Enter your keyword

Friday, August 21, 2009

Friday Afternoon Roundup - Unhappy Ramadan

Obama ushered in Ramadan with a greeting stating: "That is why we are unyielding in our support for a two-state solution that recognizes the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security."

The question is who is Obama not yielding to? The answer is rather obvious. Israel and Pro-Israel Jews in the United States. Which is Obama's rather subtle way of greeting Ramadan with a promise to support Palestinian Arab terrorism and oppress Israel.

The second paragraph of Obama's happy funtime Ramadan message though runs like this;

Ramadan is the month in which Muslims believe the Koran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, beginning with a simple word – iqra. It is therefore a time when Muslims reflect upon the wisdom and guidance that comes with faith, and the responsibility that human beings have to one another, and to God.

While vague pleasantries like that may not mean much to American liberals, who will read and nod their heads, what Obama is actually referring to is Sura 96 or The Clot, which begins with "Iqra bismi rabbihkalla dhi khalaq", or "Read (the Koran) in the name of your Lord Who created".

The bulk of Sura 96, which spins out the Iqra premise is, "Have you seen him who forbids a servant when he prays? Have you considered if he were on the right way, or enjoined guarding (against evil)? Have you considered if he gives the lie to the truth and turns (his) back? Does he not know that Allah does see? Nay! if he desist not, We would certainly smite his forehead, A lying, sinful forehead. Then let him summon his council, We too would.summon the braves of the army. Nay! obey him not, and make obeisance and draw nigh (to Allah).

For those who don't want to spend too much time trying to make sense of this, Sura 96 effectively orders Muslims not to obey masters or rulers who inhibit the practice of Islam. Whether Obama understood what he was quoting, certainly he proved familiar enough with Muslim prayers to a New York Times reporter (which themselves damn Christians and Jews), or whether one of the many Muslim White House hires thought it would be funny to have the White House issue a greeting telling Muslims to read the Koran and rebel against non-Muslim rulers... it sure is a whole other White House these days.

Meanwhile Jihad Watch reports on a case where Muslims tried to smuggle heroin in a Koran. The larger significance of such a case is that Muslims have successfully made the Koran a no go zone, at the cost of riots and bloodshed, which makes it a naturally appealing place to conceal contraband. This time out it was only Heroin. Another time it might be a knife or explosives.

Intimidation leads to Dhimmism which leads to greater opportunities for terrorism. That's the way the real cycle of violence works.

The mourning continues meanwhile for Robert Novak, and aside from Debbie Schlussel's numerous articles on the topic, as well as Diane West, and a belated blog post on Commentary, Novak continues to be hailed as a great conservative... despite his support for Islamic terrorists, opposition to the War in Iraq and support for Amnesty.

But I have to ask what kind of "Great Conservative" has good things said about him in The Nation? You know the answer to that one yourself. And there is no real defending Novak. Even his defenders know that.

As Diane West writes;

The question is, how does this significant aspect of Novak's political makeup -- repeated over time -- get lost in all the lionizing? At least in the early reactions I have seen, it is as if it has been erased from the record. As far as many conservatives go, to-the-hilt support for a jihad group dedicated to the eradication of Israel just doesn't count for anything at all in the end.

No it doesn't. And even worse, Novak's willingness to pander to Saudi Arabia and Islamic terrorism and to campaign for amnesty... both of which are supposed third rails among many of the people praising him, don't count for anything in the end. What is the color of hypocrisy anyway?

Robert Stacy McCain or The Other McCain tries to silence criticism of Novak's record by wrapping him in the flag of Ronald Reagan.

Nothing is more harmful to the legacy of Ronald Reagan than when a conservative, engaged in good-faith discussions of politics and policy, is publicly accused of dangerous malice, immorality or irresponsibility by another who purports similarly to revere the worthy cause to which Reagan dedicated his life.

Because apparently what Ronald Reagan dedicated his life to was Novak's support for terrorists, support for Farrakhan and calling Republicans who disagreed with him Right Wing Xenophobe Nativists. Huh?

It is of course easy for Robert Stacy McCain to defend Novak using David Frum as a strawman. The challenge would be actually defending Novak's support for Hamas. The Other McCain, like most Novak defenders, carefully avoids dealing with the specific accusations against Novak, relying on his own personal associations and memories instead.

