Los Angeles. On September 11, Captain John Ogonowski and First Officer Thomas McGuinness piloted the Boeing 767. It carried its full capacity of nine flight attendants. Eighty-one passengers boarded the flight with them (including the five terrorists).

The plane took off at 7:59. Just before 8:14, it had climbed to 26,000 feet, not quite its initial assigned cruising altitude of 29,000 feet. All communications and flight profile data were normal. About this time the "Fasten Seatbelt" sign would usually have been turned off and the flight attendants would have begun preparing for cabin service.

At that same time, American 11 had its last routine communication with the ground when it acknowledged navigational instructions from the FAA's air traffic control (ATC) center in Boston. Sixteen seconds after that transmis-sion, ATC instructed the aircraft's pilots to climb to 35,000 feet. That message and all subsequent attempts to contact the flight were not acknowledged. From this and other evidence, we believe the hijacking began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter.

Reports from two flight attendants in the coach cabin, Betty Ong and Madeline "Amy" Sweeney, tell us most of what we know about how the hijacking happened. As it began, some of the hijackers-most likely Wail al Shehri and Waleed al Shehri, who were seated in row 2 in first class-stabbed the two unarmed flight attendants who would have been preparing for cabin service.

We do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit; FAA rules required that the doors remain closed and locked during flight. Ong speculated that they had "jammed their way" in. Perhaps the terrorists stabbed the flight attendants to get a cockpit key, to force one of them to open the cockpit door, or to lure the captain or first officer out of the cockpit. Or the flight attendants may just have been in their way.

At the same time or shortly thereafter, Atta-the only terrorist on board trained to fly a jet-would have moved to the cockpit from his business-class seat, possibly accompanied by Omari. As this was happening, passenger Daniel Lewin, who was seated in the row just behind Atta and Omari, was stabbed by one of the hijackers-probably Satam al Suqami, who was seated directly behind Lewin. Lewin had served four years as an officer in the Israeli military. He may have made an attempt to stop the hijackers in front of him, not realizing that another was sitting behind him.

The hijackers quickly gained control and sprayed Mace, pepper spray, or some other irritant in the first-class cabin, in order to force the passengers and flight attendants toward the rear of the plane.They claimed they had a bomb.

About five minutes after the hijacking began, Betty Ong contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, North Carolina, via an AT&T airphone to report an emergency aboard the flight. This was the first of several occasions on 9/11 when flight attendants took action outside the scope of their training, which emphasized that in a hijacking, they were to communicate with the cockpit crew. The emergency call lasted approximately 25 minutes, as Ong calmly and professionally relayed information about events taking place aboard the airplane to authorities on the ground.

At 8:19, Ong reported: "The cockpit is not answering, somebody's stabbed in business class-and I think there's Mace-that we can't breathe-I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked." She then told of the stabbings of the two flight attendants.

At 8:21, one of the American employees receiving Ong's call in North Carolina, Nydia Gonzalez, alerted the American Airlines operations center in Fort Worth, Texas, reaching Craig Marquis, the manager on duty. Marquis soon realized this was an emergency and instructed the airline's dispatcher responsible for the flight to contact the cockpit. At 8:23, the dispatcher tried unsuccessfully to contact the aircraft. Six minutes later, the air traffic control specialist in American's operations center contacted the FAA's Boston Air Traffic Control Center about the flight. The center was already aware of the problem.

Boston Center knew of a problem on the flight in part because just before 8:25 the hijackers had attempted to communicate with the passengers. The microphone was keyed, and immediately one of the hijackers said, "Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." Air traffic controllers heard the transmission; Ong did not. The hijackers probably did not know how to operate the cockpit radio communication system correctly, and thus inadvertently broadcast their message over the air traffic control channel instead of the cabin public-address channel. Also at 8:25, and again at 8:29, Amy Sweeney got through to the American Flight Services Office in Boston but was cut off after she reported someone was hurt aboard the flight. Three minutes later, Sweeney was reconnected to the office and began relaying updates to the manager, Michael Woodward.

At 8:26, Ong reported that the plane was "flying erratically." A minute later, Flight 11 turned south. American also began getting identifications of the hijackers, as Ong and then Sweeney passed on some of the seat numbers of those who had gained unauthorized access to the cockpit.

Sweeney calmly reported on her line that the plane had been hijacked; a man in first class had his throat slashed; two flight attendants had been stabbed-one was seriously hurt and was on oxygen while the other's wounds seemed minor; a doctor had been requested; the flight attendants were unable to contact the cockpit; and there was a bomb in the cockpit. Sweeney told Woodward that she and Ong were trying to relay as much information as they could to people on the ground.

At 8:38, Ong told Gonzalez that the plane was flying erratically again. Around this time Sweeney told Woodward that the hijackers were Middle Easterners, naming three of their seat numbers. One spoke very little English and one spoke excellent English. The hijackers had gained entry to the cockpit, and she did not know how. The aircraft was in a rapid descent.

At 8:41, Sweeney told Woodward that passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class. Other flight attendants were busy at duties such as getting medical supplies while Ong and Sweeney were reporting the events.

At 8:41, in American's operations center, a colleague told Marquis that the air traffic controllers declared Flight 11 a hijacking and "think he's [American 11] headed toward Kennedy [airport in New York City].They're moving everybody out of the way. They seem to have him on a primary radar. They seem to think that he is descending."

