Saturday, October 31, 2009

from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals The Stories Behind the News







from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News


Link to Sultan Knish








Friday Afternoon Roundup - Enjoy Sharia Law on Broadway


Posted: 30 Oct 2009 01:16 PM PDT




The Obama Administration is finally ready to begin the Big
Push. No, not the one to stop the Taliban... but to pass a gargantuan
health care nationalization plan that the majority of the American people
are opposed to and that no one besides China can actually pay
for.

While Hillary Clinton is off doing "valuable work" by holding
meetings with assorted Pakistanis, Joe Biden is trying not to pass out
during interviews, Pelosi and Reid are trying to shove ObamaCare down the
American throat like a bad case of strep. On the bright side, if ObamaCare
covers as many people as Obama's Stimulus plan did, I imagine it will
cover about two dozen people somewhere in Vermont.

Back in
Americaland though, more health care bills just means another civil war
among the Democrats. Naturally the first target was Senator Joe Lieberman
who was supposed to have been made an example of for actually trying to be
a moderate and resisting the party radicals. Lieberman instead survived
and even thrived.

Naturally the fun is just getting started. Ads
are already being run targeting Lieberman... by both sides, with the
conservative 60 Plus coalition warning of cuts in medicare and the
nutroots damning Lieberman as what else but a shill for the insurance
companies.

Of course using that same logic, Obama was a shill for
Wall Street... but the double standards just keep on coming. But it's a
lot of work nowadays, because Democrats have to begin selling Americans on
the idea that the economy has recovered and the recession is over...
despite all those lost jobs and the fact that nothing at all has recovered
outside of Wall Street, where taxpayer money was fueled into the same dark
maw that caused the problems in the first place.

Then there's
health care reform, which Democrats have figured will be hard to sell,
unless you can convince the American people that the economy is now good
and the US government is rolling in extra dough. And if they can't do that
by the 2010 elections, the veto proof majority is likely to be gone, and
the Dems will be left with the kind of congress the GOP had post 2006,
just enough power to take the blame, not enough to accomplish
anything.

With
Obama's numbers dropping, there's a stench of desperation coming off
the Dems. A bad foul stench.

And MSNBC, the default network of the
far left is running into trouble too, particularly with its newest, most
hyped and most radical member.
Rachel Maddow.

Most cable news ratings are going to show declines from
their election year heyday last fall, but for MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show
(which debuted in September, 2008) those year over year declines have made
October, 2009 its lowest rated month ever in both average viewers and the
cable news targeted adults 25-54 demo, down 54% and 65% respectively from
October, 2008.

Which suggests that MSNBC may be going the way of
Air America, at least in the case of Maddow, an Air America alum, who has
served as a forum for the most radical of the nutroots. While MSNBC is
crowing
that it beat CNN
, this is more of a reflection of how badly off CNN
is, than any kind of win for MSNBC.

It's not hard to see why Obama
is running scared. Cable News is going the way of Talk Radio. And its
biggest success, Glen Beck, comes out of the radio market. But it's also
not hard to see the rapid end of the CNN model, of network news in
general, because what sells best is open propaganda, not between the lines
bias. MSNBC's ratings are miserable, but they're still less miserable than
CNN,
whose only real hope for ratings is the burgeoning Anderson
Cooper gay
scandal.



The 2008 election probably marked the final break
between the old model of news, and the new one, that emphasizes scandals
and rants. As a guardian op ed points out, FOX has helped push CNN and
MSNBC to openly
embrace radicalism, dropping the facade of journalism.

This is an odd
and patronising fear, though true at one level. Fox is certainly
influencing CNN and MSNBC, but in a liberal, not conservative,
direction. That is, to compete with Fox's ratings-rich combination of
news and punditry, those networks have had to scramble to find leftwing
counterparts to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

This
has been a boon for leftwing gabbers. MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Keith
Olbermann, Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow, all of whom dedicate themselves
to railing against Republicans nightly, owe their careers in a way to
Fox's success in carving out a large place for punditry in the cable
media landscape. If anything, MSNBC is even more opinionated in a
liberal direction than Fox is in a conservative one. Even the news
anchors on MSNBC don't bother to conceal their anti-conservative
hostilities anymore. David Shuster and Tamron Hall scoffed openly at
Rush Limbaugh's NFL ownership bid.