There's a simple reason for that. Novak has said and done no shortage of things that are completely indefensible for any honest conservative. At the same time he was a major establishment figure who played mentor to many conservatives who would never actually try and defend many of those same views. Rather than addressing this contradiction, The Other McCain uses David Frum as shorthand for labeling Novak critics as unpatriotic, while trying to wrap Novak in the Ronald Reagan banner.

But this kind of cynical angle just won't work...

This Manichean rhetorical escalation was both unfortunate and unjust, even if some of the dissenters (including Buchanan) had unwisely given their critics ammunition with which to arm accusations of mala fides. When discussions of policy become clouded by such damaging insinuations, when disagreement is cited as evidence of moral inferiority -- can anyone but a child molester be worse than an anti-Semite? -- then honest discussion becomes impossible.

Conservatives mock convoluted highflown rhetoric like this when it is used by liberal pundits to cover the multitude of sins of a Jimmy Carter, but eagerly adopt it for a Robert Novak.

Is it merely "disagreement" or "discussions of policy" when one man supports terrorists or argues that that fighting Hitler was a mistake? And if such things are merely disagreements, then why draw the line at Jimmy Carter or at Cindy Sheehan?

Hasn't Carter too been the target of unwise, unfortunate and unjust rhetorical escalation, as his defenders will claim. Hasn't Jeremiah Wright unwisely given her critics ammunition? Why call him names too, rather than discussing policy with him?

If we treat Robert Novak differently than we would Walter Cronkite or Jimmy Carter, we dishonestly engage in the same sort of whitewashing that we complain about when the liberal media does it.

Novak and Buchanan have not been smeared. There must be some ideas that can be treated as evil and unacceptable, that is supposed to be a fundamental conservative dictum, and if we toss it overboard, then we stand for nothing more than an "Old Boy's Network", which will honor Novak because he was influential, despite his support for terrorism.

But it's not too surprising that Robert Stacy McCain plays "See No Evil" and works to give Novak and Buchanan a pass, when you consider that he's published on Taki's Top Drawer. For anyone familiar with Taki Theodopolus, no more really needs to be said. For anyone who isn't, Taki is a convicted criminal and vocal bigot, who helps fund far right publications, including Scott McConnell and Pat Buchanan's The American Conservative.

In Taki's Spectator musings New York Puerto Ricans are spics - "a bunch of semi-savages ... fat, squat, ugly, dusky, dirty." Kenya is labelled "bongo-bongo land" and black men are periodically referred to as "Sambo". Taki is happy to describe himself as "a soi-disant anti-semite" and has gaily written of the world Jewish conspiracy.
I could go on, but really why bother? People make their choices, and all is fair so long as they know what they're choosing and who's selling it to them.

Minor sidenote, white supremacist Kevin Lamb was the former editor of the Evans-Novak Report, Lamb also edited the Occidental Quarterly where Novak's work had appeared. The OQ's board included Kevin McDonald, who is the present day's most sophisticated proponents of the Elders of Zion business. Pat Buchanan's blog features a retrospective look from Kevin Lamb at Novak, which mainly complains that Novak wasn't radical enough, citing Novak himself as saying;

“Frum had put me in strange company. Buchanan and Wanniski were the only people mentioned who were my friends though I was an acquaintance of McConnell, who once had edited my copy at the New York Post. I had never heard of Raimondo, Reese, or Margolis. Fleming was a historian whose brilliant critique of U.S. participation in World War I (The Illusion of Victory) I had reviewed favorably, but I had never met him or read his forty other books. I knew of Taki but thought of him as a millionaire jet-setter and clever essayist. I had met Francis and Sobran once or twice and had never met Rockwell at all; I considered those three to be ideological extremists whose views I did not embrace.”

We've already briefly touched on Taki. Sobran is a pathological anti-semite, even by the standards of Novak if not Buchanan. Sam Francis was the more upscale version of David Duke. The complaint refers back to David Frum's 2003 article Unpatriotic Conservatives which pointed out Novak's whitewashing of Hezbollah. Again I could go on but there's no shortage of material and no real point in elaborating on it.

