from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News

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;

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.