CNN's Jack Cafferty, a grumpy
liberal version of Bill O'Reilly, also owes his career to Fox, as does
Rick Sanchez. CNN, which once prided itself on high-brow news
presentation, feels it has to get into the opinion game too.



And when the bias is open, it becomes harder to claim that
talk of liberal media is just a "right wing fantasy". Unintentionally FOX
has helped make the liberal media come out of the closet.

On the one hand this kind of ugliness is
now
the default mode
. On the other hand, there are no more rocks to hide
behind. It was possible to argue that Dan Rather was just doing his job
and not taking sides, but no one can even begin to make that same argument
about Cafferty or Olbermann. And an open bare knuckle fight may be
preferable to a thousand poisoned knives in the dark.

And that's
what really bothers the Obama White House.

Meanwhile in
worldchanging news, Hillary Clinton went to Pakistan where she had the
solution to all of Pakistan's problems. Embrace Obama's Tax-Fu. (
Via
Gateway Pundi
t)



“The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among
the lowest in the world… We (the United States) tax everything that
moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan,” she
said.


First of all you have to have a functioning country to be
able to tax everything that moves. Second of all in a country where
terrorists can make money off the black market, do you really want to push
aggressive taxation that will expand the black market?

And then
there was Hillary Clinton's hard core grasp of the major
issues;



LAHORE: The leadership of Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday.

“I find it
hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and
couldn’t get them if they really wanted to,” she added. “Maybe that’s
the case; maybe they’re not gettable. I don’t know... As far as we know,
they are in Pakistan,” Clinton told senior Pakistani newspaper editors
in Lahore,


Is anyone even briefing her anymore?



Clinton attempted a relaxed manner, with an aside about
having a Pakistani roommate.


One wonders if she meant Huma Abedin whose parents were
Pakistani.

At IsraPundit, Bill Levinson looks at
how Green Jobs
are Made in China




The New York Times (10/29, B6) reports, “A consortium of
Chinese and American companies announced a joint venture on Thursday to
build a 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas, using turbines made in
China. Construction of the $1.5 billion wind farm will be financed
largely by Chinese banks, with the help of loan guarantees and cash
grants from the United States government.”


Next I would like to take a little time out to address an
article from Vdare, a site I do not link to, by Steve Sailer. You can
find
the text
of the article here. I'm not in the habit of replying to
everything that comes out of that burst sewage pipe, but since Michelle
Malkin thought the article was buzzworthy, I've decided to address
it.

It's easy enough to destroy it point by point, but since the
article is a barely coherent hodgepodge of claims about Ashkenazi genes,
Jewish media power, ancestor worship, Goldman Sachs, Israel... let's skip
to the actual conclusion.

Steve Sailer concludes his "article" with
the following claim:



Thus Jewish demonization of immigration reform patriots
appears to have two motivations:

...

And this demonization
is the single most important reason that America’s immigration disaster
is still above criticism, long after it has become obvious that it is a
disaster, and despite the fact that an overwhelming number of Americans
are strongly opposed to it.


Really? One could almost imagine that the United States
Chamber of Commerce (the organization so many bloggers are now rushing to
defend)
had not
been pushing for more immigration and the legalization of illegal
immigrants
.



For the 111th Congress, the Chamber will:

*
Continue to push for comprehensive immigration reform that: increases
security; has an earned pathway to legalization for undocumented workers
already contributing to our economy, provided that they are law-abiding
and prepared to embrace the obligations and values of our society;
creates a carefully monitored guest or essential worker program to fill
the growing gaps in America's workforce recognizing that, in some cases,
permanent immigrants will be needed to fill these gaps; and refrains
from unduly burdening employers with worker verification systems that
are underfunded or unworkable.