Moving on into the roundup, via Square Mile wife,the WSJ's John Fund looks at why Holder and the Obama admin dropped their case against the New black Panther party for a classic case of voter intimidation

There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.

Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.

Justice spokesman Alejandro Miyar says the dismissal was "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." But Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.), has been asking for more information. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch, for example, claims in a July 13 letter to Mr. Wolf that charges against the New Black Panther Party itself were dropped because there wasn't "evidentiary support" to prove they "directed" the intimidation. But Mr. Wolf notes in a letter sent to Justice that one defendant, Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, said on Fox News just after the election that his activities at the polling station were part of a nationwide effort. Mr. Shabazz added that the Black Panther activities in Philadelphia were justified due to "an emergency situation."

Neo-Con Express brings together Ramadan and Libya

Debbie Schlussel meanwhile has more on the real story behind the Lockerbie bombing

Though not reported in any of the coverage of the Megrahi release, the bombing of Pan Am 103 was planned and begun by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. And a Dearborn Shi’ite Muslim drug dealer who was on the plane was thought to have been involved in the bombing, using explosives in his Walkman. So, I can understand why some believe that al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted. I don’t share that belief (because strong evidence ties him to the bombing), but I know that only one person got the blame for something a deceased guy in Dearborn was involved in.

Tundra Tabloids looks at Greenpeace's Icy Cold Lies

Lemon Lime Moon looks at Novak's death as well

American Kafir has the latest on the Rifqa Bary case

Bill Levinson at IsraPundit looks at more rationing goodness from ObamaCare


  1. Wow. That Robert Stacy McCain quote really demonstrates what I said about how a clown like Novak could wrap himself in the Shroud of Reagan and be forgiven all of his anti-Conservative, terrorist supporting, blame America nonsense. (Let's face it, by the time you get there the anti-Semitism kinda fades a bit, even to a Jew like me.)
    And need I point out what is missing in that McCain's defense of Novak?
    We all know, the simple fact that Reagan, for whatever faults a non-Conservative like me has with him, never made excuses for terrorists (even when he set up Iran-Contra to sell weapons to them), never blamed the U.S. (even when the terrorists Novak excused were murdering Marines on his watch), and certainly was never a raging anti-Semite or Israel hater (like Novak, Buchanan, and their ilk).
    In fact, how exactly can one be a Reagan Republican and oppose basic policies like that? (Seriously. Not being one, they seem severely incompatible.)

  2. Anonymous22/8/09

    Anti-Semitism has never been much of a problem on either the Right or the Left. The anti-Semitism of a ''personality'' has always been dismissed as unimportant, an eccentricity, a minor quirk, or just ignored. This has been the case all through history.

  3. Anonymous22/8/09

    The absolute best thing about having left my country of origin, an Arab Muslim country, is NOT having to live through another Ramadan. Words cannot describe the sheer stupidy of this insane holiday. Imagine 30 days when a whole country fasts from sun-up to sun-down. All restaurants are closed, all cafes as well. Basically, a whole country stops for 30 days. No smoking, no coffee, no sex. People eat twice as much at night, especially sweets. The last meal is at 3-4:00 in the morning - meaning that people are up all night & come drifting into work late & groggy. Poor people go into debt because they over-buy food - after Ramadan, it takes a few months for retail sales to come back to normal. People are sick to their stomachs from rich, sweet foods.
    People are aggravated, in very bad moods - fights are common, usually over nothing. This is also the time of year when Muslim intolerance increases, people curse Jews & ''infidels'' with more frequency than usual. You can be arrested for chewing gum or smoking in public. When Ramadan falls in the long, hot summer, people become dehydrated.
    The economy goes completely to hell.

  4. Sam,

    True. It's why they avoid using a term like Reagan Republican, and avoid arguing the facts, in favor of using emotional rhetoric about Reagan's legacy.

  5. Anonymous 1,

    yes unfortunately all too true.

  6. Anonymous 2,

    well these days it seems like Ramadan is coming here too

  7. I read on A7 that now the IDF is asking (ordering?) soldiers not to eat or smoke in public as a gesture of goodwill during Ramadan.

    Sounds more to me as though the IDF got some intel about threats to any soldiers (Jew, Muslim, secular whatever) caught eating or smoking in public. I'd bet my life the IDF got intel about it hence the insane order.



Blog Archive