from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals |
Friday Afternoon Roundup - Unhappy Ramadan Posted: 21 Aug 2009 03:50 PM PDT 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;
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".
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;
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.
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...
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.
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;
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
Neo-Con Express brings together Ramadan and Libya Debbie Schlussel meanwhile has more on the real story behind the Lockerbie bombing
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 |
Email delivery powered by Google | |
No comments:
Post a Comment