If you're confused by what any of that means, it means the
Chamber of Commerce wants to legalize illegal aliens already in the US,
increase temporary worker visas and increase the number of permanent
immigrants.

Why does the Chamber of Commerce want that? Because
it's about the money and about bringing in the cheap labor.

Really
now, why do you think that prominent Republicans like Bush Sr, Bush Jr and
McCain were such big fans of open borders and bringing in more immigrants.
It didn't have a whole lot to do with Steve Sailer's Jewish conspiracy,
and a whole lot to do with the fact that the needs of big business are not
those that necessarily benefit America itself.

But unpleasant facts
like that are not nearly as sexy as blaming the whole thing on the
Jews.

Of course Steve Sailer might reply that the Jews run the
Chamber of Commerce. But do Jews run the Catholic Church?

While
Sailer appears to blame Jewish romanticism of immigration, such
romanticism is hardly limited to Jewish immigrants, versus say Catholic,
Irish, Italian and Latino immigrants in the late 19th and 20th
centuries.

In fact the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
has been a major force behind the push for legalizing illegal immigrants,
who happen to be heavily Catholic.

A poll by the Migration and
Refugee Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
found
that 69 percent of Catholics
supported legalizing illegal
aliens.

That kind of percentages are far more likely to promote
unrestricted immigration, rather than the all-powerful Jews of Sailer's
mythology.

I don't blame the Catholic Church for promoting the
immigration of more Catholics to America. I just wish they would limit
that support to legal immigration only. Nevertheless the Church has the
right to promote what it likes, as does every other group in America. It's
possible to take issue with what they promote, but it is perfectly
possible to criticize an organization's policies, without trafficking in
conspiracy theories about entire ethnic groups or trying to level all the
blame for an international problem on one particular group.

The
fact of the matter is that immigrant groups who came to America within the
last 125 years are going to be far more likely to see immigration
positively, than those who have not. Additionally big business has always
needed immigration as a source of cheap labor. Steve Sailer's article,
"Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberal? Not Good Enough", detours from
those basic facts to promote his agenda, which is to begin by claiming
that the Jews have taken over the GOP and to conclude by essentially
arguing that the Jews have taken over America, since as
Lawerence Auster
points out




To say that the Jews are the primary force that is
suppressing the supposed immigration restrictionist sentiment of the
overwhelming majority of Americans, to suggest that but for the Jews the
non-Jewish majority would have ended America's mass Third-World
immigration policy by now


... which as has been demonstrated is blatantly
false.

The article's early mention of Joe Sobran props up Sailer's
only real thesis that runs through the piece, that Jews have leveraged
their power to make themselves above criticism. One wonders which universe
Sailer is living in, because in my universe the average newspaper takes
the side of terrorists over Israel, emphasizes the Jewishness of criminals
and is willing to print outright smears about Judaism.

A lot of
the American Far Right seems slow to learn the lessons that the European
Far Right is learning... that maybe they have bigger problems to deal with
than the Jews. But it's always easier to take the lazy Protocols of the
Elders of Zion way out.

Continuing the roundup, Obama's Muslim
advisor doesn't regret anything
she
said on a Hizb U Tahir program
, only that she went on it. Which is the
sort of thing that we would buy if we believed that she was either
ignorant of Hizb U Tahir, something that itself would make her unqualified
to advise Obama on Muslim issues. So either Dalia Mogahed is a liar and in
bed with Islamists, or incompetent. Either way she should go.

But of course we know that Obama's people have a history of quietly making
contact with Islamists and terrorists. Even before he crawled into the
White House.

Vlad Tepes meanwhile cites the new face of Cambridge
grads, forget stiff upper lip and tweed,
think Burqas.



Cambridge University will allow female Muslim students
to wear burkas at graduation ceremonies, it emerged yesterday.

By tradition, students are required to wear dark suits and white shirts
under their graduation gowns.

...

Yesterday it said burkas
could also be worn under mortar boards to graduation ceremonies, as well
as during tutorials and lectures.

Membership of Cambridge’s
Islamic Society suggests it has around 600 Muslim
students.