At 8:44, Gonzalez reported losing phone contact with Ong. About this same time Sweeney reported to Woodward," Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent . . . we are all over the place." Woodward asked Sweeney to look out the window to see if she could determine where they were. Sweeney responded: "We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low." Seconds later she said, "Oh my God we are way too low." The phone call ended.

At 8:46:40, American 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.39 All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly ....

American Airlines Flight 11 FAA Awareness.

Although the Boston Center air traffic controller realized at an early stage that there was something wrong with American 11, he did not immediately interpret the plane's failure to respond as a sign that it had been hijacked. At 8:14, when the flight failed to heed his instruction to climb to 35,000 feet, the controller repeatedly tried to raise the flight. He reached out to the pilot on the emergency frequency. Though there was no response, he kept trying to contact the aircraft.

At 8:21, American 11 turned off its transponder, immediately degrading the information available about the aircraft. The controller told his supervisor that he thought something was seriously wrong with the plane, although neither suspected a hijacking. The supervisor instructed the controller to follow standard procedures for handling a "no radio" aircraft.

The controller checked to see if American Airlines could establish communication with American 11. He became even more concerned as its route changed, moving into another sector's airspace. Controllers immediately began to move aircraft out of its path, and asked other aircraft in the vicinity to look for American 11.

At 8:24:38, the following transmission came from American 11:

American 11: We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport.

The controller only heard something unintelligible; he did not hear the specific words "we have some planes." The next transmission came seconds later:

American 11: Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.

VIDEO: "9/11: The Falling Man."

Gaza 'Peace' Flotilla Updated Analysis

At Stormbringer:

'The Desire for Freedom Is Written In Every Human Heart'

"History moves toward freedom because the desire for freedom is written in every human heart."

-- George W. Bush, January 18, 2005

Spencer 'Insha'Allah' Ackerman Slurs Victory Mosque Opponents as 'Bigots'

What else is new?

Well, actually, whereas once Spencer "Insha'Allah" Ackerman called for President Bush to be executed at The Hague, now he's reduced to appealing to the 43rd president to argue religious pluralism should prevail in the Cordoba Mosque controversy:

The small-minded passions of Westerners who think that they’ve found a threatening global conspiracy emerging from an ancient Abrahamic faith now have damaging strategic implications. All of which is to say that old-fashioned American religious pluralism is a weapon against al-Qaeda. Or, as the 43rd president of the United States put it, America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.

Spencer Ackerman, JournoList alumnus, is one of the most despicable left-wing frauds on the web. He's also one of the most pathetic.

By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them...

VodkaPundit has no comment, but nothing's holding me back. Democratic-leftists and secular collectivists are bad people. But to be fair, those self-identified Democrats who don't know any better need to get hip quickly and abandon ship:

That's a Right Klik production, if I'm not mistaken.

The title at top draws on Matthew 7:15-29, the concluding section of which is "concerned with those things that are not of the kingdom, and Jesus is warning us of those who will present themselves as a part of the kingdom and are deceivers."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Via Washington Rebel:

Plus, "How to Win the Clash of Civilizations."

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD — Hot Neocon Intelligentsia!

My good friend GSGF continues to fire up the neocon Interwebs! And she's stylin' as well with some Sex Pistols pro-Israel mojo. As she might say, that's fully crunk!

Black Ops: Secret Military Technology in the Age of Terrorism

At Popular Science:

Every year, tens of billions of Pentagon dollars go missing. The money vanishes not because of fraud, waste or abuse, but because U.S. military planners have appropriated it to secretly develop advanced weapons and fund clandestine operations. Next year, this so-called black budget will be even larger than it was in the Cold War days of1987, when the leading black-budget watchdog, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), began gathering reliable estimates. The current total is staggering: $58 billion—enough to pay for two complete Manhattan Projects.

Where does the money go? Tracking the black budget has always been a challenge. Constantly shifting project names that seem to be randomly generated by computers—Tractor Cage, Tractor Card, Tractor Dirt, Tractor Hike and Tractor Hip are all real examples—make linking dollar amounts to technologies impossible for outsiders. But there are clues.

According to Todd Harrison, an analyst at the CSBA, the allocations for classified operations in the 2011 federal budget include $19.4 billion for research and development across all four branches of the military (funding for the CIA, including its drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is contained within the Defense Department black budget), another $16.9 billion for procurement, and $14.6 billion for “operations and maintenance.” This latter category, Harrison notes, has been expanding quickly. This may suggest that many classified technologies are now moving from the laboratory to the battlefield.

In fact, the rise in classified defense spending accompanies a fundamental change in American military strategy. After the attacks of September 11, the Pentagon began a shift away from its late Cold War–era “two-war strategy,” premised on maintaining the ability to conduct two major military operations simultaneously, and began to focus instead on irregular warfare against individuals and groups. That strategic shift most likely coincides with an investment shift, away from technology that enables large-scale, possibly nuclear, war against superpower states and toward technology that helps military planners hunt and kill individuals. Each branch of the military uses different language to describe this process. Pentagon officials have spoken openly about their desire to use advanced technology to “reduce sensor-to-shooter time” in situations involving “time-sensitive targets.” The head of U.S. Special Operations Command talks about “high-tech manhunting,” while Air Force officials describe plans to compress the “kill chain.”

Even inside the Pentagon, few people know the precise details of the black budget. But by combining what is known about Pentagon goals and what is known about the most recent advances in military technology, we can begin to sketch its general contours.

Great piece. Be sure to read the whole thing.