Goodbye Cambridge.

At Boker Tov Boulder,
First Amendment "NOT WITHSTANDING"



Readers will note that the Organization of the Islamic
Conference has a membership of 57 states. When Candidate Obama alarmed
some folks by claiming he had campaigned in 57 states, there was a hue
and cry -- not about what he had said and what it might mean, but
against those who had noticed.

Back in the dusty BtB archives, I
once wondered aloud about the "other countries" in Obama's statement
that "we can't ... expect that other countries are going to say OK." I
wrote then that

I don't get it. What other countries? Does he
mean we take our orders from the OIC?

I guess that's exactly what he meant.



The White House Friday highlighted a new
multi-million-dollar technology fund for Muslim nations, following a
pledge made by President Barack Obama in his landmark speech to the
Islamic world.

The White House said the US Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC) had issued a call for proposals for the
fund, which will provide financing of between 25 and 150 million dollars
for selected projects and funds.


Now what are the odds that the money will directly or
indirectly benefit terrorists? Considering the Zakah money that most
Muslim businesses provide, a sizable portion of which goes to Islamists or
terrorists... we might as well just give it to the Taliban
directly.

Oh wait...
we already are.

Meanwhile the way is being paved with a spate of articles
claiming that there really is no group called the Taliban, that it's a
broad coalition, most of whom just want food and water. The same claim was
also made about Al Queda.

For those with longer memories, the same
claim was made about the Viet Cong, who we were assured were mostly not
Communists and perfectly jolly fellows who would happily lay down their
arms if we just gave them reason to trust us.

No less a personage
than Martin Luther King
himself
delivered this kind of nonsense
back in the 70's.



What of the National Liberation Front -- that strangely
anonymous group we call VC or Communists? What must they think of us in
America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty
of Diem which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in
the south? ... Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them
to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of
destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge
us when our officials know that their membership is less than
twenty-five percent Communist and yet insist on giving them the blanket
name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of
their control of major sections of Vietnam and yet we appear ready to
allow national elections in which this highly organized political
parallel government will have no part? They ask how we can speak of free
elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the
military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new
government we plan to help form without them -- the only party in real
touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny
the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded.



Well luckily Martin Luther King was absolutely right. We
struck a peace settlement with the Viet Cong who were not all Communist
and today Vietnam is a thriving utopia where its people have free
elections and all are welcome to... oh wait. We struck a deal, the deal
was worthless... and the nice folks that Benedict Arnold Jr told us are
not at all Communists... went and created themselves a Communist
dictatorship with no free elections.

Who knew? And who wants to bet
that by the time Obama's people are done, they'll find some nice Taliban
to negotiate with, force Karzai to cut a deal, and then take the
helicopters from the embassy while beneath us the Taliban return to
implement the glorious
gender justice of Sharia law?

But gender justice in Islam is not completely a lost cause. Never fear.

At
FaithFreedom, we have the story of a Muslim wife who tried
to honor kill her husband
.



STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — A 37-year-old wife from New
Brighton tried to slit her husband’s throat as he slept because he was
not the devout Muslim she believed she married, and pressured her to eat
pork and drink alcohol, authorities allege.

In a rambling,
four-page handwritten confession, Rabia Sarwar laid out the “mental and
emotional cruelty” that led to her trying to kill her husband, Susan
Wagner High School teacher Sheikh Naseem, early yesterday morning, a law
enforcement source said.

“I tried my best to cut his throat,” Ms.
Sarwar admitted, according to court papers. Except Naseem woke up during
the attempt, and took the knife from her, authorities said.

The way the law enforcement source describes it, Ms. Sarwar, who is
Pakistani, told investigators that Naseem, who is half-Pakistani, had
presented himself as a devout Muslim before the two had wed five months
ago.

But after the marriage, she discovered more about him, she
told investigators — before meeting her, he had only dated non-Muslims,
and he considered Salman Rushdie to be one of his favorite
authors.


Well clearly he had to die.

But the good news is
that Rabia Sarwar represents a way forward for Muslim women to gain equal
rights to kill men who aren't Muslim enough.

For centuries Muslim
men have been able to kill Muslim women who they felt weren't Muslim
enough. Now in a stirring tribute to Sharia's gender justice, perhaps
Muslim women will enjoy the same rights to slit throats, throw acid and
behead.

Between female suicide bombers and female honor killers,
you can't deny the fact that Islam is doing its best to give Muslim women
an equal role in carrying out the true teachings of Islam.

But you know aside from the homicidal stuff, the rest of the picture doesn't look
good. See
t
he following article at Reality Check



The 2009 report by the World Economic Forum has listed
predominantly Islamic nations in the bottom of their annual Global
Gender Gap (GGG) Index. This included such major nations as Pakistan
(ranked 132 out of 134), Saudi Arabia (ranked 130 out of 134), Iran
(ranked 128 out of 134), Egypt (ranked 126 out of 134), and Turkey
(ranked 129 out 134). Yemen, which is 99 percent Islamic, was the bottom
ranked nation as 134 on the Global Gender Gap Index. The only nation not
predominantly Islamic in the bottom of the Global Gender Gap index was
Benin.

In addition, the 2009 World Economic Forum Global Gender
Gap Index report does not include rankings on a number of significant
and predominantly Islamic nations where women are oppressed. Somalia
(population of nearly 10 million) was not included in the index. Endless
numbers of reports of the stonings and Islamic supremacist abuses of
women have been reported in Somalia in the past year, including the
stoning to death of a 13 year old girl based on “Sharia law” in October
2008. Sudan (population of nearly 41 million) was also not included in
the World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Index. Among other nations,
Afghanistan (29 million) and Iraq (29 million) are also not included in
this Global Gender Gap Index. With the index not reporting on these 109
million, the desperate fate of an estimated 50 plus million women are
not included in this Global Gender Gap index report.

Even with
these significant exclusions from the Global Gender Gap index report,
the bottom 10 index nations (excluding Benin), which are all
predominantly Islamic nations, represent a population of over half a
billion individuals. These include Yemen (134 out of 134), Chad (133),
Pakistan (132), Saudi Arabia (130), Turkey (129), Iran (128), Mali
(127), Egypt (126), Qatar (125), Morocco (124). If women represent half
of the population in these nations, then these bottom 10 predominantly
Islamic nations demonstrate the ongoing oppression of an estimated 250
million women.


But there's good news. You don't have to go to Chad or Mali
or Pakistan to enjoy Sharia law.

You can get
it right here on Broadway.



The much-hyped, soon-to-open Breslin restaurant,
situated in the 12-story Ace Hotel on Broadway and 29th, is giving
members of the Masjid Ar-Rahman mosque across the street some agita.
“Five times a day, there’s a hundred cabs on the street—the good news is
you can always get a cab,” co-owner Ken Friedman told the Transom the
other evening. He said some mosque visitors “object to seeing people
drink alcohol.”

After the recent FergusStock, a festival during
which famed British chef Fergus Henderson cooked whole pigs for a rapt
crowd of New York chefs and foodies, Mr. Friedman said the mosque’s
leaders called a meeting with the hotel. “They said, ‘Can you move the
bar?’” he said. “And I laughed. And the guy said, ‘Oh, you think that’s
funny?’ And I said, ‘Yeah, that is funny, that is really funny, because
we’re not going to move the bar just because you discovered we’re
serving booze.’ Can you name one restaurant in New York that doesn’t
serve booze?”

Mr. Friedman and his partner, Spotted Pig chef
April Bloomfield, did agree to nix plans for a dive bar in a townhouse
next door, but as for the restaurant, “I said, ‘This is the United
States of America and we’ll do whatever the fuck we want.’” He said the
mosque had suggested it couldn’t control the behavior of “a few bad
eggs”; i.e., “we could get a brick through our window.” Mr. Friedman
said he made the police aware of this threat.


Enjoy your Sharia law. Now on Broadway.










No comments:

Post a Comment